Who is Illinois? Or, requiem for Sen. Mark Kirk.
Not too long ago, while Illinois was in the middle of the budget crisis, then President Obama gave a speech before the Illinois General Assembly. I remember one line in particular,
I just saw a story the other day showing that if you rank all 50 states across categories like education levels and household incomes, and race and religion, the one state that most closely mirrors America as a whole is Illinois, this state.
That always stuck with me. Illinois is America if it was a state. Doing some further reading, from NPR, Illinois is a microcosm of the country in nearly every category. Specifically, it ranked in the top 10 for race, age, and religion. Nate Silver's 538 shows that Illinois' demographics are 95.8% similar to that of the entire U.S. Specifically, The Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, ( the city and most of the collar counties) matches 88.2%. Although most of the country see's just Chicago and flyover country, we have an incredible, diverse, global level economy. From Cairo to Chicago, the Quad Cities and Charleston, Illinois has it all. Major global city to sprawling suburbs and quiet farm towns. Most maps in the political sphere just show a blue spot politically. But how do the people of Illinois identify themselves? Here is where Pew Research comes in handy.
The Pew Research Religious Landscape Study examines the religious and political attitudes of adults in all 50 states, and shows trends from 2007-2014. There are several common questions, which I have summarized below.
- Political ideology among adults in Illinois
Moderates still make up the most, with conservative close behind (trending down) and liberal (trending up).
2. Party affiliation
No lean and Republican trends up, while Democrat trends down.
3. Views about size of government among adults in Illinois
4. Views about government aid to the poor among adults in Illinois
5. Sources of guidance on right and wrong among adults in Illinois
So you don't have to keep reading charts, adults in Illinois are in favor of legal abortions and legal same sex marriage (along with acceptance of homosexuality in general). Most also believe stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost of jobs. So to summarize, the majority of adults in Illinois are:
Moderate, Democrat, in favor of smaller government with fewer services, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, in favor of strong environmental protections, and use common sense for most moral guidance.
As I mentioned earlier, the trends show those in bold increasing, along with those who identify as Republican or independent. The adults of Illinois seem to be middle of the road midwesterners who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Sounds about right. Seems like a good time to segway to the other part of the title, Requiem for Sen. Mark Kirk.
Republican icons like Senators Jeff McCain and Jeff Flake, along with moderate rebel Olympia, have become crucial votes in the Senate, and on occasions critics of President Trump. Naturally, Democrats cheer this development (except when they voted for tax cuts) and conservatives deem traitors and (of course) RINO's. It seems like forever ago that we had moderate Mark Kirk representing us in the Senate. The reason I rise up to his defense (apologies to my father in law, I know how you feel about him) is in response to a comment Republican gubernatorial candidate Jeanne Ives made before the Crain's editorial board today.
"Rauner will be Mark Kirk’d out of office,”
Rep. Ives, like many angry conservatives from local Republicans to RedState, say that Mark Kirk refused to even consider placating the conservatives in Illinois. To be fair, Kirk never shied from who he was, as his own Wikipedia page says in the opening "Kirk is a social liberal and fiscal conservative." Hence he was in office for 16 years, winning the highly competitive 10th Congressional District five times in a row before becoming the first Republican Senator elected since 1972 in 2010. Why did he lose in 2016? Not because he "abandoned" the conservative base.
Among others, Kirk lost to Duckworth in Cook County and the collar counties. In Chicago, Kirk received just 16.4 percent of the vote, down 3 percentage points from 2010 when he narrowly defeated Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. Despite anger from conservatives, if he continued to support Trump, it likely would have cost him more votes in the Democratic-leaning suburbs where he needed crossover votes (and as such he outperformed Trump). Kirk also didn’t benefit from the Trump surge in southern Illinois. (Same for Leslie Munger in the comptroller race). Krik was also outraised, outspent, and made several gaffes that hurt his standing among voters.
In midterms aka 2010 and 2014, candidates like Mark Kirk, Bob Dold, Bruce Rauner and the late Judy Baar Topinka did well in Illinois. That socially moderate/liberal and fiscal conservative model fits the mold of most Illinois adults. Presidential elections see an increase in Democratic turnout, meaning that Republicans face a disadvantage. Hard core conservatives like Ives believe that these candidates aren't conservative enough, and that's why they lose. All available evidence indicates this is misguided thinking.
In my personal opinion, some conservatives don't seem to actually want to run competitive races and try to win Republican seats (in Illinois). I believe some would rather the party be a safe space, where everyone is socially, culturally, fiscally conservative. This despite the fact that a majority of Republican voters support things like abortion and marijuana legalization, in conjunction with lower taxes and free market ideas. Republicans are a big tent, and Illinois should be ripe ground for us to expand. Our brand matches what most voters clearly want. However, some seem to want purity over power. Most people would be happy with 80-90 percent , no one likes the perfectionists who try and ruin the grading curve.
Republicans in Illinois have a natural fit with most adults in our state. The Democratic Machine has made it hard to actually get on the ballot, compete and win. Kirk and Rauner both show how it can be done. I'll end with a fitting quote from the former Senator.
"There is truth in both parties. Democrats are true in being socially tolerant. Republicans are true in being so fiscally conservative. And that is a necessary balance for the country to move forward in the 22nd century."
Much like the country, that is what the state needs in 2018.