Over the past few months, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has been marketed as the next great conservative leader — a true uniter who would excite conservatives of all stripes and who would lead America towards a red dawn as a highly intelligent, uber-educated movement conservative of Indian descent. Unfortunately, the political realities on the ground may not back up this assertion.
Upon closer examination, Gov. Jindal appears to be more similar to Mike Huckabee than Ronald Reagan, yet another piece of evidence that old-fashioned “Reagan conservatism” may not be viable fully three decades after the Reagan Revolution. While every GOP governor in the country would like to lay claim to Reagan’s three-legged stool of economic, social, and defense conservatism, only one truly does, and she has a newborn to tend to. The rest of the aspiring Reagans either go wobbly on fiscal issues, social issues, or both. The result is that while in the 1990s we had lots of very popular three-legged stool conservatives in the nation’s state houses, such as John Engler, Frank Keating, and Tommy Thompson, most of today’s prominent GOP executives are cafeteria conservatives…or not conservatives at all. We’re now the party of Michael Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, and Mike Huckabee. I would argue that this is more a sign of the times than a failure on the part of any of these men. Maybe Reagan conservatism is simply well past its freshness date.
In any case, since coming to office, Jindal has done exactly what I suggested he refrain from doing in order to build a national profile: he’s thrown down the gauntlet as a culture warrior while backing down on fiscal issues. Good politics for the Mississippi River region and for the deep south? Judging from Huckabee’s success, probably. But we all saw how Huckabee-style politics played this year with the governor’s tepid showings in states outside the south, and with the Huckaboom always supposedly just days away from filtering into non-evangelical populations (it never did).
Behold, the broken campaign promise. Jindal recently signed into law a massive legislative pay increase in Louisiana after specifically promising not to do so on the campaign trail. I guess a 123 percent raise is justified given today’s gas prices. Or something.
But never fear, Gov. Jindal is not the sort of politician that will back down on all of his principles. Especially when those principles involve religion. Indeed, Jindal has just signed into law a measure that will allow public schools to teach something other than science in science class. Local school boards can now approve “supplemental materials” for schools to include in discussions of evolution. Something tells me those materials won’t involve the scientific method (because if they did, they’d already be there) and will involve lots of concepts that belong in philosophy, theology, and religion classes, not in science class.
With these actions, Gov. Jindal is off to a very Huckabeean start. But that should probably have been anticipated. Jindal was always more of a culture warrior than most of us secular conservatives liked to believe when we saw a non-Caucasian, young, smart conservative who could actually form coherent sentences make his way onto the stage. And he was always less interested in fiscal issues than economic conservatives would have preferred. He voted for the tax-hiking, pork-laden farm bill and against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Meanwhile, he continues to support a ban on abortion with no exceptions, and has written articles on how Catholicism is the true Christianity and the true path to God. If you thought Huckabee’s women-should-submit language was unfairly taken out of context, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
So let’s just say that this skeptic remains especially skeptical of Jindal, who seems at this point to be an economic moderate and hard-right social conservative more in line with the former governor of Arkansas than with the former governor of California. If this trend continues, I suspect that economic conservatives, moderates, and Independents will ensure that a future Jindal presidential campaign has the same fate as Huckabee’s, and once again, a certain segment of the Republican base just won’t be able to figure out why.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Well, that’s depressing.
Let’s see how LA looks in three years – that’ll give us a better sense of Jindal’s effectiveness and stature as a leader.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:42 am
I think that Gov. Jindal has done a great job in this past week getting attention for his chemical castration initiative. He has gotten much positive national coverage and the castration issue could potentially propel him into the Vice Presidency or the Presidency some time down the line. Jindal has been called by many, “the next Ronald Reagan,” and I, personally, have seen nothing that contradicts that assessment. He is becoming the true voice of Conservatism of his generation. I think that if he can cut taxes and spending in LA he is a virtual shoe-in for the nomination in 2012 should McCain falter.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I think local politicians must do what is best for their localities and what the people want. So I say don’t throw Jindal under the bus. However, clearly he can’t be considered by McCain any longer.
I must say Pawlenty’s stock has also declined (in light of that CATO hit piece that the Club for Growth reinforced). Minnesota’s blueness also counsels against him.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Mitt Romney is a three legged stool conservative, and anyone who attempts to paint him otherwise is judging him in someway other than his current positions. Its true that he once viewed the Governments roll in the abortion issue less conservatively, but so did Ronald Reagan.
