The Candidates
Featured Archives
Some of you are going to hate to read this one and the evidence is going to make you quite irritated, but a fundamental axiom of life is that we should try to see things as they are, rather than how we’d like to see them. So with all due apologies to Adam Graham, Doug Forrester, and others who would gladly rather go down in flames while adhering to principle, there’s something that everyone who is actually interested in building a majority party need to take a look at: election results and exit polls.
This article makes no judgment on the actual issue positions themselves. This isn’t about me trying to sell you on any issues. As most of you are aware, I am a social libertarian, but I am well aware that there is a national mandate against gay marriage, and I’m not going to pretend that there isn’t. See?
That being said, let’s move onto the information:
I. Referendums Tell the Story
First, let’s take a look at Colorado Amendment 48, which would have defined personhood as beginning from the moment of conception. This is how religious conservatives, of course, view human life, and the Colorado Right to Life organization supported the amendment. 73-27, the amendment was rejected.
Two years ago, South Dakota — a crimson red state with a single abortion clinic — rejected an abortion ban. This year, a less restrictive ban, Initiated Measure 11, which contained rape, incest, and health exceptions, was also rejected in a strongly decisive 56-44 vote. If South Dakota rejects a view that’s considered mainstream and acceptable to the Republican Party’s base, then how is Sarah Palin’s extremist position (not to mention Bobby Jindal’s) to play in New Hampshire, Nevada, or Pennsylvania?
Moving on: Washington Initiative 1000 would allow a doctor to give, at a terminally ill, mentally well, adult patient’s request, lethal dosages of medication after waiting periods and signed contracts with independent witnesses. Reasonable enough, said Washington voters, who approved the measure by a landslide 58-42 margin. How exactly do religious conservatives think that the Terri Schiavo incident played in Washington? Washington was considered a swing state just two cycles ago.
Ballot measures to allow gambling expansions to fund education were approved in Maryland and Colorado, both by 59-41 margins. Both were opposed by various religious conservative groups.
[UPDATE. Thanks for reminding me, MWS] In Michigan, Proposal 2, an initiative to grant state money to stem-cell research, was approved by a narrower margin of 53-47. In California, a parental notification requirement for abortions for minors was defeated — for the third time — by a similarly narrow 52-48 margin.
Indeed, it seems that the only arena in which religious conservatism is succeeding is in the gay marriage debate, although — let’s be blunt — gay marriage’s opponents are slowly but surely dying off, and the measures in more liberal states only end up passing due to racial minorities, who aren’t voting Republican, anyway. A strong argument could be made that Proposition 8 in California only passed, bizarrely enough, due to Barack Obama increasing black turnout enough to push the ‘Yes’ vote over the edge. Blacks supported Proposition 8 by a 70-30 margin. They voted almost unanimously for Barack Obama.
Whether we believe that the positions that religious conservatives espouse are justified are not, they aren’t the path to majority party status.
II. Religious Conservatives Are Dropping In Number and Are Concentrated in the South
In 2000, according to CNN’s exit polls, 42% of voters claimed to attend church on a weekly basis. That number remained steady in 2004, but dropped to 39% in 2008. 55% of those voters supported McCain in 2008. About 60% of them supported Bush in 2004 and 2000. With most young voters thinking that the church is too involved in politics and incorrect on the issue of homosexuality (most young voters support gay marriage, too), what is the Christian Right to do?
Additionally, religious candidates are increasingly marginalized as regional candidates. With the weird exception of Iowa, Mike Huckabee was only able to win Southern states in the Republican primary season. Sarah Palin’s favorability ratings were only in the positives in the South by the end of the election season. The two of them are religious populists, very appealing to a niche section of the base, but with absolutely no ability to attract independents, Northeasterners, or people on the coasts. Whether one wants to assail them as “elitists” or not, they did just decimate our candidates and we need to appeal to them if we’re going to be a majority party.
And by the way, those elitist jerks were voting for our candidates just a few cycles ago.
III. What to Do?
Well, obviously, the solution is not to boot religious conservatives out of the party. They comprise a vital part of it and do a lot of the groundwork that’s so essential. But, just as economic conservatives compromised happily and got behind John McCain (even after his campaign went populist), religious conservatives need to find some sort of middle ground to strike with the rest of the party. Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and Fred Thompson all understand how to appeal to religious conservatives without turning off the rest of the country: they knew what to emphasize, to limit the rabble-rousing, and to not attack people who don’t happen to share all of their values. As MetroRepublican pointed out in the comments: if someone disagreed with Ronald Reagan, he’d try to reach out to them and convince them to convert to conservativism. When someone disagrees with Sarah Palin, she mocks them.
Federalism seems to be an acceptable compromise. We can all strike a deal by adherence to the 10th Amendment. It is rooted in small-government principles, allows regional candidates to perform as they’d like, and takes a pragmatic approach that doesn’t use hyperbole in describing the role of the President in shaping social policy. Social conservatives absolutely have to stop pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment and a sweeping abortion ban. Both are pipe dreams. They will never pass. (There’s a reason that I’m not advocating a repeal of the income tax, you know.) Work against abortion and gay marriage, if that is what religious conservatives want to emphasize, must be done on a cultural and local level.
What of Roe v. Wade? Good strict constructionist judges should be a goal of the Republican Party, regardless of what branch one is from. But it’s also important to understand that even if Roe is overturned, little change in abortion policy is going to occur. If South Dakota isn’t planning on banning abortion — even with the usual exceptions — then Maine certainly isn’t going to anytime soon.
