Kathleen Parker is right
Thursday November 20, 2008
Categories: Conservatism, Republicans
Sorry, but I can't agree with my Big Cheese Boss Steve Waldman, who says "religious conservatives are being scapegoated in an almost grotesque way." His latest example is Kathleen Parker's column in which she complains that the Religious Right is...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Sarcasm gets me through the day, now more than ever, and once and a while, I appreciate it. I can't believe how the GOP elites and "Wizards of smart" (as Rush puts it) are trying to pin this on us fundies. You may not like our stands on saving civilization from itself gay "rights" or life issues, but I bet that many, many of us fundies came out for McCain because of Palin and her cultural conservatism; I myself and several of my friends -- politically moderate practicing Catholics -- voted for McCain precisely because of Palin and precisely because Obama is such a bloodthirsty ghoul on the abortion issue. These folks -- maybe not me -- would vote for a generic Dem on a generic ballot at any level of office.
My only question is whether such folk as Parker are stupid bastards, or deliberately stupid bastards.
One problem with the Republican Party is that the big tent has gotten so much smaller over the years. Look at Sullivan's blog entry yesterday on the incredible shrinking demographics of identified Republican voters.
Not good. As for Kathleen Parker, I still love her work. She remains one of my favorite columnists. The hysterical reaction to her criticism of Gov Palin said more about the insecurity and urgent need for "purity" in a badly fractured party then anything else.
You're correct, of course, Rod. But it's not as though we didn't, much less couldn't see this coming: I've been saying for years that when the music finally ended religious conservatives would be the ones left without a chair. They may not have thought up or implemented the disastrous policies you cited but they were quite willing to be cheerleaders when the GOP asked them to be. They willingly translated GOP talking points into "Christianese" and delivered the votes that made the policies politically possible. And of course they [sarcasm/on] got so much for their trouble [/sarcasm off].
The sad thing is that even after all this, this still don't see a problem or, more precisely, they think that the problem is that people like Parker are mean but that the GOP weally wuvs them.
You're right..............BUT all of those groups did hitch their wagon to the Republican party and the question is: WHY? and WHY did they stay?
Conservative groups have been repeatedly double-crossed on the abortion issue: 28 years into Reagan-Bush conservatism and exactly nothing has changed. And both McCain and Palin openly spoke of significant differences with the party's lip-service platform on abortion.............and still the cajoling and threatening of religious congregations went on into November. I just don't understand why these groups don't understand that they are being used by the GOP.
While Rod's absolutely right that religious conservatives aren't directly responsible for most of what has poisoned the political environment for Republicans (except maybe that whole Terri Schiavo thing), they nevertheless still have some culpability.
How many of the terrible things Rod lists would have occured without the blind, unreasoning, reflexive, dogmatic, slavish support of religious conservatives for George W. Bush and the GOP? If religious conservatives like Rod had been among the first people to bail on Bush and the Republicans for stuff like Abramoff, Katrina and Iraq instead of the last, perhaps some of those mistakes/catastrophes might have been avoided or ameliorated.
If the moneycons and the neocons hadn't been able to command the support of folks like Rod just by dangling some shiny keys in front of them "Look! Gay Marriage!"..."Look! Sarah Palin!", perhaps they would have felt more of a check on their worst impulses.
Mike
I'd like to think she's just lashing out in pain and anger over some of the things that were said about her during the Palin wars, many of which were pretty outre'. She's better than this.
"If the moneycons and the neocons hadn't been able to command the support of folks like Rod just by dangling some shiny keys in front of them "Look! Gay Marriage!"..."Look! Sarah Palin!", perhaps they would have felt more of a check on their worst impulses."
Heh! ;)
Rod doesn't respond to shiny keys, but other wise MBunge is dead right.
Contratulations Rod, for joining the Ann Coulter school of writing. People who use sarcasm as the predominant mode of discussion do so in order to avoid taking responsibility for their words. But of course saying at the end that sarcasm was now turned off let you off the hook even more completely.