Mitt may or may not ever be our Presidential candidate, but if he is not, it will not be because he is not a three legged stool conservative.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Romney may just be the pick – he was being touted on MTP this morning as someone who could help McCain in the west.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:10 am
This campaign season is just depressing. Our party is at such a disadvantage because of the president and congressional scandals. Hopefully McCain can pull this off. Let Obama choose his running mate. Hopefully McCain can find someone palatable to all wings of the party. Let’s have this election and get it over with. And then, win or lose, let’s go to work to find real solutions to the problems the country faces, the war, gasoline prices, the weakening dollar.
The last three years under Bush have been nothing but disastrous.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Its no coincidence that the gasoline prices problem started after the Congress was fully Democrati, because they knew they would procrastinate doing anything about it. Let’s not blame it all on GW….althought I do believe there is lots of room for improvement.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I would have more sympathy for this post if DaveG hasn’t shilled for Rudey during the primaries and wanted to kick all the pro-lifers out of the party. The one electable Reaganite we had this year he called a dirty-old-man and dead on arrival. What we should be concerned about is people like DaveG who push their own agenda at the expense of our grand coalition. People like DaveG, David Frum, Ryan Sager, et al want a party we haven’t seen since Ford. Ross Douthat, David Brooks, Michael Gerson want to make us into a Christian Democratic-CDU party. The only way we’ll win this year is if the party appeals to everyone. About Jindal, the guy has such strong economic conservative bona fides that I think he’ll be palatable when he runs for higher office. It’s interesting DaveG alludes to Palin being the best fusionist VP, but even with this knowledge, he still shills his liberal Republican heroes.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:29 am
IL Guy,
I do blame it on Bush. He ran in 2000 on a platform of more drilling. He basically just let the Democrats moan and groan until they got their way. He could have signed an executive order mandating that drilling takes place. He could have used the bully pulpit. He’s been totally inept in dealing with gasoline prices. He just doesn’t care enough about the problem to do anything to fix it. He waited for McCain to suggest drilling offshore. If Bush gave a rat’s ass about the fortunes of anyone else in the party other than his own then he would have made some sort of attempt to move the ball down the field.
I’m frankly sick of this guy. I absolutely hate Obama and think that he is unqualified. But if anyone except Bush was our president right now then Obama would be laughed at and wouldn’t have a chance in hell, with or without liberal white guilt. BUSH is making Obama possible. The day Bush is no longer our leader is the day the party can start to rebuild.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am
#5, MTP – If the west it the 2998 battlegound (I still think it is Ohio, Michigan, andPenn), then Romney or Palin are the best choices.
Act, didn’t you just love the fact that Tom B. let the Dem Governors hammer McCaion without a challenge, then during the next set of questioning, they both basically spouted off McCain’s energy policy?
June 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am
2008, SORRY, DARN BLACKBERRY.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Kristofer,
That’s precisely why I stopped watching NBC. Their shilling for Obama is too obvious.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:40 am
#12 ditto!
“McCain has the same energy policy as Bush”, but we (Dem Governors) support clean coal, nuclear and alternative energy”. And MTP quoted Obama on guns, not mentioning the fact that he has two conflicting positions. McCain is DOA if he does not get a fairer share of coverage, or he somehow out fundraises Obama.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:43 am
As for Jindal, he needs to prove his worth before he could be selected as Veep. Palin’s different. She’s got an issue, in energy, where she could lead. Even though I’m not convinced we need to drill in ANWR when there are other places we could go first, at least she can plausibly “convince” McCain to follow the public. After all, it’s good enough for the Democrats – and Republicans have been involved in far worse scandals over the past few years than caving to public opinion.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Besides Schwarzenegger, I don’t believe any of the following Republican governors have an interest in laying claim to the social conservative leg of Reagan’s stool:
Linda Lingle, Hawaii
Jodi Rell, Connecticut
Jim Douglas, Vermont
And, Dave, how could you forget the liability of Jindal’s Linda Blair Witch Project
JA Pruce,
While I obviously endorse Jindal’s chemical castration initiative, having proposed the idea two days before he announced it, Jindal, nevertheless, did a 180 on the issue in less than 48 hours.
Here is Jindal’s melodramatic reaction following the Supreme Court’s ruling, which demonstrated, setting aside his untenable positions on abortion and ID in public school science class, why this young gov from Louisiana is nowhere near ready for primetime on the national stage:
“I am outraged by the Supreme Court’s decision. It is an affront to the people of Louisiana and the jury’s unanimous decision in this case.
“The opinion reflects a clear abuse of judicial authority, trampling the constitutional authority of states to act through the legislative process. The Court found, ‘there is a distinction between intentional first degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other. The latter crimes may be devastating in their harm, as here, but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, they cannot be compared to murder in their severity and irrevocability.’
“The Supreme Court is dead wrong.
“It is fundamentally improper for the Supreme Court to base an important decision like this on its ‘independent judgment’ about a perceived ‘national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.’ The opinion reads more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis.