A majority party can be built by emphasizing regional issues, such as euthanasia and abortion, in those particular regions, but keeping them out of emphasis in the national spotlight. That is an essential lesson to learn, and the proof is in the numbers.
—
November 16th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Finally, a real Alex special. Like chain smoking a pack of Marlboros while refueling jets.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Now, did you read the piece or did you read the title and jump straight to the comments section?
November 16th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
There is no question that Nov. 4 was a very bad night for the pro-life movement. We went 0-5 on state referenda (there was also CA’s parental notification law and Michigan’s embryonic stem cell $). About the only silver lining is that the Democratic Party- despite nominating the most rabidly pro-abortion candidate in history- is becoming more open to life and the state and congressional level.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Caught me! Responded only after the title. But have subsequently read the post.
I think it’s actually a really important post and issue for the party to deal with. Being a SoCon, I know where I’d like to see the party and country go. But I’m also on my third bourbon and unwilling to think too hard right now.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
….that being said, as a committed Catholic, I’d rather go down fighting for the truth.
Not that I can’t compromise on a particular piece of legislation or a candidate to get the best deal possible at a given time, but the core principles of what Alex calls “religious conservatism” can never be compromised. They are more important than America itself, and all religious conservatives know what I’m talking about.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
5 – That’s part of why it’s harder to compromise with so-cons than econ-cons. You can’t really negotiate with the Supreme Word of the Lord, and although some econ-cons think that The Wealth of Nations is just such a thing, compromise is easier to make.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
But I can’t help myself. Too much good stuff here.
Federalism seems to be an acceptable compromise. We can all strike a deal by adherence to the 10th Amendment. It is rooted in small-government principles, allows regional candidates to perform as they’d like, and takes a pragmatic approach that doesn’t use hyperbole in describing the role of the President in shaping social policy.
I’ve been saying the same thing to my compadres here on Long Island for almost two weeks now. I think this is spot on. As a social conservative who wants to win hearts and minds to a position on life (and other issues) that may or may not be political winners right now, I think a federalist approach makes sense. Yes, it places a burden on SoCons to win hearts and minds, one person at a time. But hey, either your ideology and values can hold up under the scrutiny of your neighbor, or it can’t. Marketplace of ideas and all that.
I’d rather join forces with libertarians and allow for states and localities that have the ability to legislate according to the beliefs of their constituents, IF a consensus exists, than have a one-size-fits-all liberal ideology dictated from Washington. Something is better than nothing.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
While those who would ban abortion may not be an absolute majority, there is little doubt in my mind that if the cultural issues of abortion, gay marriage, parental rights, etc…. were not an issue the Democrats would be racking up far larger majorities. They certainly would this year on the basis of the economy and Bush’s disastrous foreign policy. It is the Culture War that broke up the New Deal coalition, and without it, the GOP would be the party of Alf Landon.
For those of you who are not familiar with Alf Landon, here is what the 2008 map would look like without religious conservatives. (red is Democrat, blue Republican)
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1936.html
November 16th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
…and so another person proclaims the end of social conservatism. Where to start? Lets see.
Argument: “Social conservatives are shrinking in number”
Not sure you basis for this argument. Polls show little change in the abortion debate – the country remains largely split, with the majority favoring more restrictions on abortion. The gay marraige debate seems similarly stable, and the gains made by anti-gay marriage groups is undeniable.
Argument: “Social conservatives are concentrated in the south”
Maybe. Yes, southern evangelicals who vote Republican without question are concentrated in the south, but you are confusing “socially conservative” with “republican voter” in fact, many groups in very blue areas – union workers in Michigan, Hispanics in California, etc. – are socially conservative.
Argument: “Social conservatism is increasingly reliant on minorities and those who don’t vote RNC”
Probably true – though we don’t know if this is lasting or not. In any case, this seems less likely to hurt social conservatism than it is to force the DNC to the right socially. Ironically, the groups that the DNC is increasingly dependent on – Blacks, Hispanics, etc. – are often those most hostile to a liberal social agenda.
Argument: “The youth are socially liberal, so conservatism’s days are numbered”
Its true that youth are more liberal than older voters, buts its also true that they generally become more conservative as they age, get jobs and have families. The generation that formed the drug, sex, and whatever else 20-somethings of the 1960s and 1970s is the same generation that formed the 30 and 40-somethings of the 1980s who sent Ronald Reagan to the White House by big margins.
Argument: “Church attendance is dropping”
Not by any significant margin, three percent would be considered acceptable swing – particularly when measured against eight years ago. A poll taken today would probably find a higher number – since people in bad economic times usually go to church more.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Tweaked the title.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
MatthewK,
Just curious, in what state do you reside?
November 16th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Michigan.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
national right to life kicked out colorado right to life, and created another state affiliate in it place, which opposed the colorado personhood amendment. the colorado catholic conference also opposed the amendment. the colorado family policy council endorsed the amendment but did nothing to help pass it. if these same groups strongly tried to pass it, then it’d have gotten 45%.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Alex,
“That’s part of why it’s harder to compromise with so-cons than econ-cons. You can’t really negotiate with the Supreme Word of the Lord”
Absolutely. As a believer in the Word of the Lord, I whole heartedly agree. Money comes and goes. There are multiple economic systems that can be more or less just. But there is only one right answer on marriage, the right to life, and the inherent dignity of every person.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
No kidding! I was there for 3 years myself, 2000-03. Met my bride there. Great state. You guys actually have a politically viable SoCon movement. It can’t carry the state on its own, but as part of coalition, it is meaningful. Western part of the state, especially.