Great sarcasm. I've been suspicious of Kathleen Parker from the start. She's definitely an unreconstructed feminist, and I'd bet *some* money (not the whole farm) that she is a leftist mole like David Brock.
rod
seriously
when you feel this level of sarcasm & snark
take a walk
call your family
perchance, even pray
The problem was not so much religious conservatives, but the decision to run the campaign aimed at the hard core base. The Republicans ended up with one candidate comfortable speaking about and campaigning on foreign policy. Neither candidate was knowledgeable about or able to speak articulately about domestic issues. The Republican Health care plan had much to commend it, but neither candidate understood it. Both had shallow understanding of international and domestic economics. They could not, or would not address energy issues beyond drilling. There is no longer any credibility in the claim that you support smaller government, unless you are willing to state what you will cut. Afraid that you cant get elected if you do that? Then people really dont want smaller government. Have the courage of your convictions. Put it to the test.
Give us credible candidates and credible ideas. Basic conservative principles are still sound and can win elections. Give us candidates who can address the issues that are important to everyone. Translate those principles into ideas relevant to this century.
Steve
You bring up Neuhaus but neatly overstep his commitment to and vocal support of the war in Iraq -- a war that his own church said was unjust. To this day, I don't know how that man prays for the Lord to grant us peace in our day.
I suspect that Neuhaus' blessing made the war palatable to a lot of right-wing Catholics.
MBunge may have a point. Fr. Jonathan Tobias, an Orthodox Priest from Pennsylvania, makes some interesting points recently (from the blog Second Terrace):
- It has made impossible the formation of any Christian political party.
- It has defeated the sequestering of conservative Christians into their own revolutionary Bible camp.
- It has proven to Christians that their critique of society cannot be simple, or cut down to 3 litmus points. The public square's problem with Christianity has nothing to do with intolerance or extremism, or even fundamentalism. The square's valid complaint against Christianity is with its smugness and inanity, and refusal to converse with informed complexity. Politics and all ethics require complexity: simplicity is for self-discipline, not for the understanding of others.
--It has shown that all Christians are confused about politics and should never be trusted with a party. Christians are confused because they have forgotten history, and more importantly their own Orthodox anthropology. Political confusion is produced by ignorance of human nature. Not by campaigns: it's time we stop blaming politicians for our own negligence. Political campaigns of the robo-sort work only with an uninformed populace.
(end quote)
Conservative Christians are really going to have to rething their approach to politics and are going to have to figure out where they want to fit in our culture.
John D
Kathleen is no "leftist mole." She's a good person, as far as I know. She's just wrong here. And Roberto, you're completely right: religious and social conservatives like me were part of the GOP coalition, so we own some part of this disaster. What I object to is the objectively absurd idea that the Republicans lost because of us. If not for us, they would have done far worse than they did.
I thought I detected sarcasm.
The SoCons didn't do any of those things, but they were first in line to make excuses for them. They even made excuses for torture. Any socons that thought Iraq was wrong or thought there was some role for government other than cutting taxes were already thrown out of the movement for not offering total opposition to abortion, because if someone were to claim that electing someone that was going to explode the deficit was bad, they were just soothing their conscience for their abortion support. No amount greed, graft, or incompetence could overcome the power of sweet nothings whispered against abortion.
Rod, you had me going with that headline! :)
People who think that sarcasm isn't a valid form of humor were probably, like me, forced to read John Knowles' dreary novel "A Separate Peace" and made to memorize, and regurgitate, that thankfully-not-immortal line of his about sarcasm being the protest of the weak--only unlike me, they nodded in agreement, instead of realizing that well-contrived and well-delivered sarcasm can sometimes mature into an art like that responsible for Dryden's "Mac Flecknoe," which is glorious in its stinging dismantling of the pretensions of a minor and rival poet, cloaked in the praise of a mock-heroic epic.