“One thing is clear: the five members of the Court who issued the opinion do not share the same ‘standards of decency’ as the people of Louisiana. One Justice said that ‘the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.’ That is incredibly absurd. The most repugnant crimes deserve the harshest penalties, and nothing is more repugnant than the brutal rape of an eight-year-old child.
“We will evaluate ways to amend our statute to maintain death as a penalty for this horrific crime.”
June 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Jindal never had a shot at VP under even the best circumstances, not because of who he is but because of who McCain is. McCain really only trusts people with a lot of age and experience. One has to remember also that McCain respects veterans most of all so we have to expect he would prefer to name a fellow veteran (although I think its unlikely).
June 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Re: Offshore Drilling
Rasmussen has a new survey out today in which respondents were asked:
Should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states?
Yes 59%
No 31%
The survey shows that 59% of voters nationwide now support offshore drilling. That’s down three percentage points from a week ago when 62% favored the proposal advocated by Republican nominee John McCain.
In both surveys, 87% of Republicans favor offshore drilling. There was virtually no change among unaffiliated voters either. On June 18, 63% of unaffiliated voters favored offshore drilling. On June 26, that number was essentially unchanged at 64%.
However, there was a significant change among Democrats. In the first survey, 41% of Democrats favored offshore drilling while 43% were opposed. After a week of the Obama campaign’s aggressive efforts opposing the concept, just 33% of Democrats favored offshore drilling in the second survey. Fifty percent (50%) of Democrats are now opposed.
Before being asked if they support offshore drilling, the survey participants were told that McCain favors this approach and says it will help bring down prices and that Obama opposes drilling and says it will not reduce gas prices.
The current survey also found that 50% of voters say it’s likely that allowing offshore drilling will bring down gas prices while 44% disagree.
Sixty-one percent (61%) favor Obama’s proposal for the government to spend $150 billion over ten years developing alternative energy sources. That’s up from 56% a week earlier.
Forty-nine percent (49%) favor building nuclear power plants while 31% are opposed.
Voters are evenly divided as to which is more important—protecting the environment or reducing the price of gas and oil.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
No one has discussion this, but his statements concerning Catholicism being the true version of Christianity could be a HUGE potential liability with millions of Protestant and evangelical Christians.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
IR-MN: I know you’re still smarting from my jokes about how McCain’s initial “Explore McCain” website looked like a cologne ad, but if I remember my law school torts class correctly, one of the best defenses in a defamation case is that the defamatory statement was true!
Incidentally, I don’t think David Brooks wants a Christian Democrat party. I think he’d be happy with a Pawlenty or a Crist. He’s basically a new type of good government Republican. I also don’t think that David Frum and I want a Ford GOP. Though I’d admittedly be happy in a party that married the domestic policy of the Clinton/Gingrich years with a Joe Lieberman style foreign policy.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
DaveG wrote: “While every GOP governor in the country would like to lay claim to Reagan’s three-legged stool of economic, social, and defense conservatism, only one truly does, and she has a newborn to tend to.”
Dave, Dave, Dave — what can I say? The days of Ozzie and Harriet are long gone. If Jindal’s wife had given birth to a baby in April, would you have included that as a reason not to choose Jindal in your post? I doubt it.
I encourage all of you to lurk around lefty blogs and websites. The Republican brand in their eyes is that of old white men charged up on Viagra. McCain could change that image by choosing Sarah Palin as his VP. Women of all political parties will respect and admire her in that she has accomplished so much in her life while, by all accounts, being a good mother to five children.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Dave, Fist of all, Jindal has not signed the legislative pay increase. He had previously told legislators that he wouldn’t veto the increase, even though he opposed it. However, the public outcry in LA (and recall petitions filed against several legislators who supported the pay hike) may give Jindal the push to end up vetoing the pay raise after all.