I wish we had something resembling it here in NY.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Not by any significant margin, three percent would be considered acceptable swing – particularly when measured against eight years ago. A poll taken today would probably find a higher number – since people in bad economic times usually go to church more.
That’s only an argument in my favor, really. It says that the current numbers are inflated.
Its true that youth are more liberal than older voters, buts its also true that they generally become more conservative as they age, get jobs and have families. The generation that formed the drug, sex, and whatever else 20-somethings of the 1960s and 1970s is the same generation that formed the 30 and 40-somethings of the 1980s who sent Ronald Reagan to the White House by big margins.
The 60’s generation was never as liberal as everyone said; it was a cultural battle, yes, but a battle with two sides. The decadent ones in the 60’s weren’t the ones that sent Reagan to the White House. And while people get more conservative as they get older, if you’re expecting a massive 20-point swing among young voters against gay marriage ten years from now, dream on.
Probably true – though we don’t know if this is lasting or not. In any case, this seems less likely to hurt social conservatism than it is to force the DNC to the right socially. Ironically, the groups that the DNC is increasingly dependent on – Blacks, Hispanics, etc. – are often those most hostile to a liberal social agenda.
But blacks seem not to care.
Not sure you basis for this argument. Polls show little change in the abortion debate – the country remains largely split, with the majority favoring more restrictions on abortion. The gay marraige debate seems similarly stable, and the gains made by anti-gay marriage groups is undeniable.
They’re shrinking in number because, little by little, gay rights are being more accepted, the older generation is dying off (obviously), and — well, hey, just look at the referendum results.
Maybe. Yes, southern evangelicals who vote Republican without question are concentrated in the south, but you are confusing “socially conservative” with “republican voter” in fact, many groups in very blue areas – union workers in Michigan, Hispanics in California, etc. – are socially conservative.
Sure. Which is why I said that we shouldn’t nix social conservatism from the platform..!
November 16th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
MWS,
I admire and agree with your sentiment in 14. But conservatives have fought for the RTL in various ways over the past 3 decades. Repudiating Roe, which has been the focal point of our judicial fights, is mostly about restoring federalism. Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal, merely return the issue to the state laws that governed it pre-’73. Would you view this as an acceptable outcome? Could you accept a candidate who advocated a repeal of Roe, but equivocated on the need for a national ban on abortion?
November 16th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
“in fact, many groups in very blue areas – union workers in Michigan, Hispanics in California, etc. – are socially conservative.”
Very true. Also, Alex erred when he pointed to exit polls that show a decline in the electoral significance of those who attend church weekly. A 42% to 39% decline is within the margin of error, and is just as likely to be statistical noise as anything. That number could just as well rise the next election. The good Lord knows that weekly churchgoers had good reasons to skip this election.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Very true. Also, Alex erred when he pointed to exit polls that show a decline in the electoral significance of those who attend church weekly. A 42% to 39% decline is within the margin of error, and is just as likely to be statistical noise as anything. That number could just as well rise the next election. The good Lord knows that weekly churchgoers had good reasons to skip this election.
Fair enough. There was also a 5% decrease in the number of churchgoers that voted for the Republican candidate, though, and an increase in the number that voted for the Democratic one. The trend fit, so I thought it was at least worth pointing out.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
daniel,
“the colorado catholic conference also opposed the amendment. ”
I had not read that. Why is that?
November 16th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
national right to life kicked out colorado right to life, and created another state affiliate in it place, which opposed the colorado personhood amendment. the colorado catholic conference also opposed the amendment. the colorado family policy council endorsed the amendment but did nothing to help pass it. if these same groups strongly tried to pass it, then it’d have gotten 45%.
Somehow I doubt that one organization could have changed a fifth of the electorate’s mind.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
fredo,
“Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal, merely return the issue to the state laws that governed it pre-’73. Would you view this as an acceptable outcome? Could you accept a candidate who advocated a repeal of Roe, but equivocated on the need for a national ban on abortion?”
To the first question, I would accept returning the abortion question to the states as a temporary and achievable advance on the way to national protection for the unborn. On the second question, I could support such a candidate only if the alternative was worse.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Alex,
“Somehow I doubt that one organization could have changed a fifth of the electorate’s mind.”
I don’t know what happened in the CO referendum, and am not familiar with who supported or opposed and why. But the depth of it’s defeat does seem a bit odd when compared to Michigan. If national polls are at all accurate, more people accept the concept of embryonic stem cell research than reject the notion that unborn babies are people. Yet the Michigan referendum was much closer than the one in Colorado. I don’t know why that is, but Daniel’s post tells me that there was more going on there than meets the eye.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
22
Fair enough. Given our current two party system, the alternative would almost certainly be worse. Hopefully the time will come when it is not the case.
But if principled pro-lifers can support, even pragmatically, candidates who are offering a federalist rather than federal solution to life issues, I think we have a stronger likelihood of building a majority.
One of the best practical applications of what a federalist coalition might look like came from Adam Graham on the front page earlier today:
I think there’s room under the Republican tent for people who are pro-life activists, as well as people who are pro-choice. People who are pro-choice activists (a small percentage of that population) can’t fit in the same party as pro-life activists. Sorry. Good bye, good luck, farewell. Ultimately, trying to fit such divergent groups into the party leads to both groups feeling lied to and like you’re talking to them out of both sides of their mouth.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I don’t know what happened in the CO referendum, and am not familiar with who supported or opposed and why. But the depth of it’s defeat does seem a bit odd when compared to Michigan. If national polls are at all accurate, more people accept the concept of embryonic stem cell research than reject the notion that unborn babies are people. Yet the Michigan referendum was much closer than the one in Colorado. I don’t know why that is, but Daniel’s post tells me that there was more going on there than meets the eye.