Eighth grade teachers like to think that sarcasm is the protest of the weak, since they are so often the targets of it.
But as for writers of sarcasm not taking credit for their words--bosh. The Parker essay, in its grandiose "Look at me bravely smoking my last cigarette before the Christian Right comes running in to stamp out my freedom of speech, my cig, and my life for daring to suggest they're not welcome in the GOP," deserves this sort of takedown. The Christian Right, at least the ordinary churchgoing people who would prefer not to vote for people who think killing unborn humans in utero is a splendid idea, etc., are aware that they're about as welcome in the GOP as restraint at a Hollywood bash, and using the election failure as an excuse to jettison this branch and their concerns, while sorely tempting to the blame-pointers, is a fundamentally stupid idea, in that the Christians, unlike disaffected Romney voters, have had a tendency to, you know, actually show up and vote.
Rod,
I have to agree with Roberto, and also with your comment. When you predicted that the RR would take the fall for conservatives (what at least a month, maybe two before the election), I agreed with you then. At the time I made the comment, I also said that the only reason they're able to blame you is that the RR in general did not stand up to the Republicans when they go off base. It's true that you weren't the ones pushing war in Iraq, but when the Republicans told the RR to come out and cheerlead, they came out with pom-poms. When Katrina hit and New Orleans was under water, the RR came out and blamed it on the gays with never a word for the incompetence of the Bush administration. You don't want to be the fall guy, stand up for what you believe.
It's sad watching this thing play as I predicted. Palin was brought in as the proverbial "shiny keys" and it worked. SoCons jumped on board in droves--including Rod, with loud shouts of "Culture War, Ho!!". So now instead of owning the disaster that was the McCain candidacy, the usual neocon and squish suspects can dump the blame on their hillbilly (and media-less) allies.
I'm a social liberal, and I agree that Parker is wrong.____1) Did the social conservative agenda make a lot of progress under W? Stem cells and Schiavo notwithstanding, not really. So people in the middle didn't vote because they were alarmed at the progress the social conservative agenda had made.____2) This election was probably the make or break election for the Supreme Court vis-a-vis the social conservative agenda. Did either campaign focus on that? No. (Some people talked about it, and Obama ran some radio ads, but mostly no.) So people in the middle didn't vote because they were unhappy with the progress the social conservative agenda might make in the future.____3) Some social conservatives are extremely smart and competent and some are idiots, because that's universally true of human beings. (Cf. Sturgeon's law.) I don't know how socially conservative the Bush administration was, but for the most part the perception was that it was not run by extremely smart and competent people. If someone had stepped in and fixed the Katrina mess on Day 2, I don't think most people would have cared if he/she believed that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.
No doubt Kathleen is coming to enjoy the blood rush of self-righteousness and warm embrace of the fashionable set that comes with dumping on the Religous Right. She is like the small town girl who lost out to the prom queen (Sarah Palin) because she wasn't as good looking, but got her revenge when she was accepted to Yale.
It was the religious conservatives who laid down when we invaded Iraq, not even issuing a whimper of concern. It was religious conservatives who mention the "crusade" we were on in the Middle East. It was the religious conservatives who have been who heartedly supporting the current administration.
Does the individual religious conservative deserve all the blame for what is wrong with the direction our country is headed in right now? No, but as a movement and those who have done nothing to counter it, yes they are part of the problem.
"They may not have thought up or implemented the disastrous policies you cited but they were quite willing to be cheerleaders when the GOP asked them to be."
Despite the fact, as often best described on this very blog, that the GOP has long rejected anything remotely like conservative and often even Christian principle. Game.
"They willingly translated GOP talking points into "Christianese" and delivered the votes that made the policies politically possible."
Reap, sow. Check the comments of this very blog from both sides in response to Rod's posts just this week alone regarding Romney vs. the Evangelicals, Prop 8 and Obama's Christianity. Set.
