Conflict of interest? What conflict of interest?

Republican Ken Cuccinelli is running for Governor of Virginia, and it doesn’t look good for him. As of last week, he was trailing his Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe by eight points, and that deficit has been steadily increasing. 

You could argue that the good people of Virginia don’t agree that criminalizing sodomy (including for heterosexual couples) should be a top priority. Perhaps they likewise don’t think that God should punish the U.S. for allowing abortion, or that Obamacare should be repealed. They may not want a leader who doesn't accept the science on climate change or one who is against equal rights. And of course, there is the whole Virginia gift scandal, aka bribery problem. But for whatever the reason, Cuccinelli doesn’t look like he’s going to come out on top.

But don't despair, there is one way Cuccinelli could salvage the election, and that is to make sure that as few people as possible cast a vote. Cue the voter suppression. Over the past week, the Republican controlled state Board of Elections has rushed to purge nearly 40,000 voters from the rolls. 

Naturally, the Democrats are fighting this, though without much success. They’ve already lost one court challenge to restore all the purged names to the voter rolls, and the election is only a few weeks away. 

So, who was in charge of defending the disenfranchisement of 40,000 Virginians? Why, that would be the job of the Virginia Attorney General. You may have heard of him. 

His name is Ken Cuccinelli.

Wherein I compare the secular community to the GOP

You don’t often find parallels between the atheist community and the Republican party. However, recent events place them in a surprisingly similar light with respect to their potential members.

Let’s look at the atheists first.

In recent years, secular, atheist and humanist women have rightfully demanded that they be given a greater voice within their communities. This culminated in the Women in Secularism 2 conference, which took place in Washington, DC last month. I wasn’t in attendance, so my information comes from the multitude of blogs and tweets about the event. According to most accounts, the opening speaker, Ronald Lindsay (President and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, which sponsored the conference) chastised the attendees for trying to silence men. I say ‘most accounts’ because Lindsay feels otherwise.*

This isn’t the place for a primer on the problems women and minorities have faced within the secular community. I bring the story up to compare it with a similar event, this time courtesy of the Republican party.

The GOP lost the last presidential election by five million votes. Much of that loss was due to their particularly poor showing among younger voters (teens and twenty year olds). The College Republican National Committee (CRNC) put out a report explaining why this was so. Briefly, young people don’t think the GOP cares about them or represents their interests. 

How did the GOP react to this news?

Here’s one example, courtesy of Bill O’Reilly:

So why should I care about this study, or why should the Republican Party care about a bunch of kids who don’t know anything?

In case it isn’t clear, the CRNC’s report was conducted by and for Republicans. It’s explicit purpose was to help the GOP regain the trust of younger voters. From the report’s introduction: 

We believe that Republicans can win young voters but that it will require a significantly different approach than has been used in recent elections. In this report, we propose what such an approach would entail and offer research-based insights that can guide Republicans wishing to find success with a new generation. 

Let’s compare O’Reilly’s comment to one by Lindsay: 

[They] assume you should never question, you should never argue back, because the person from the marginalized group must have the expertise.

As with the GOP, the people who were complaining about Lindsay’s talk at Women in Secularism 2 genuinely want their community to flourish. Their goal isn’t to aid and abet the enemy. They want more people to join their ranks. Scolding them for informing you about the feelings of people you need to court in order to stay relevant is shortsighted and unhelpful. While there are many effective strategies for growing a community, having a tantrum about dissenting views is not one of them.

Lindsay doesn’t speak for all secularists anymore than O’Reilly speaks for all Republicans. However, they are both in positions to guide their communities toward greater inclusion, something both organizations desperately need right now. The question is: will either group listen?

*Lindsay's full Women in Secularism 2 speech.