Because the Michigan proposal was about state money.
I would have voted against the proposal, myself, and I am pro-choice.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I’m not sure what Alex means by a “religious conservative”.
I’m a confessional Lutheran with a pre-Melanchthon theology. I guess that’s a religious conservative position but it’s got nothing to do with politics.
I’m not interested in forcing anyone to conform to my religion. It would do them no good (in fact serious harm).
I could care less about whether our President is a Christian, a Muslim or a Mormon.
My position on issues is motivated by preventing harm, maintaining order, protecting the purity of children and loyalty.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Doug, you sound like those liberals that go “I dislike labels. I prefer the term ‘progressive.’ There’s no such thing as a liberal, really. I really don’t know what you mean by ‘liberal.’”
November 16th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
I’m just not sure why you use the term “religious conservative”.
I’m a social conservative but where I fit within my Church doesn’t have much to do with my politics (on reflection I may not be a religious conservative since I accept the Theory of Evolution and despise teaching ID in public schools).
November 16th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
You’re still a religious conservative. Charles Krauthammer and Robert Kagan are both neo-cons, even though the former opposed the Kosovo intervention and the latter supported it.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Can you define the term “religious conservative” so I could judge why it might apply to me?
November 16th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Or is the term “religious conservative” kind of like the term “jerk”? People you don’t like get the label without regard for their ideology.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
A religious conservative is someone whose religious beliefs highly influence their political priorities — typically euthanasia, gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, Christian influence in the government (10 Commandments displays, for instance). Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Gary Bauer all may have disagreed on several non-social issues, but their religion brought them together on the fundamentals.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
EGS,
Are you Doug Forrester? I’ve been wondering for some time.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Alex,
“A religious conservative is someone whose religious beliefs highly influence their political priorities ”
There are a fair number of liberals who would contend that their religious beliefs highly influence their political priorities, especially concerning economics and foreign policy.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
If pro-life groups would spend more energy making the argument as to why unlimited abortion is harmful to society and spend more time talking to the middle of the road people then to themselves, they’d do alot better at the ballot box. They come off as generally extremist, and this from a person that would otherwise agree with their ideas. They need to be willing to give and take, and recognize that they are bounded by the political process as much as their consciences. To me, they don’t show much respect to moderates and liberals, and it shows in how much they receive in return. Is the point to be right, or to actually change society for the good? Because the current approach isn’t doing the latter, that much is true. That being said, I think reasonable religious conservatism is very valuable to the party and not just for votes, if we can get it right. Let’s ditch the zealotry.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
There are a fair number of liberals who would contend that their religious beliefs highly influence their political priorities, especially concerning economics and foreign policy.
Then they’d be religious liberals. Although I don’t believe them; they don’t really have the same sort of zeal and clearly advocate things from a secular perspective and usually throw in some quip about Jesus as an afterthought to bash so-cons over the head with.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
econgradstud and I are one. (boo haha)
Alex, MWS raises a good point. A religious conservative can be a social liberal according to your definition.
I’ve not got any connection between my faith and my politics except for the fact that my faith determines my values.
Atheists can (and some do) share my set of values.
Why don’t you just use the term social conservative?
November 16th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Alex,
“Although I don’t believe them; they don’t really have the same sort of zeal and clearly advocate things from a secular perspective and usually throw in some quip about Jesus as an afterthought to bash so-cons over the head with.”
Some do. But there are a good number of liberal Catholics who would disagree. The sorts that produce magazines like “Commonweal” and “America.”
November 16th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I often wonder whether a SoCon GOP president will ever win the Blue States again. By “Blue States,” I mean the 18 states that voted Democrat in all of the last five presidential elections. I think the answer is that it depends on the SoCon.
Ironically, Bobby Jindal, despite being really, really socially conservative, might actually have a really good shot at winning Blue America. That’s because he’s got the Roberts and Alito card — he’s an uber-intellectual, and a Roman Catholic, and that means that he is something that Blue America can relate to. That doesn’t mean Blue Americans will agree with Jindal on many social issues. They won’t. But they won’t run away screaming either. Jindal’s brand of intellectual Catholicism will likely remind every Northern ethnic Catholic of a clergyman or relative he once knew. My guess is that every Catholic in the country has at least one crazy old relative who still shakes their fist at the Second Vatican Council. I have one of those myself. Of course we don’t agree with said crazy relatives. But because they know people who think this way, the Jindal formula won’t be culturally foreign or alien to Blue Americans.
Then add Jindal’s intellectualism into the equation and he really starts to break into the educated segments of Blue America. No, Blue Americans still won’t agree with him on many cultural issues, but his style will remind them of a professor that they used to debate in class or a fellow student that they used to debate in the dorm at 3am over cold pizza. Add in Obama fatigue if Jindal runs in 2016 and he really would have a shot at some blue states.