It isn’t over in LA by a long shot. Jindal has to July 8 to veto. There is going to be a huge rally against the pay raise on July 7.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
DaveG,
Do you consider yourself a Frum Republican of some sorts? Gall, I hope not.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
DaveG-eesh, come on man. Been in office 48 hrs. I see no liberal huchabeeness.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
#3 so the racist is commenting here too. Still haven’t answered for you negro comment.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
DaveG,
I don’t think it’s very plausible to hold Palin up as a better 3 legged stool Republican then Jindal. She put in place a tax on oil companies’ profits in Alaska. I thought it was awfully amusing when, during her interview on MSNBC, Kudlow said something like “now can you believe Democrats are trying to pass windfall profits taxes on oil companies?”, totally clueless, and Palin smiled awkwardly and quickly said “well, you know we increased taxes on oil companies, but…”. This is far less of an afront to fiscal conservatism, on it’s face, then a significant legislative pay increase, in a state that hasn’t increased pay in 28 years. None of these people are perfect 3-legged stool conservatives. Reagan wasn’t a perfect 3-legged stool conservative, but we all have selective memories about that. I weill say this about Jindal’s decision; it shows he still has alot to learn about politics. This was the perfect opportunity to grasp the populist mantle, and boost his approval ratings into the stratosphere. The legislature wouldn’t dare stymie a 90% approval rating Jindal. But, he totally misread the situation.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
far more of an affront*
June 29th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
This is from the site wwww.nobamanetwork.com This is called Chicago against Obama, and it shows how in Obama’s district when he was in the Illinois state sentate, the 13th district, that housing had just gone to hell in a hand basket. This is what the country could look like as far as hosuing goes under an Obama presidencey. Also, it has a story linked to it about the Rezko trial in which it was suggested that Obama could face indictment. Not sure what source brought this to light, but the names and information in it look not only interesting but like it could be true.
http://www.xanga.com/SwordAndSacrifice/662872555/federal-indictment-looms-for-obama.html
Monday, June 23, 2008
FEDERAL INDICTMENT LOOMS FOR OBAMA
June 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I don’t think the argument has ever been that Mitt Romney isn’t a three-legged stool conservative. If you want that and only that, then by all means, Romney is your guy.
I don’t think the west is still the battleground. I think that Nevada and New Mexico are almost New Hampshire-esque throw away country at this point, because it’s going to take a whole lot to win both and winning one does very little in terms of electoral math. Colorado still makes a nice prize, but if we win two out of MI, OH, and PA, plus keep hold of FL, MO, VA, and everything else in our backyard, then Obama has no chance. The polls look bad at this point, but the electoral math is a pure toss-up. I just hope we don’t walk into this one losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college. We need the first few months of press to be neutral-to-favorable for McCain, or he becomes Bush III- exactly what we don’t need.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Aron, How is Jindal’s support for catrationa 180 degree turn? Seems to be it’s perfectly consistent.
also, 62% and 59% support are pretty identical when you factor in the margin of error. polls have shown it has anywhere from 60-75% support depending on how the issue is worded.
It’s a bit ironic that Obama is willing ot wait 10 years for alternative energy sources when 10 years for extra oil is considered way too long to wait and totally useless
I did notice that awkwardness about when Palin mentioned increasing taxes on profits, although that may actually help her with democrats and independents.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Robbie,
If McCain wins the first few months of press can be as bad as they want, for all I care.
the bad press won’t change who Justice Stevens or Ginsburg would be sending their retirement letter to
June 29th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
The more McCain looks like Bush all over again, the harder 2012 will be for anybody with an R after their name. We have to stem the tide on the Democratic Congress soon.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
The only thing that annoys me is Jindal passing a bill to slip ID into science classes. As a Roman Catholic he probably already believes in evolution. That means this was pandering to Evangelicals.
I accept evolution and it bothers me that so many people want to attack a scientific theory through government action.
I don’t care about Jindal’s religion.
That seems to be all the liberals in our party can focus on.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
The votes against CAFTA and for the farm bill are discouraging, but typical of a legislator (give and take). As an executive, you set the agenda. Let’s see how Jindal does in LA, so far it looks very promising.
June 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
“As a Roman Catholic he probably already believes in evolution. That means this was pandering to Evangelicals.”
…as a Roman Catholic, its likely that he believes in both God AND evolution (though perhaps not the man-to-ape version that most secular people do).
Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive – and intelligent design is even less so.
So, if he beleives in it, what is wrong with supporting it?
Or are you another secularist who objects to leaving open any possibility of a higher being in the classroom?
June 29th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
But if McCain wins then the Democrats are going to stop with this Bush Third Term crap. Because it would have been proven ineffective.
Actually from a conservative standpoint it would be better if McCain wins via the electoral college at the same time he loses the vote because the Democrats will try to block him at every turn and it would force him to tow the conservative line. Plus, such a victory would allow the GOP to stoke the flames of the divisive Dem primary. Everytime a Democrat says “selected not elected” the Republicans can turn around and say, “Oh come on Democrats. Your primary was a year ago. Stop making fun of the fact that Barry lost the popular vote”.
June 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
34. I don’t thing anyone could accurately call Doug a securalist.
But I think Brownback was a good example of a Catholic who didn’t believe in Evolution.
June 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Those interested in Palin as VP should check out her recent TV interviews on CNBC, CNN and Fox Business News. I had not seen her much before on TV, and all I can say is, Wow. She’s very formidable. Smart, savvy, likeable, normal, convincing, lovely. She can attack without seeming disagreeable. She would be a somewhat risky, but very exciting, choice. If McCain really wants to win, he may very well choose her.
