The Quaker Vote
As Pennsylvania prepares to vote, the Society of Friends hopes its long-standing antiwar advocacy will have an impact on the election.
The British colony of Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn, a Quaker, in 1681 as a safe haven for the Society of Friends—at the time a persecuted sect. And though Quakers currently number less than 1 percent of the Keystone State's population, they hope to have an impact far beyond their numbers in Tuesday's Democratic primary.
In the years after Penn founded the commonwealth, Quakers dominated local government and politics. "Pennsylvania does have a tradition of listening to Quakers," says Steve Gulick, who has been a Friend for 30 years. "We have been very instrumental in pushing certain causes along."
Key among those causes is opposition to violence and warfare. With opposition to the war in Iraq growing, the society's antiwar advocacy is increasingly in the mainstream—particularly among Democratic primary voters. The faith's strong views on nonviolence are rooted in the "Peace Testimony," one of the Quakers' most important beliefs.
"It is a way of manifesting respect for that of God in all people," says Peter Larson, a teacher at Morristown Friends School. "That respect can't possibly be manifested by any sort of regime or any sort of situation that inflicts violence or force on people."
This pacifist belief has often put the Friends at odds with U.S. foreign policy. "I don't really support all the policies [of the United States]," says Hayward Deniver, who attends Green Street Quaker Meeting in Philadelphia's Germantown neighborhood. "But I guess that's the dilemma Quakers have had for 300 years."
Traditionally, Quakers have been unified in their social activism but pluralistic in their political preferences. Two Quakers have been elected to the U.S. presidency: Herbert Hoover in 1928 and Richard Nixon 40 years later, both on the GOP ticket. But in 2008 most Pennsylvania Quakers seem to be voting for one of the Democrats.
David La Fontaine, who also attends the Green Street Meeting, volunteered for Barack Obama before the Texas primary, making calls to potential voters. His desire for peace has thus far prevented him from contributing to Obama, however. "I don't really believe in giving Democrats money before the general election," he explains. "I don't want to fund their fighting with each other."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: CANDIDATE_REPUBLICAN @ 05/05/2008 7:08:20 PM
Comment: Your Open
Posted By: Not stupid in Alabama @ 04/23/2008 8:49:32 AM
Comment: Also, here's an interesting analysis of the way Obama tries to trick people into saying things, exposing a debater's strategy and mentality, not a search for truth.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obamas_linguistic_trap.html
Posted By: Not stupid in Alabama @ 04/23/2008 8:48:52 AM
Comment: And here's an interesting account that shows Obama's priorities:
In a campaign influenced by Walmart, instead of backing the pro-labor candidate, Obama backed a "Walmart tool."
There was little surprising about Obama???s endorsement given his deeper, interrelated and self-interested allegiances to the politically powerful corporate-neoliberal City Hall regime of Chicago???s Mayor Daley, with whom Obama shares the same big money campaign super-consultant (David Axlerod) and numerous big money sponsors.
For the first time Mayor, Daley vetoed an ordinance by his normally obedient City Council, a measure was widely supported by citizens, community organizations, and labor unions in Chicago's black, Latino, and working-class wards. Originally passed by the council under pressure from a remarkable grassroots campaign, it would have required giant retail corporations like Wal-Mart, Target, Lowes, and Home Depot to pay workers a modest minimum wage of ten dollars an hour by 2010.
Wal-Mart and Target announced that they were putting a number of ???big box??? retail developments on hold in Chicago, and launched a preemptive public relations strike, threatening to disinvest in the city unless a ???favorable business climate??? was restored. Daley made a special point of wrapping his veto in the flag of racial justice, claiming it was required to permit the flowering of economic development in the city???s abandoned ghetto neighborhoods.
Pat Dowell, the recipient of significant support from the Service Employees??? International Union (SEIU), was running against Tillman in the name of working families and economic justice. Dowell strongly criticized Tillman for siding with Daley and Wal-Mart.
Obama needed the support of the powerful campaign finance magnet Daley, and endorsed Tillman, over the principled, serious and labor-backed Dowell.
Obama???s wife Michelle then received $51,200 in 2006 for attending a few board meetings of TreeHouse Foods, a giant firm that relied heavily on its close business relationship with Wal-Mart (The granting of high-pay/do-little board posts to the spouses of politicians is a longstanding tool of the ???old,??? corporate-dominated politics that Senator Obama claims to reject). Mrs. Obama resigned from this position in the summer of 2007, citing ???increased demands on her time??? in connection with her husband???s presidential campaign. It isn't surprising that she cut her politically damaging ties to a notoriously anti-labor company that her husband was attacking in speeches to please popular audiences concerned about the growing chasm between the rich and poor in the U.S.