Now Sarah Palin, on the other hand, would bomb in Blue America, largely because she IS culturally alien to most Blue Americans. She may be a less devout member of her religion than Jindal, but even if she is, she’ll still be considered weird by Blue Americans who can’t relate to her particular sect. She’s hunting moose while Jindal’s reading Foreign Affairs. And don’t get me started with the g-dropping habit of hers. Basically, she’ll run into the same wall that Bush did in Blue America, perhaps even a higher one.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
The news here in California said that proposition 8 would have gotten 51.5% of the vote had no African-Americans partcipated in the vote at all. Nearly 2/3 of married peoople who voted were in support of the proposition. That’s the telling statistic in the whole thing – people who made the marital plunge feel very strongly about it being between a man and woman.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
36 Alex
One other edit to your post title might be to add the final word, “nationally” or “in national elections.” Religious conservatism is, without question, politically viable in many states.
I’m not sure that I would agree your post title, even if so modified, but it seems more true to the point you’re making:
A majority party can be built by emphasizing regional issues, such as euthanasia and abortion, in those particular regions, but keeping them out of emphasis in the national spotlight.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Doug Econ,
So when exactly did you become a FPP? Over the summer, wasn’t it?
And didn’t you mention elsewhere you are a former Catholic?
November 17th, 2008 at 12:00 am
#39, I agree. I think Pawlenty (a social conservative) would also culturally connect in large areas of Blue America.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:01 am
That’s right Raj. Over 50% of democrats who were married voted in favor of the proposition in California. The wording on the ballot was much stronger than in 2000. This year it said, “eliminates the right to marry…” Ekiminating a right is alwaus a tough proposition. When it comes up next time, it won’t be a right that voters will be eliminating; and the numbers will be more like 2000 when over 60% voted in favor of the proposition.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:01 am
November 17th, 2008 at 12:03 am
43 Doug
Did you catch T-Paw on FNS this morning. He was out. stand. ing.
Felt bad for Steele who was sitting next to him. There wasn’t much left for him to say, and he knew it.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Aaron, that’s right. It’s the unmarried crowd that supports gay marriage. Once people get married and have children, they change.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:03 am
MSW,
the colorado catholic conference opposed the personhood amendment because they were told by gov. romney’s pro-life advisor, jim bopp, that the supreme court would not uphold it. gov. huckabee and his pro-life advisors think that the supreme court would uphold it, so they endorsed the amendment. there is a vicious but hidden debate going on among pro-life groups about whether the supreme court would uphold it or not. they don’t want roe v wade to be upheld one more time. but our argument is that roe v wade has been reaffirmed 80 times, so one more reaffirmation really doesn’t matter. justice kennedy has said if presented with the right case, then he’d overturn roe v wade. there is no weightier a case to present to him than a personhood amendment. roe v wade itself says, “if personhood is established (for preborn children), then the argument for abortion collapses”.
the catholic bishops want to give amnesty to illegal aliens, and their tax and foreign policy is democratic (and wrong). so, though they may be right on morality, they are able to be wrong on their political approach to these things.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Aron,
“let’s be blunt — gay marriage’s opponents are slowly but surely dying off….
30-44 (28%)
Yes 55%
No 45%”
I’m 32 myself, and hope the 30-44 bracket isn’t “surely dying off.” Also, you have to ask whether those 18-29 year olds will start opposing gay marriage once they get married themselves, as 2/3 of married Californians did.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:07 am
daniel,
Thanks for the background. I didn’t know that.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Jindal’s acceptable because he keeps things in perspective, not blowing the issues out of proportion to their importance. No one objects to a candidate simply because he’s a social conservative, rather because they come across as extremists. Granted, some won’t vote for him because of those views, but enough would be willing to set them aside for his otherwise admirable qualities that they will be irrelevant, just as Obama ran as a cultural centrist – his supposed relations with Ayers et al simply not being reflected in the man himself and his virtues.
If there is any example as to the future road of social conservatism as a successful movement, its Bobby Jindal.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:07 am
#42, I am. My dad was Irish Catholic.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:12 am
The thing is this (notmto hijack a thread), but hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to prove that homosexuality is bioligical (hereditary or genetic), and all of the research has failed miserably. In fact, it has proved just the contrary; homosexuality is more of a nurture issue than a nature issue. As a PhD psychology student, the real secret is that more and more psychologusts are treating homosexuality as a condition, and they are having increasing success doing so. The American Psychological Association bowed to pressure in the 1970’s to declare that homosexuality was not an abnormality, and they said that they believed it had to be genetic. Now that it has been proven otherwise, for all intents and purposes, psychologists are discovering that they can talk to patients on an individual basis and almost always indentify the source of the condition as they process the individual’s history. The causes are very divergent, but a common one is the were a family has multiple sons, and the first may be stud athlete like the father. The next may be a sensitive kid, and the father cannot connect (failure on the father’s part, but very common), so this kid grows up wanting the attention and affection of a father who doesn’t know how to do it. Well, the kid starts looking for male affection and attention elsewhere (or maybe not looking for it but certainly receptive to it), and it leads to confusion.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:13 am
32
I think a better term for what you describe is “religious authoritarian”. To be religiously conservative should merely refer to how strictly one adheres to ones theology. What distinguishes the modern “religious right” is there insistence on using government power to compel the rest of society to live by their values.
I really dont understand this, not from Christians at least. I know some religions, like Islam, routinely see political power as a legitimate means by which to impose religious standards. But the teachings of Jesus seemed all about saving souls, not about using power.
We have freedom of religion – no one would ever criticize anyone for leading a religiously conservative life. We have freedom of speech – no one would ever prevent anyone from trying to persuade their fellow citizens from taking up religious practices. All of the problem comes from this perversion of true Christianity – this focus on trying to seize political power and impose christian practices on those who dont wish to follow them voluntarily.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Tano,
“What distinguishes the modern “religious right” is there insistence on using government power to compel the rest of society to live by their values.”