"The sad thing is that....[they] still don't see a problem or, more precisely, they think that the problem is that people like Parker are mean..."
..and that they are the victims of fascistic lavender bigots who want to destroy marriage, burn down churches, keep Mormons in fear of leaving their homes and put innocent little old ladies on the Stalinist stump.
Match.
I don't much expect the Rods of the world to listen to so obviously a Jackboot as myself, but if they can't even hear it from someone like Roberto, well...there ya go. Going. Gone.
OK, what if you look at it from the angle of impact on coalition-building? From there the case would be that:
BECAUSE the Republican Party does not have much support among intellectuals and the types of people who specialize in knowledge and program administration - in large part because many such types trend secular and at culturally liberal and are unwilling to join a coalition that relies so heavily on appeals to religious social conservatism - when it came time to find advisors and administrators to staff a government the GOP had a very thin pool and had to reach more into the ranks of policy types and the private sector, or people who didn't know anything but at least were loyal enough not to actively frustrate the administration. This resulted in the (somewhat accurate) image of Republican hires as incompetent boobs focused primarily on reinforcing the party or directing contracts to their friends, of which Katrina is but the most visible manifestation.
BECAUSE the Republican Party needs *someone* who can cut big checks, and they've lost professionals, entrepeneurs, media, high-tech, and the lifestyle wealthy, largely because those people can't see themselves in the Republican identity as formed and shaped by God-cons, finance and big business find themselves paying the piper and picking the tune.
BECAUSE of the polarization largely initiated by social cons, "growing the coalition" takes less the form of a core of shared positions shading-off at the edges into centrism, and more the form of pasting together groups of nonintersecting interests who will indulge their coalitionmates when no one else would, in return for being indulged themselves. The neocons go with the GOP because the Dems wouldn't have them; the GOP accepts them because it's not like there are many other thinkers lining up to join,
In short, I suspect you're at around where the urban poor were in the '80s - yes, you're a big chunk of the electorate, maybe even a plurality, but any coalition with you front and center will be capped at less than 50%, expandable only by engaging and indulging an increasingly problematic series of minority interests the other side won't take.
"This resulted in the (somewhat accurate) image of Republican hires as incompetent boobs focused primarily on reinforcing the party or directing contracts to their friends, of which Katrina is but the most visible manifestation."
It's not somewhat accurate, it is accurate.
There's reality as it is and reality as you wish it. The Bush administration wished a certain reality and got what they deserved.
Religious conservatives did exactly the same.
When I was involved in Northern Irish politics, the first thing I learned is that it's never about religion. Catholics vs Protestants? Please. That's only the surface; dig a little deeper and you'll find it's about power.
U.S. politics is the same--it's not religious people who are to blame, but power brokers who have used the veneer of religion to concealed their smarmy agendas. They talk a good line to get religious people to vote for them, but they're really working on stuff like pre-emptive war, tax breaks for gigantic corporations, and other things to increase their own status at the expense of the constituents. Now, the constituents--who've been laid off without benefits--are waking up and wondering why they ever voted Republican.
As Kathleen Parker so eloquently puts it, "Armband religion is killing the Republican Party."
The best book I've read on the cynical use of religion to get votes is The Fall of the House of Bush, by Craig Unger.
The thing that interests me most about this fracas between the classical Right and the reactionary factions of the Republican Party is: which one succeeds at pinning the other with the label of "liberal".
Rod, you mentioned Jack Abramoff in the "sarcasm" portion of your post, but he's actually one of the worst offenders in using religion to get votes--remember the Indian casinos? He used religious people in one state to campaign against casinos so a neighboring state could get all the business. (There's a good article about the whole thing in Christianity Today, for those who need a memory refresher: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/novemberweb-only/55.0.html)
Whoops, the correct link is this:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/novemberweb-only/55.0.html
Or, just leave of the close-parenthesis when cutting & pasting.