June 29th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Act-blog, are you kidding?
I’m regularly accused of being a single issue social conservative voter on here.
I simply don’t support tampering with scientific education by adding philosophy or religion to it.
If the theory of evolution and the doctrine of creation are compatible (as I believe) than parents/church can teach kids about religion while schools can teach kids about science.
The presence or absence of a higher being isn’t a topic for students in a biology classroom.
June 29th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“I simply don’t support tampering with scientific education by adding philosophy or religion to it.”
…and I don’t support the idea of public schools, which have children just as long or longer each day than their parents do, teaching something that, though at its base doesn’t contradict the existence of a God, seems to send the message that there is no higher power.
What is wrong with saying “So far, science can’t explain the origin of the universe, but here is what the vast majority of people believe, and science can’t contradict it”?
You don’t even have to teach it in science class, but I believe that, since the vast majority of Americans believe it, and since science can’t disspell it, all children should be exposed to the idea of God as creator as a valid theory.
What is wrong with that?
June 29th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
The concept of God as a creator isn’t science. It’s either religion or philosophy.
Given how poorly schools teach science, history and math, I’d be frightened of what they’d teach if we allowed them to cover religious topics.
Teaching evolution doesn’t send the signal there is no “higher power”. If some teachers send that signal they ought to be disciplined. The answer is not to bring religion into the school.
June 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
You know, Science today is guilty of many of the same things that it fought against hundreds of years ago – shutting out any alternative ideas because they go against common opinion and can’t be disproven.
Notice how the arguments against the teaching of “intelligent design” or “Creationism” aren’t that they are false – but that they can’t be proven, and, supposedly, aren’t science.
Unless science can either disprove the idea of God as Creator, or else offer up a better theory, what is wrong with exposing children to the idea – particularly if you offer it only as a common belief that can’t be disproven?
June 29th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
The concept of God is a religious idea. Government schools cannot constitutionally teach religion to students.
ID and creationism aren’t science. One is a philosophy and the other is a doctrine of Christianity/Judaism/Islam.
Neither one make testable predictions. They should be excluded from science class for the same reason I’d exclude string theory.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
ACt,
I think you are off here, IMO.
If we have to start saying God caused evolution, or something, should we start teaching God is the master of Algebra and the originator of wood shop principles in school?
The problem isn’t that we aren’t teaching enough creationism, the problem is that the Evolutionist die hards and the Creationist Die hards believe each is mutually exclusive and so we have to make every effort to rule out the other. Unfortunately most are not die hards on either side and are stuck wondering why we just can’t learn about evolution without the hubub.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
The thing is (as I understand it) evolution has lots of holes in it too, but they teach it as if it is fact, rather than an imperfectly define theory. I think they should at the very least expose the science students with what other scientists think about the weaknesses of the theory.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Should we start teaching God is the master of Algebra and the originator of wood shop principles in school?
Well, if God ordered the universe and Jesus was a carpenter… yes.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
#37 I have seen Palin interviewed a couple times and while she does fine I have not been wowed. What I haven’t seen is the tough, attack personality the VP slot requires. Some people – like Giuliani – are just naturals at it. While others, like Romney, don’t come across well in attack mode. A VP must also be able to take a punch. Does Palin have a glass jaw (like Romney)? She has stood up to Don Young which says she is tough.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I think there are very few people today that really believe that before 7000 years ago, there was only God, and that nothing else existed in all of the universe. But, as Jason points out, it seems that those who believe in God and his part in the creation, are being forced by their churches to believe there is nothing in between. They feel compelled to be ‘creationists’ because no middle ground is being offered by their churches.
At the same time, those that believe that evolution at least played a part in it are not being given anything alternative to the pure theory of evolution, which seems to exempt God from having a part in it. As I said above, I see no reason that the Scientists that believe in something other than the pure theory of evolution should not have their voices heard, not as an attempt to interject God into the picture, but rather from a pure Scientific honesty standpoint.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“The concept of God as a creator isn’t science. It’s either religion or philosophy.”
…if you want to teach it in a philosophy class, require children to take that philosophy class, and give it weight as a credible idea, one that science can’t disprove, that is fine with me. I don’t care where you teach it, but it should be taught, children should be required to learn it, and it should be given weight as a credible idea that has not been dissproved by science.
—-
“Given how poorly schools teach science, history and math, I’d be frightened of what they’d teach if we allowed them to cover religious topics”
they already are allowed to cover religious topics, ever hear of comparative religions? Religions of the world? World cultures? Heck, you can’t get through a history class without covering the role that religion has played.
—-
“Teaching evolution doesn’t send the signal there is no “higher power”.”