Yeah, values like “thou shall not kill,” and crazy stuff like that.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Tano,
“I really dont understand this, not from Christians at least. I know some religions, like Islam, routinely see political power as a legitimate means by which to impose religious standards. But the teachings of Jesus seemed all about saving souls, not about using power.”
You misunderstand Jesus, then. Yes, the ultimate point is the salvation of souls, but salvation is not a segmented goal that exists in its own hermetically sealed box. The state of our souls is influenced by myriad factors and relationships, including our responsibility in the body politic. Jesus DEMANDED that we look out for “the least of these,” which includes the poor, the oppressed, the aged, the discriminated, and the unborn.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Where is the evidence that a republican party without social conservatives would be a majority party? Or that the democratic party won because of socially liberal policies?
November 17th, 2008 at 12:27 am
“I often wonder whether a SoCon GOP president will ever win the Blue States again”
My guess,,,not a chance.
“My guess is that every Catholic in the country has at least one crazy old relative who still shakes their fist at the Second Vatican Council.”
And approximately zero percent of those families would ever vote for the ‘ol coot to be president.
“because they know people who think this way, the Jindal formula won’t be culturally foreign or alien to Blue Americans.”
His chances might be better if he remained a bit more foreign – metropolitan elites would be more intrigued by an Indian-American than by another hard-religious-right southerner.
“Add in Obama fatigue if Jindal runs in 2016 and he really would have a shot at some blue states.”
If there is Obama fatigue, then there probably would be professorial intellectual fatigue as well.
“Now Sarah Palin, on the other hand, would bomb in Blue America”
agreed.
No socon is going to do well in blue America. Period. We sure as hell are not going to accept ANY politician telling us how to live our personal lives, or restricting our freedom.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Where is the evidence that a republican party without social conservatives would be a majority party? Or that the democratic party won because of socially liberal policies?
-sigh-
You didn’t read the article.
If you’d read it, you’d have known that I wrote “Well, obviously, the solution is not to boot religious conservatives out of the party. They comprise a vital part of it.”
November 17th, 2008 at 12:32 am
“Jesus DEMANDED that we look out for “the least of these,” which includes the poor, the oppressed, the aged, the discriminated, and the unborn.”
Yes he did. And modern American socons seem not to give a damn about any of them, except the unborn – the one part of that list that Jesus never actually mentioned.
But even still. A mandate to look out for all of these is very different from a mandate to go seize political power. Jesus’s teachings were about how to live ones own life. Its religion, not political philosophy.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:36 am
MWS,
The religious conservatives tend to spend more time restricting controversial behaviors (murder isn’t so controversial, after all), which is going to get disdain from just about everyone else as semi-tyrannical. They generally don’t like to have dialogue over their issues, after all. Would you be interested in sitting down with a moderately pro-choice political leader to discuss a solution? Probably not, that would be “selling out”, even if it would end up promoting more pro-life behavior, restricting abortion in some extreme cases, etc. I think Alex’s point is that the “its my way or the highway” attitude has got to go, because its not doing favors to anyone. We live in a republic, not an autocracy, and the religious conservatives, unfortunately for their causes, behave like they are in the latter.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Given that Christianity is the essential ingredient of Western Civilization, and that Western Civilization is precisely that entity conservatism is designed to conserve, it is more or less insane for the party of conservatism to consider abandoning it. It was God that gave us individual liberty and instructed us to cherish it, as he cherishes each one of us. The least we can do is return the favor.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:41 am
“Yeah, values like “thou shall not kill,” and crazy stuff like that.”
We don’t have laws against killing people because killing people is morally wrong. We have laws against killing people because the foundation of our government is its mandate for collective action to defend our country, to maintain civil peace and to protect the rights and property of citizens. It is a mutually beneficial contract – you live in society, you don’t kill people, or else we have to isolate you or kill you too.
There are plenty of moral imperatives that are not part of our laws. There are plenty of laws that are not moral imperatives. The two classes, law and morality, have considerable overlap, but they are not the same, nor do they derive one from the other.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Tano,
“But even still. A mandate to look out for all of these is very different from a mandate to go seize political power. Jesus’s teachings were about how to live ones own life. Its religion, not political philosophy.”
But it is a religion with political implications. Jesus walked this Earth in a time when his listeners and disciples had absolutely zero political power or rights. Hence, it was kind of a moot point. In a democracy, we have political power, of course, and it adds a political element to our moral obligation. When the responsibility of the law is thrust upon us- as it was not to the people of Jesus’ time- then we have to consider how our religious principles translate into the body politic. I don’t put my religion in a box. Yes, it would be diminishing to religion to reduce it to a mere political philosophy, but religion is a worldview that (if taken seriously) has political philosophy as one of its many manifestations.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:43 am
MWS,
“Jesus DEMANDED that we look out for “the least of these,” which includes the poor, the oppressed, the aged, the discriminated, and the unborn.”
I applaud your concern for the above but I don’t believe that Jesus makes demands. His point was that we are all the “least of these”. He didn’t seperate humanity into classes, or interest groups.
And salvation does exist apart from our responsibility to the “body politic”. God alone suffices. When we start talking about salvation and linking it to any sort of political activity – even one as non-controversial and laudable as helping “the poor, the oppressed, the aged, the discriminated, and the unborn” – we are distorting his teaching.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Tano,
“Yes he did. And modern American socons seem not to give a damn about any of them, except the unborn”
I care about all those groups. The poor, the oppressed, the aged, the discriminated, and the unborn.