I never heard of Kathleen Parker until she criticized Sarah Palin ("MEOW!"). So, good career move, Kathleen! Now that she's writing for the WaPo, I'm sure her slap at Christians will endear her even more to her new masters.
It's "the base" which has insisted on only pro-life/anti-abortion candidates. I understand the unwillingness to compromise on principle, but OTOH the cost of principle may be long-term minority party status.
Contratulations Rod for being accepted into the Ann Coulter school of opinion writing, characterized by the use of sarcasm in order to avoid taking responsibility for one's words. Of course, concluding with the words "OK, sarcasm turned off" further lets you off the hook. Conservative indeed. (Did you like my sarcasm?)
"What I object to is the objectively absurd idea that the Republicans lost because of us. If not for us, they would have done far worse than they did."
I agree which is why I said that the scapegoating is unfair.
"Contratulations Rod... "
First you need to learn how to spell, silver. Oh wait, that's what liberal trolls do on blogs instead of actually saying something intelligent. See--you're right, the GOP *is* moving leftward.
It is ridiculous to think of the RR as a problem for the Republicans. If not for the Cultural Conservatives, McCain would have really gotten his clock cleaned. Think about it, McCain had no issues, and no ideas and it was Palin and her excitement of the base that got the Republicans even interested. ____The problem that the Republicans encountered is that aside from talking about family values, THEY DO NOT REALLY VALUE THE FAMILY. The Republicans tell all of us cultural and fical conservatives to be wary of big government whilst they grow government. While they do that, they also allow families to be taken advantage of by big business - but that's OK because it's the private sector exploiting the folks instead of the public sector. These Republicans start wars with little or no planning and then drag them out gaining us Americans no real advantage. Also they mismanage the damn thing. These Republicans saw a problem at Fannie and Freddie when they were in power but all they did was talk about it and then hoped that the problems would just go away. These Republicans helped rewrite Labor rules that basically gave employers the green light to freeze wages on employees for 5-6 years as the cost of everything went up.____The Republican Party should have a party and invite every single Evangelical leader as well as conservative Protestant and Catholic as well as Jewish leader and in an act of humility wash their collective feet. The Religious Right's fealty was tested, the Religious Right stood by these guys despite the fact that the Republicans (Bushies and neocons)did not earn the loyalty.
Actually, for this, the Republican tent is fairly large, there's lots of people who could accept the blame. No, the RR was not the only cause for the loss. But it helped. Just give us an anti-abortion, anti-gay candidate and everything is okay seems to be their criterion. No, the RR did not do all the things that Rod enumerates. But, they went along. Bush was a conservative and that's all they cared about. And, Parker is right about the voting statistics and what they mean. In addition, a majority of people in this country support some form of abortion and are becoming more accepting of gays. Look at most pictures of a McCain rally...a bunch of older white people is the back drop. Palin attracted a younger crowd of white people. So, her piece is a little exaggerated, but the RR is partly to blame. G and Senescent both make great points.
Kathleen Parker does appear to be taking a cheap shot at the religious right. What about the fiscally conservative Republicans who said nothing while GWB's administration increased spending to LBJ levels? How about the free marketer Republicans who didn't express outrage over corporate welfare and crony capitalism? Where were the state's rights Republicans as medical marijuana clinics were raided by federal troops? The Bush administration - with its "loyalty at all cost" ethos - destroyed the coalition of people who used to coexist under the large tent of the Republican party.
However, Terry Schiavo is a good example of over-reach by the religious right. Family decision rights and euthanasia should not be on the agenda of the Chief Executive of this country. People of faith are best served when government focuses on maintaining an infrastructure in which people can freely practice the religion of their choice. Faith effectively spreads via the free market place of ideas, not through government intervention.
The Religious Right's fealty was tested, the Religious Right stood by these guys despite the fact that the Republicans (Bushies and neocons)did not earn the loyalty.
Which makes them chumps, something I pointed out before the election.