Teaching evolution as an unproven theory that doesn’t contradict the concpet or belief in God (which it is) doesn’t send that message. But teaching it as unquestionable fact (which many schools do) may. Even taught as fact, it doesn’t contradict the idea, but a majority of students probably lack to critical thinking skills to see that it doesn’t – so I think the idea should be laid out for them. Otherwise, you risk having students, particularly those that don’t have a strong family life coming home with the idea that “well God didn’t create the universe, evolution did”.
—
“The concept of God is a religious idea. Government schools cannot constitutionally teach religion to students.”
Yes they can – they just can’t teach religion as fact. Other wise, as I said, you would have a lot of trouble teaching a comparative religions class, or a world cultures class, or any history class that covered ancient history, the middle ages, even modern times.
Schools can and do teach religion, you seem to have been fooled into beliving that they can’t. As long as it isn’t presented as “this is how it is”, then its fine. And when I say teach about the idea of God as Creator, that is exactly how I think it should be taught – a concept believed in by the vast majority of people that can’t be dissproved by science.
—
“If we have to start saying God caused evolution, or something, should we start teaching God is the master of Algebra and the originator of wood shop principles in school?”
Well, that is a little complicated. Obviously, if you believe in God as the ultimate creator, than you belive that he led to those things indirectly. But there is much more dispute over what ROLE God plays today than the existance of him. In any case, those areas do not generally threaten to send contradictory messages to what most people believe, and do not generally pose what we might consider theories that can be considered alternatives to God – leaving no reason to bring God into them.
—
“The problem isn’t that we aren’t teaching enough creationism, the problem is that the Evolutionist die hards and the Creationist Die hards believe each is mutually exclusive and so we have to make every effort to rule out the other. Unfortunately most are not die hards on either side and are stuck wondering why we just can’t learn about evolution without the hubub.”
…because you are giving evoluionists an open mic to spout their beliefs without being questioned, and without having alternative, or even complementary ideas, it will ultimately lead to those other theories being taught, or precieved, as untrue.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
#46, people all over the blog world are reacting so strongly to her recent interviews because she is telegenic, intelligent, clear with her communication, but most importantly, she sounds (not accent) and talks like the average voter in the rust belt and mid-west.
BTW, Bill Kristol predicted she would be selected as the VP nominee this morning (twice).
June 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
CBL,
You really want Algebra and Shop teachers to teach Christian doctrine?
June 29th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
#49, Kris, you’re kidding! Do you know if I can see the video of that on Fox’s site.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I agree with Adam. Bush the baboon has done nothing but destroy our party’s goodwill. He had such an opportunity to solidify conservatism, but b/c he is a dolt, he wrecked our party’s reputation. I can only hope 4-8 yrs of McCain/Palin can rebuild what has been lost. Gen X and Y, I think, have not totally decided what party they belong too. About ANWR, I think it’s too late. That should’ve been approved in 2001. Now, electric cars are going to be coming in in 2010. Even Mercedes is phasing out their gas feet in 2015. We should go all out on nukes.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I’ve not got any problems with any of evolutionary theory.
You guys might be interested in a few books by scientists who work with evolution who also believe in God:
Francis Collins- The Language of God
Ken Miller- Finding Darwin’s God
Richard Colling- Random Designer
June 29th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
#51, I think http://www.palinforvp.blogspot.com just put it up. He does not have the second prediction on tape, he has the first one only.
I just received a “CC” on an e-mail from a Clinton organizer in NYC to the McCain campaign team stating that if McCain selects Palin, he, “will bring as many Clinton supporters over as possible”. I sent it to palinforvp, and hopefully he will post it.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
52. You think McCain will solidify conservatism where Bush didnt? C’mon.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
“I’ve not got any problems with any of evolutionary theory.
You guys might be interested in a few books by scientists who work with evolution who also believe in God:
Francis Collins- The Language of God
Ken Miller- Finding Darwin’s God
Richard Colling- Random Designer”
That only goes to prove that the theories aren’t contradictory, so what is wrong with teaching them both?
June 29th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Jason, he’ll cut spending, finish Iraq, promote fiscal responsibility, cut more taxes, expand our presence on the Court, etc. He’s actually where he should’ve been in 2000, a moderate-conservative who’ll appeal to this center-right country.
June 29th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Act-blog. I’ve got no problem if a school has a philosophy class and wants to introduce intelligent design as a concept (it would be a good counterpoint when covering Kantian philosophy).
My problem is with confusing students by putting things that aren’t science in a science class. I also resent government schools using pseudoscience to attempt to attack the fundamental theory that explains biology.
June 29th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
IR-MN, I think you pulled that right off of a mailer.
