Evangelicals are solid Republicans

ROD: "My hope -- and my guess -- is that Evangelicals are going to change the Republican Party, not abandon the GOP for the Democrats". Fear not. Rod is right. Joey is right. Regarding: One of the reasons a great many people are afraid of the Republican party is precisely what Rod's entry says; it has become in our eyes the party of the evangelicals and other religious overlay obstructing otherwise objective policy making. I am not pro abortion or even pro-life...but I am conservative regarding--- as someone who feels repulsed by the casual abortions daily served up. But I am not being told how to feel about abortion because of my religion's dogma, stance. Nor would I look at other issues like gay 'issues' through that lens. I am fully capable of making my own mind up without being handed an assortment of 'right/wrong' political positions that are formed and supported by my church. If that makes me a 'secular progressive' so be it. Frankly, I am shocked when those I otherwise admire recite robotic rhetoric positions that are dictated by their faith. My mother was Catholic and her faith enlightened her here, and shut her down there. She was an absolutely brilliant woman, but once I asked her about a woman I assumed was a lesbian nun and she dry heaved that her son would even consider such thoughts. That's when I learned that 'Blind Faith' was more than an acid rock group.

I'm a lot more inclined to Scott's POV, but I do think that the Evangelicals, if they become more overtly concerned with the environment and the poor, are more likely to draw the GOP closer to their point of view re: policy than to leave the GOP for the Dems.

All kidding aside, Evangelicals played no small role (as in pivitol) in electing George W. Bush president. No matter what one's political affiliation otherwise, the jury is pretty much 'in' in this Presidential 2-term crew. So I am a bit resistant to the idea that one should 'court' a somehwat monolithic group whose 'vision' and faith made it their 'mission' to give us these last 6 years. It's like going after the girl with buck teeth who gave you hickeys on an unfortunate blind date that seemed to never end.

It strikes me as a real possibility that Rudy Giuliani will get the 2008 GOP nomination. If that happens, I would expect some enterprising politician to come up with an alternative for evangelicals (and serious Christians generally), just as Reagan and company drew disaffected Dems to the GOP not all that long ago.

Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain recommends not being a member of a political party, but supporting the candidate whose positions most closely approximate Christian values. (Orthodox Christian values, of course.) The Republican Party has blood on its hands, in regard to rushing forward into a war on the basis of false premises; they could have practiced reticence, which is the conservative thing to do. Also, in their treatment of those suspected of being enemy combatants, suspending human values in their quest for victory- transporting people to countries that torture to obtain information. If one doesn't "conserve" human values- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - how can one count oneself a conservative. Lastly, one must begin to wrestle with the ways in which the pursuit of unjust gain- condemned in the Holy Scriptures- have been encouraged by our laws. Republicans administrations have stripped away the safeguards that have protected consumers and workers built into our system so that the increase of capital would be maximized, assuming that this is for our well-being. But is a superheated economy, a fast pace of life, a style of living that gobbles up an inordinate amount of our natural resources truly in our best interests? "A man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions, as our Lord Jesus has said. I question whether evangelicals, which really act and vote as individuals rather than as a bloc- can wrest the reins of power from the high-income people who have controlled the Republican Party for a long time. The very fact that campaign contributions are decisive in a politician's success in our system favors the continuance of corporate control of the Republicans. Our victory in Christ will not be mainly manifested in the big arenas, but in small ones. And our God, through these, will ultimately win the day- the One without end.

It isn't just abortion. The most persistent block of voters against minimum wage referenda were Evangelicals. Every exit poll I saw showed evangelical opposition to modest minimum wage hikes at over 70 percent. There is hardly an issue in the Republican platform that Evangelicals don't overwhelming offer their support.

Of course, none of this says anything about what Evangelicals are likely to get in exchange for that unwavering support. They may agree with the GOP on the minimum wage but the minimum wage isn't why they threw their lot in with the GOP.
The idea that they will change the GOP is almost funny given the real effort, as opposed to gestures and lip service, the GOP has put into enacting what Evangelicals are most concerned about: Roe and same-sex marriage.
I'm being ironic.

If a cute guy you know only has to say, "You know I love you, baby." on the nights he wants something, and you'll give in, and then he can go on dating other girls, and ignoring you when he no longer needs you.. then do the same thing again the next time he needs something, and he'll still get it..
Why would he actually give you what you want?
The important thing about the carrot and the stick is.. you have to use the stick, but you NEVER actually give them the carrot.

Well, there's one big difference. You see, there's issues that require constant attention. Like.. budget issues. Where you to change the priority, or way something is done. Then there's issues where it is viewed that it can be mainly settled with passages of laws, or Constitutional amendments. Especially when wanting to outlaw something. If your one issue is education, that's never going to be a one time thing solved with the passage of a law, or a Constitutional amendment. Same goes with poverty issues, etc. Its a matter of how something is done, how much priority it is given. And that can change from one year to the next. And there is no time when you can say the issue is 'done'.
However, if your one thing is wanting 'X' to be against the law, then once 'X' is against the law, it becomes "What do I want now?" They can no longer dangle the carrot of 'I'll vote to make 'X' illegal' in front of you.

It isn't just abortion. The most persistent block of voters against minimum wage referenda were Evangelicals. Every exit poll I saw showed evangelical opposition to modest minimum wage hikes at over 70 percent. It's not just abortion and gay marriage, but I do think that more Evangelicals would be swing voters if it weren't for those issues. GOP also has the people who are strongly pro-business & low taxes, many of whom are Evangelicals.
I don't see the Democrats as being unsupportive of business or unfair towards people regarding taxes, so I think that voters who look at candidates objectively(rather than relying on Limbaugh rhetoric) might be more willing to dump the GOP if the GOP isn't being fiscally conservative. Fiscally, there isn't much difference(these days) between Democrats and Republicans. Tax and Spend Borrow and Spend You'll always have your die hard Republicans(the base) who will stick with the team no matter what. Trying to get their vote would be like the GOP trying to get the gay vote. It's a waste of time unless you're willing to change the platform.