Do you?
November 17th, 2008 at 12:45 am
MPC,
” Would you be interested in sitting down with a moderately pro-choice political leader to discuss a solution? ”
Recognizing that we will not be able to protect the unborn in law any time soon, I would be more than willing to work with people of good will on the other side to reduce the number of abortions, and save lives.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:48 am
kevin,
“I don’t believe that Jesus makes demands. ”
You are mistaken.
See Matthew 25:31-46
November 17th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Given that Christianity is the essential ingredient of Western Civilization, and that Western Civilization is precisely that entity conservatism is designed to conserve, it is more or less insane for the party of conservatism to consider abandoning it. It was God that gave us individual liberty and instructed us to cherish it, as he cherishes each one of us. The least we can do is return the favor.
You didn’t read the post.
Absolutely no one that read the post could possibly reply in such a manner.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:52 am
“-sigh-
You didn’t read the article.
If you’d read it, you’d have known that I wrote “Well, obviously, the solution is not to boot religious conservatives out of the party. They comprise a vital part of it.””
Sorry that I madeyou so exasperated as to sigh. I read your article and agree with a lot of it. I don’t think you’re trying to boot anyone out of the party – I don’t mistake you for Stalin.
My point would be more along the lines that social (not necessarily religious)conservatives would leave the party on their own if it de-emphasized social issues.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Dave,
Western Civilization is founded on the Greco-Roman tradition, augmented by Christianity. Were it Christianity alone we’d probably be something more akin to the modern Middle East, not because Christianity is bad, but because zealotry is the natural temptation of religions. The fact that Christianity has fused in many aspects with the traditions of Greece and Rome is a much more beneficial arrangement.
And of course, we shouldn’t abandon Christianity, not even in politics. To do that would be to ignore that Christianity and a republic theoretically have the same social harmony in mind. What I do argue for is that we abandon the use of Christianity in an authoritarian manner and have confidence in the very Christian idea that we don’t need force, rather conversion, to change society and the world. If we don’t believe in that, then we simply don’t believe that Christianity has a place in a republic.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Tano
#63 is overly simplistic. It has never been so obvious in history- as you seem to imply- who exactly is protected from “thou shall not kill” in the law. Throughout much of history in myriad places, it has been perfectly acceptable to kill slaves, wives, young children, a social inferior, etc…..
So who exactly is protected by “thou shall not kill” is in fact rooted in morality. In fact, it was Christianity that introduced the West to radical notions like the inherent dignity of all people, and the inherent rights of women and slaves. The Catholic Church ended slavery in western Europe. The Church introduced novel concepts about a woman’s consent in marriage, that marital fidelity is binding on men, and that men cannot dump their wives (which in the ancient world, could be a fate worth than death). Your pleas against religious interference in law- if applied historically- would leave women, minorities, and the lower classes in far worse shape today.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:01 am
My point would be more along the lines that social (not necessarily religious)conservatives would leave the party on their own if it de-emphasized social issues.
And go where? The Democratic Party?
Is there something wrong with federalism?
November 17th, 2008 at 1:06 am
We have to be a Party, not a Secret Club. We have to believe in something that 51%+ of Americans can believe in.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Alex.
“And go where? The Democratic Party?”
Were it not for the social issues, a good number of SoCons would be voting Democrat. Yes.
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1936.html
November 17th, 2008 at 1:06 am
MWS,
“See Matthew 25:31-46″
I know the scriptures. Jesus doesn’t make demands in such passages, he points out the holiness of God, and casts a light on our fallen nature in order to show us Himself as Love.
Again, there are no political implications.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Good night all. I’ll check back in tomorrow.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:08 am
“it adds a political element to our moral obligation”
I dont see that as being at all necessary to Christianity. In fact it seems to me to be part of a fundamental corruption of Christianity – albeit one that started pretty much with Constantine.
At the heart of Christianity is the salvation of souls. We have free will – and the responsibility to exercise that free will. It is of little moral value to wish to have an abortion but to be prevented by some civil power. It changes nothing in the moral equation. And even if you see the fertilized egg as some sort of human, and worthy of having a life, – well that “person” would be totally innocent and go straight to heaven – no?
The mandate for the individual is to live ones own life in accordance with Jesus’s teachings. And to CONVINCE others to do so. To COMPEL others to do so is meaningless, and usually counter-productive, since those compelled to behave in ways they wish not to will be resentful and resistant to ever voluntarily taking up the practice of the religion.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:10 am
kevin,
“Jesus doesn’t make demands in such passages, he points out the holiness of God, and casts a light on our fallen nature in order to show us Himself as Love.”
So why does He condemn the “goats” for not feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, or giving drink to the thirsty? What is that, if not a demand? And why wouldn’t such demands have political implications for all Christians who live in a democracy and can vote?
November 17th, 2008 at 1:11 am
The mandate for the individual is to live ones own life in accordance with Jesus’s teachings. And to CONVINCE others to do so. To COMPEL others to do so is meaningless, and usually counter-productive, since those compelled to behave in ways they wish not to will be resentful and resistant to ever voluntarily taking up the practice of the religion.
Render unto…
Sounds pretty SoCaS to me.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:13 am
“Were it not for the social issues, a good number of SoCons would be voting Democrat. Yes.”
I agree – they voted Democratic in the past until Reagan reached out to them. And a lot still do vote Democratic.
“Is there something wrong with federalism?”