June 29th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Act Blog, I’d point out the Ken Miller was one of the leading expert witnesses against ID in the case at Dover, Pennsylvania.
Many religious people see ID _in science classrooms_ as a very bad thing.
June 29th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Jason, that was pretty funny.
Kris, I’m getting really hopeful now. What this shows is that no one knows what the short list looks like. Let’s see what happens over the next few weeks and see if her name keeps on getting vetted.
June 29th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Mark Sanford?
June 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I like the sound of McCain/Sanford — he would be a strong choice and McCain could do much worse. Sanford is telegenic, charismatic and would be acceptable to the entire coalition. In short a McCain/Sanford ticket would keep Reagan’s stool intact.
June 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
#62 Josiah, when Gov. Engler had triplets (he was already a father), did anyone question his decision to continue to Govern for another 7 years?
Yes IR-MN, although I was surprised not to see the McCain comments from Friday on Race42008, that he has been spending a lot of time on the VP search as of late. I am sure McCain is a week or two away from a decision, if not sooner. But when will we find out?
June 29th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
FWIW, Bill Kristol is very plugged in.
I recall back in 2005 when everyone though that Rehnquist was retiring and he announced, also on Fox News Sunday I believe, that it would be O’Connor who was retiring instead. Everyone laughed at him and said no way. 3 days letter, O’Connor sent her letter to the President.
He also announced after Super Tuesday that Romney would be dropping out at CPAC at a time when many still thought he would remain in the race and that he was just hitting his stride.
So, I would not take his predictions lightly.
While I have been a Palin supporter, I do recognize that some folks do get a tad carried away. I don’t think having her on the ticket will lead to some Reagan in 84 landslide. I do think she may be able to provide some positive press and excitement for McCain, satisfy the prolife/evangelical/socon wing of the party and the NRA, increase GOP turnout among women, and swing enough white women voters that she could make the difference in a close election and in a bunch of seing states. If McCain ends up losing Dole-style, then no VP would have really saved him.
Whatever happends, I don’t think we’ll be looking back on Nov 5th and saying that caused McCain to lose.
As for Bush, I don’t think he should be blamed all that much. Most Presidents end up hurting their party after two terms in office. Look at where the dems were after Clinton. They lost the Congress. They lost the WH the next two tries. They lost a bunch of Governorships and state houses. It took 6 years and a whole bunch of collossal screw ups by the GOP for them to get going again. Look at where the GOP was after Nixon. Look at where the dems were after Carter and Johnson. It’s only natural that the public tires of the party in power and seeks out the alternative.
And say what you want, but if John Paul Stevens had suffered Russert’s or Tim Johnson’s fate at any time in the past 8 years, Bush would be hailed by every conservative out there as the greatest President in US History and the man who restored the Supreme Court and achieved victory on the 5 greatest fronts of the Culture Wars(Abortion, Guns, Affirmative Action, the Death penalty, and Prayer in schools/religion in public). As it is he got 2 of them. Fate works in funny ways.
June 29th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
JA Pruce,
Given Reagan’s history with colon cancer, keeping his stool intact is not exactly a pretty sight, especially around dinner time.
Also, while I admire Reagan as much as the next guy, I do think that this unending hero worship of the guy is not good for the GOP. If we just adhere to a philosophy which says we’ll just wait for the next Reagan and in the meantime seek to copy his now close to 30 year old strategy in every election, we’re not going to do to well.
As for each leg of his “stool”, Reagan raised taxes as both Governor and President, and didn’t really do anything about balanced budgets, deficits, and spending. He signed arms control deals with the USSR that conservatives were up in arms over, supported islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, sold arms under the table to Ayatollah Khomeini, and cut and ran from Beirut at first light. He also appointed O’Connor and Kennedy to the SC who singlehandedly have ruined the Court for the past 25 years, and never once showed up at the March For Life.
So, he wasn’t perfect. The sooner we realize that and stop holding him out as some mythical figure, the better off we’ll be.
Also on Kristol, in addition to what I said above, he’s also very tight with McCain and his circle and was a huge supporter of him over Bush in 2000, so he goes way back. If anyone is plugged in to McCain’s thinking…it’s Kristol
June 29th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Who predicted an 84 landslide for McCain/Palin (well, other than Ted)?
June 29th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Doug, it’s nice to see that you recognize that string theory is in the same category as intelligent design. Both are philosophical arguments that begin with scientific premises, and both are less-than-secure inferences to the best explanation. But that’s actually pretty common in science, and much of evolutionary theory itself is pretty much in the same boat. There’s no reason to exclude something from a science class just because it’s based on a less-than-secure inference to the best explanation. You just have to present it as a controversial view, explain how commonly-accepted or uncommonly-accepted it is among scientists, and include the arguments for and against it with a good discussion of why most scientists have or have not accepted those arguments. Intelligent design, string theory, multiverse theory, evolutionary theory, and current speculations about sub-atomic particles are all fair game if they’re all treated with the same standards this way.