Quite frankly I hope religious and social conservatives do become the scapegoats for the sinking GOP. And I happened to be one of them. Historically persecution and marginalization has been very good for the revival and spread of the Gospel. The faster that Conservative/orthodox/evangelical Christians greatly reduce their political involvement the better. Armchair politics is the path of least resistance. I say this because I believe the faster we decrease our involvement in politics and increase our involvement in the culture and in relationships with our neighbors as well as having more Christian teachers in public schools and universities, more of them in journalism, medicine, art, popular culture. Also having more of them fighting poverty, racism, and injustice on personal and local levels. The quicker this kind of action is taken, the faster people will actually start to notice Christianity for what it was meant to be. Instead of voting for this guy, boycotting that show and spewing vitriol at this person. Unfortunately in this day in age this is what Conservative/Evangelical/orthodox Christianity has been known for, for the last thirty years or so. Lets change this, and give any of our grand political aspirations the high hat, and just stick to every day life that includes the things mentioned above.
"But we urge you, brothers, to a do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one." 1st Thessalonians 4:10-12
Re: To this day, I don't know how that man prays for the Lord to grant us peace in our day.
On Fr Neuhaus I cannot agree more. I can entirely understand and respect his voting for the GOP because of the abortion issue. But I cannot undertand or respect his shilling for the Repulicans on every other issue with a slavish me-tooism that reminds me of a Soviet apparatchik shilling for the Party Line. First Things is an excellent journal when it sticks to its proper subject, but on current political affairs it too descends to outright hackery. They've even taken to publishing essays espousing global warming denialism, an issue that has next to nothing to do with religion in public life.
"oogedy-boogedy" That is the perfect description of Hagee, Bob Jones, and now, Dobson. oogedy-boogedy lets pray for a storm in Denver to wipe of the Democrat convention finale. oogedy-boogedy -Obama will ban Boy Scouts by 2012. oogedy-boogedy Obama is the anti christ. oogedy-boogedy -Obama is a muslim anti semite. oogedy-boogedy Obama is not an American. Could go on and on with the oogedy-boogedy talk! The typical christian right is the essence of oogedy-boogedy! Sometime, those fundie's might decide to actually decide to follow Jesus. But right now-their idol is what they perceive is oogedy-boogedy power. And the changing demographics of the USA now see's it for what it is- oogedy-boogedy!
"When Katrina hit and New Orleans was under water, the RR came out and blamed it on the gays with never a word for the incompetence of the Bush administration. You don't want to be the fall guy, stand up for what you believe."
But isn't that exactly what they believe, one way or another? If so, as with many other issues from torture to war to rapacious capitalism and everything else that's been mentioned here, if they think that's all fine then it totally makes sense not to find fault with the Administration. If not, if they don't really believe that the social normalization of homosexuality and the rest isn't the end of God's world as we know it with all that implies, literally, figuratively and Judgement Day-ly, then what's all the fuss and recrimination about?
Again and again I'm astonished (as as admitted before, not a little gratified) at the degree to which these posts and the supporting comments argue against their own points. I assume the RR aren't wanting to confirm the stupidity stereotype by arguing they've been duped by the GOP for what amounts to generations now, so what exactly is the reason for so consistently choosing to support them against their own principles? Anyone?
How about that the principles don't actually matter and what's really at issue is power?
Hey, Mr. Dean P.
I've lately come to that conclusion myself---tho' as a secular leftist who wants to reclaim a 'politics' which is distinct from 'government'.
That said, I'm ruthlessly practical when it comes to governmental politics. I'm not a member of any party, but I do occasionally volunteer for a particular candidate, and I always vote.
I just don't expect much to come from that vote.
G writes:
so what exactly is the reason for so consistently choosing to support them against their own principles?
For all its failings, the GOP still treats the Religious Right as an important group that deserves attention and respect. The Democrats, broadly speaking, do not.