Good point, Steve. I've long thought it strange that liberals accuse conservatives of being obsessed with sexual issues (e.g., abortion, gay marriage), thereby turning off voters. I want to say: "OK, you have a point. If the Democrats become more moderate on abortion, gay marriage and the like, they'll attract more social conservatives. Why don't they, then?" The answer, of course, is that Democrats care about this stuff as much as Republicans do. And I don't blame them: there are important moral and philosophical issues at stake in these questions.

I think abortion and gay marriage had an impact on the the '00 and '04 presidential elections, particularly the Supreme Court issue. However, those weren't Evangelicals that were holding their noses for democrats however.

Abortion is a real issue, so-called 'gay marriage' an invented one to those of us who are religiously independent thinkers. If you truly believe life begins with conception, which makes a lot more sense than 'pro-choice' advocates allow, then it's a matter of life and death. Two people of the same sex being joined legally is an issue in the conservative religious right, not among GOP moderates. Several GOP presidential candidates see this as a non-issue including front runner (currently) Guiliani, columnist David Brooks and a battery of others. That issue will ultimately become a loser, because the younger generation has grown up in a time when this was simply no longer a closet orientation issue. When I was growing up, you learned who was gay decades later if ever. These days, it's no big deal to the Ipod crowd. Of this I am more than certain. To take that one to the mat over and over will undermine GOP candidates, making them appear old-fashioned and intolerant, dated, myopic and obsessed with the irrelevant.
This cannot be news: but there are a whole lot of fical conservatives who are social moderates. What we currently have in the White House is a fiscal ultra liberal and a social ultra conservative. This country is trending the exact opposite. But I do believe that abortion has to be re-visited, at least on something other than a black and white emotional level. It's completely out of hand, and I say this as an avowed male feminist whose activist mother fought for women's parity. Besides. Some otherwise electable good guys are sidelined because the litmus test of DEM candidates is, 'do you support "a woman's right to choose". A lot of people who support Democrat candidates are sick of being saddled with that deal-breaker albatros. I say, cool it. Use a condom.

Trust me. 'Gay Marriage' will become a dead horse. Moderate Republicans and Democrats neither one see this as a mainstream concern. And people under 30, unless church alligned against it, see it as older generations' 'thing'. Conservative/Republican stridance against it turns as many off as it turns on the base. The word 'marriage' has religious as well as civil connotations to many, so understandably, an expression like 'gay marriage' is reviled as an affront. But parity unions by another name are all but a done deal down the road. That train already left the proverbial station.

I would like to see abortion re-visited. It's a tough one because the Democratic base doesn't want to re-visit. Republicans who really care about the issue can't seem to appeal to the masses because they fight for the extreme which has become to save possible zygotes from emergency contraception. Abortion fights are here to stay. I agree that gay marriage made a difference in the last election. I think that it cost the Democrats Ohio. I don't think that Ohio would have gone to the GOP because of abortion.
I agree that abortion and gay marriage won't be an issue in 2008. Nor will the GOP be able to make claims of moral superiority.

I would like to see abortion re-visited. It's a tough one because the Democratic base doesn't want to re-visit. Actually, the minority voters who make up most of the Democrats' strength at the ballot box don't have any special commitment to the Roe regime (polls have consistently shown that both blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be pro-life than whites, and that women are more pro-life than men).
But the party's financial backers -- white liberals -- are absolutely committed to Roe, and it's non-negotiable for them. The electoral base versus the campaign donor base: Guess who wins that battle every time?

wildwest is right in saying evangelicals have changed the GOP. It's more conservative than it used to be. I do not pine for Rockefeller or Nixon, and miss only Ford's integrity.
It is my great hope that the evangelical movement lets the GOP know that if they want their support, the GOP will be held accountable for once.
Now, I would respectfully suggest that it is popular usage and the media that have switched from "fundamentalist" to "evangelical" and back again. As if an entire religious movement can make a "stealth attempt" at anything. These days, among too many folk, these labels mean nothing; they're just epithets to mean "Christians I don't like".
It's like calling Rod a fundamentalist Orthodox because he actually follows the teaching of his church. How dare he! Jim Wallis?! I can't imagine too many evangelicals - fundamentalists, if you prefer - finding much in common with him (let alone the GOP). Although I respect his steadfastness.

"As if an entire religious movement can make a "stealth attempt" at anything." The rank and file? No. Think tanks? Yes. "Jim Wallis?! I can't imagine too many evangelicals - fundamentalists, if you prefer - finding much in common with him (let alone the GOP)." Of course not. Jim Wallis is an evangelical, not a fundamentalist. I used him to illustrate the difference. When fundamentalists call themselves "evangelicals" they create the confusion. (Not sure what you meant by "let alone the GOP").

wildwest, this gets us nowhere. You cite Focus on the Family, I cite Freedom from Religion. The media has much more to do with the naming and perception than anyone within a religious group. I don't think most fundamentalist groups give a hoot one way or the other - they're pretty proud of their stance. I agree with you - I think - that "evangelical" has become seriously misused. Wallis is indeed an evangelical by theological definition, but how does the media often refer to him? Progressive. They make the mistake of confusing evangelical with conservative. Defining one's terms is important. P.S. I meant that religious conservatives and the GOP don't have much in common with Wallis. But I appreciate the point you raised.