Who should the non-religious vote for in 2012?

[rug]

The Presidential election of 2012 is promising to be the greatest “hold your nose and vote” contest in four years. As President Obama embarks on his magical misery tour with his same old economic excuses, the Republicans promise to out disapproval him by promising to cut taxes for greedy corporations who continually lay off U.S. workers despite sizable profits every quarter.

Heaven forbid we ask for some loyalty from U.S. corporations who would outsource a thousand U.S. workers to save a nickel. Corporations are people, but none of the people should be treated like ancient Egyptian pharaohs and none of them should be treated like cattle.

The current dismal approval ratings by the Democratic President are only matched by the equally despised Republican controlled House. In what could be a close election in 2012, who should the non-religious vote for? What advice would the non-believers give to the candidates?

There is no advice for President Obama as he’s just going to repeat the same campaign speech everyone has already heard. There is a lot of advice for the Republicans who should not dismiss the number of non-religious people in this country. We are everywhere and we are growing.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2011/08/who-should-the-non-religious-vote-for-in-2012-.html

[Ken Burch]

1. There's no one for them, unfortunately.

There's not a candidate for the TRULY religious, either. All we have are candidates for the publicly sanctimonious.

[LeftishBrit]

2. The last sentence is crucial.

'Any candidate who puts the people and the country first before any personal god will gain acceptance from the non-believers.'

In my opinion, the most generally economically and socially progressive candidate is best for all minority groups including non-believers. (Well, except for the one minority group known as the very rich!) And for a country in general.

My preferred candidate for PM of Britain, Ed Miliband, is an atheist, but more crucially he is the most economically progressive of the likely possibilities, and less likely than Cameron et al to sell off our public services to the highest bidder.

[dmallind]

3. Pretty simple call really.

I have my disappointments with Obama - principally his negotiation style and strategy. I also see his religious opinions as a bit problematic for me - from his embrace of several religious extremists and snake oil salesman to his expansion of the faith based initiative office. But compared to the full-on theocracy envisioned by all the Republicans with a chance - every one of whom denies basic science - it's like being asked whether you prefer to sit through a short homily from a mild Anglican vicar or the full set of Jack Van Impe rants non-stop.

Since a truly secular, let alone openly atheistic, candidate for POTUS will not be viable for many decades after I am dead if then, I must simply minimize the harm to a secular America rather than maximize benefit.

[MineralMan]

4. Non-religious is not a political description.

There are non-religious people of all political beliefs. The question is irrelevant. Each person will decide for him or herself. Non-religious people have no problem doing that, unlike many religious people do. We tend to think for ourselves.

[LeftishBrit]

10. Exactly.

[dtexdem]

5. Forget religious/non-religious -- who should progressives vote for?

[tama]

6. Prometheus

I was gonna say Jeesus, but then thought better not, how about some anti-guru guru, umm..., and then I remembered Prometheus. Yup, he's da guy!

[rug]

7. A worthy choice.

Karl Marx was greatly influenced by the story of Prometheus, and called him "the greatest saint and martyr of the philosopher's calendar"; since then, Prometheus has become a general symbol for socialism and communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus

I'd vote for him.

[tama]

8. Or in these enlightened days

of sexual equality, why not write in your ballot the feminine form 'Promethea'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promethea

[struggle4progress]

9. I can't imagine any coherent analysis that regards "religious" or "non-religious"

as important classes for political analysis

Of course, it is true that the rightwing Republicans have attempted, for several decades now, to motivate some people to vote on the Republican side of the ticket, for religious grounds. And they have been able to motivate some people to do that. They like the tactic because it is a "mystification" tactic: it diverts people's attention from real issues and encourages people instead to think in a muddle-headed way about something else

The proper basis for a political analysis is to examine specific economic issues, and the economic interests of particular economic classes. The US has lost much of its manufacturing base and has become a country in which the lower-rank jobs are service jobs, with many products coming from abroad. How one regards this situation depends on where one sits in the economic hierarchy. At the bottom, it has implications for people's ability to access transportation and medical care

There is no dominant "religious" or "non-religious" take on this: different people will have different views, largely determined by self-justifying rationalizations of their own behavior

And I'm unimpressed by Wall's suggestions. For example, it goes without saying that one ought to support gay rights and church-state separation, I think -- but neither of those touches much on the issues that most people will face. Moreover, real economic hardship does not necessarily create progressive politics: an economic slump, with ever higher gas prices and increasing difficulty obtaining medical care, can be plausibly be expected to produce a conservative backslash, with increasing numbers of yahoos yammering for more religion in the public sphere