Groups always gravitate toward leaders that make them feel important and necessary. For conservative Christians, those leaders are almost all Republicans. They may not get anything real from the GOP, but they at least get to ask.
Armband religion is killing the Republican Party.
It wasn't social conservatives who did all those things you cited, Rod, but they surely were the margin of victory for those who did.
Social conservatives have been taken for a 30-year ride. And got what in return for selling their votes to the GOP? Not even thirty pieces of silver.
G
Again and again I'm astonished (as as admitted before, not a little gratified) at the degree to which these posts and the supporting comments argue against their own points. I assume the RR aren't wanting to confirm the stupidity stereotype by arguing they've been duped by the GOP for what amounts to generations now, so what exactly is the reason for so consistently choosing to support them against their own principles? Anyone?
Yeah, that's basically where I've been thinking about the religious right since 2003 or so, when it became obvious that even with a skyhigh approval rating for the Republican president, both houses of congress, widespread support from the people...would result in them waging war, would result in dangerous tax cuts, would result in insane levels of deregulation...
...and not a single thing the religious right wanted.
There's an unfair stereotype that the religious right is full of ignorant people. But constantly voting those people is not really the best way to dispell it.
But I've been making my feelings clear about where Christian voters belong since I started posting here: We can either be on the side that claims to support us but has a never done a single thing for us, or we can be on the side that is actually doing the sort of stuff Jesus talked about and is open to our ideas except on abortion and gay marriage.
Large swaths of the GOP base are institutionally committed to the rejection of modern science (biology/evolution, astrophysics, geology, etc) because these fields differ from their literal/surface reading of the Bible. A pre-modern party, in a high tech world, and Republican policies reflect this. Scientifically educated (and other intelligent) people are not going to want to affiliate with this party which Andrew Sullivan calls a sect.
The Solution
Bertolt Brecht
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
People say that without the RR, McCain would have been crushed much worse than he actually was.
I say, hogwash.
Elections are won in the center, and Palin was a calculated choice to make centrists run away screaming, with her thorough denial of science, contempt for professionalism and expertise, and vicious anti-urbanism that sounded better in the original Arabic. Yes, she rallied the shrunken relict of the GOP base, which in and of itself can't win elections anymore. That conservative columnists still actually care about this only shows that they have failed to grasp the sea change that has taken place in this country in the last five years or so, and that they show no sign of being able to learn their lesson in time for the next four.
Had McCain picked his original choice of Tom Ridge, he surely would have done better among independents and suburbanites. Tim Pawlenty could at least have been defended without looking as ludicrous and unserious as Palin did. Even if he had still lost, he would have kept his personal credibility and reputation--which, at 72, is not something to ignore.
And yes, the RR is to a very great degree responsible for the freefall of conservatism: the mentality of ignoring all contradictory data, denying knowledge, expertise, and reality, was reflected in Bush's own managerial style, which woke up practically all non-RR Americans to the dangerous uselessness of conservative government. In case you haven't yet guessed, I am a secular liberal and a rather happy one.
There are probably stupid church people who will always vote Republican, I suppose. I'm certain of the stupid [insert your favorite stereotype] people who will always vote Democrat, I know some of that type personally.
Do either of them run the party? The un-paid-for automatic vote should not count because of their stupid reason for it? Be pretty hard to enforce. If you did it to one side you'd have to do it for the other, and they'd just about cancel each other out, so we'd have fewer votes in total but the same result.
Socialism is wrong. I don't expect you to understand that anymore, nor do I have space to explain it here. Go study up on it, it's really true.
The party that won the majorities in '06 and '08 is dedicated to socialism in every way. The opposition has been infiltrated with their agents too, but it can be (MUST BE!) recovered, because of all those stupid voters who will vote for Hillary if she runs as a Republican. Their votes will not change, so USE THEM!
Conservatism hasn't lost anything, because it hasn't been tried. Deny that and you are a liar.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.