Now that won’t happen, of course. I don’t trust anyone who thinks like Ken Miller or PZ Myers to teach ID, since they obviously don’t understand what the argument is, and every time they put their feet in their mouths against it they demonstrate that very clearly. So I’d never push for anyone to be forced to teach it. That’s stupid given who would actually be teaching it, and some people, even very smart people with Ph.D.s, have shown their incompetence at understanding a basic philosophical argument. I’m not sure I expect more from high school teachers. But it seems equally dumb to me to prevent someone from teaching philosophical reasoning based on scientific premises, which any high school science teacher should be free to do if they want to. If I were teaching an astronomy class in a high school, I’d sure feel constrained if I weren’t allowed to talk about the anthropic principle or fine-tuning arguments, with the corresponding responses involving multiple universes. But a ban on ID wouldn’t allow such discussions, because it’s officially religion due to the political agenda of those who want it painted as religious dogma.
June 29th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Jim, I hope you’re right on Kristol. That was an insightful comment.
June 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
IR-MN Says:
June 29th, 2008 at 11:26 am
What we should be concerned about is people like DaveG who push their own agenda at the expense of our grand coalition”
You are the reason why we are going to lose the election this year. People like can never be satisfied. Nominating a Giuliani would have united the very people left out in the cold for the last twenty years. It is a grand coalition when a man who has proved himself in so many different ways is attacked for having the courage to disagree with you over one or two issues. It is a grand colation when people refuse to vote for a nominee because he is not a religious nut. It is a grand colation when a minority suddenly finds itself in the majority. Go away, and join the Constitution Party. Libertarians/Economic Conservatives have held the line and supported your candidate/s for far too long.
The neo-cons should be the least of people extolling the virtues of a “grand collation”. That is unless you are a lobbyist or running in Wyoming or Idaho.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Kris…umm…I don’t know if you know me (it’s obvious you don’t), but I’ve been advocating for John McCain since 2006 b/c I want to win so badly this year. I’m probably 2nd to Adam in animus toward Snobama. I’m strongly pro-life, no doubt about that. If that were my only issue, I would’ve supported Huck or Brownback. But I’m not, and I’m pro-gay-marriage, pro-environment and despite what you said, not a fan of neo-conservatism. I disliked Rudey 9iu11ani b/c he was arrogant, corrupt, pro-abortion and really not a great mayor. Without William Bratton, Rudey would be a joke. If you want to support a pro-abortion, venal politician, that’s your prerogative. A Rudey nom would be telling 1/3rd of the party to go to hell. I want someone who supports the whole coalition: that’s why I’m against Huck for pres and VP. Nominating Rudey would’ve destroyed the party and led to a huge Snobama landslide. Don’t believe me, there was an Iowa poll where Obama was beating Rudey by thirty points.
As to your suggestion, I think I’ll stay with the GOP since they picked my guy for the nod. I’m hoping that they’ll pick my girl, Sarah Palin, for VP. And whatever is going through your head, at last recognize that I’m not from WY or ID. You should be able to read my moniker and figure that out.
BTW, about my post regarding DaveG, I was being tough b/c I expect more from him. He can write some scintillating posts, but he gets caught in these phases of plugging these horrible VP choices.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
[...] behind some of the fuss about Bobby Jindal? At Race42008, Dave G warns that Jindal is “headed down the Huckabee route.” In the course of complaining about the legislative increase, we get down to brass tax about [...]
June 29th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
[...] behind some of the fuss about Bobby Jindal? At Race42008, Dave G warns that Jindal is “headed down the Huckabee route.” In the course of complaining about the legislative increase, we get down to brass tax about [...]
June 29th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
“You should be able to read my moniker and figure that out”.
I have, and you still don’t impress me.
Arrogant? Because he felt abortion should be left to the individual … and you have the audacity to accuse liberals of conjuring up “big brother” ideas?
Corrupt? Okay he only prosecuted X amount of scum-bags for ….
“not really a great mayor”? Cutting crime in half, increased QOL and decreased welfare qualifies one as a bad executive?
You are in no position to expect anything from anyone.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
[...] today, DaveG penned a piece suggesting that Bobby Jindal was veering off into Huckabee territory (fiscal liberalism, with a [...]
June 30th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Would this pose a problem for Palin?
Palin’s responses on radio talk show very unbecoming
June 30th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Here is the link to the audio from the Bob and Mark Show:
http://www.bobandmarksuck.com/blog/?p=241
July 1st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
HMMM, not quite ready for prime time~