No, but you’re talking about national elections. If the argument is that social issues belong on the state level then why not vote for Obama if you are primarily a social issues voter?
November 17th, 2008 at 1:14 am
MWS (67),
I think then we probably agree on the solution, which requires the pro-life movement and the party to change approaches as to how to fight the culture wars, so to speak. What we need to do is support leaders who can take this approach, if the pro-life movement is to go ahead and demarginalize itself, and break with leaders who are unwilling to go through a bit of give-and-take.
I know he’s probably not the one we want to look to as an example, but Obama, despite his extreme pro-choice views, took the right approach simply by being considerate to the other side of the dialogue. He was certainly not viewed as an extremist, and while people knew he was pro-choice, to no one was he a pro-choice zealot. He kept his ideology in perspective and people were more open to it as a result.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Were it not for Republicans being a pro-life party I wouldn’t vote or be involved in politics.
The current Republican compromise position on abortion is as moderate as I will accept.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:17 am
“So why does He condemn the “goats” for not feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, or giving drink to the thirsty? What is that, if not a demand? And why wouldn’t such demands have political implications for all Christians who live in a democracy and can vote?”
His point is that we are all goats and can’t do anything to change that. It’s not a call to political action simply because, in relation to salvation, ANY action would be futile.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:21 am
No, but you’re talking about national elections. If the argument is that social issues belong on the state level then why not vote for Obama if you are primarily a social issues voter?
Judges.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Alex,
While I agree with some of your conclusions, you misuse the numbers a bit in faulty arguments. Other than the exit polls, you have no evidence to support you assertion that gay marriage is a foregone conclusion in the future. As others have pointed out, you don’t know how the youth of today will vote tomorrow. When gay marriage bans start losing, then you can bring out that argument and dust it off. Your comment about minorities helping pass prop 8 is absurd. I fail to see how that hurts social conservatives. That just means we have a wedge issue with minorities since they supported it overwhelmingly. It can only help in our fight to get support from them.
In section two you trot out the exit polls to help your claim that the religious right is shrinking. Unfortunately, that claim conflicts with the realities of the election as well as the previous two. Everyone knows that religious conservatives turned out in larger numbers for George Bush. The exit polls also show that this same group did not turn out for McCain. The most logical explanation would be to compare the aforementioned candidates not the voters. You can do that.
Not all social issues are the same and you can’t lump all together. California helped demonstrate that.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:27 am
I don’t see an explicit Christian political mandate anywhere in the Bible. As we possess authority (as Christian voters) we have a responsibility to use that authority with wisdom and justice.
I support policies consistent with my values. My political values aren’t specifically Christian or religious. I’ve known secular agnostics with identical political values to my own.
It is natural to me that Christians fall all over the political spectrum and unify on very few issues. Christianity is at its heart a non-political religion with little to say about government but a lot to say about the moral law, grace and justification.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:28 am
While I agree with some of your conclusions, you misuse the numbers a bit in faulty arguments. Other than the exit polls, you have no evidence to support you assertion that gay marriage is a foregone conclusion in the future. As others have pointed out, you don’t know how the youth of today will vote tomorrow. When gay marriage bans start losing, then you can bring out that argument and dust it off. Your comment about minorities helping pass prop 8 is absurd. I fail to see how that hurts social conservatives.
If your only hope to keep gay marriage illegal is to cross your fingers and hope that a fifth of youth change their minds later on and decide that gays actually don’t deserve what they’ve grown up to believe is true equality, then you’re on some shaky, shaky ground. As more and more youth are educated on how benign homosexuality actually is, how it isn’t a choice, and how the bigotry of the past has led to torturous lives for their teenage peers who have had to keep it a secret, serious homophobia will fade away, as did racism and sexism.
Blacks helped Prop. 8 pass. Absolutely. But we’re not going to win black voters. So the pool of anti-gay voters that religious conservatives can pull from is smaller than it might first appear.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Gay marriage will only be foregone if social conservatives marginalize themselves as with abortion, giving up on persuasion and dialogue, letting liberals take the moral high ground in society as the only ones considerate of the general public interest by protecting “rights” (which in this case IMO are not so), leaving conservatives to play the bitter and imposing factionalists.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:30 am
It is natural to me that Christians fall all over the political spectrum and unify on very few issues. Christianity is at its heart a non-political religion with little to say about government but a lot to say about the moral law, grace and justification.
I’m pretty sure that your views on homosexuality, euthanasia, and abortion would be a little different if you weren’t a hardcore Christian.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Perhaps it is just too difficult for Alex to understand that support for social conservatism does not require religion.
My views on homosexuality, euthanasia and abortion were the mostly the same when I was an atheist.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Let’s see. What did I say again….”When gay marriage bans start losing, then you can bring out that argument and dust it off.” Yep that is what I said. Quit putting on the facade of objectivity in your main post if you’re going to substitute fact and evidence for hopes and desires.
“Blacks helped Prop. 8 pass. Absolutely. But we’re not going to win black voters. So the pool of anti-gay voters that religious conservatives can pull from is smaller than it might first appear.”
I suppose we should give up all together on minorities then….Or maybe we’ll be smart and use the issues we agree on to bolster support among minorities.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Gay marriage will only be foregone if social conservatives marginalize themselves as with abortion, giving up on persuasion and dialogue, letting liberals take the moral high ground in society as the only ones considerate of the general public interest by protecting “rights” (which in this case IMO are not so), leaving conservatives to play the bitter and imposing factionalists.
For most youth in the Northeast and on the coasts, to be against gay marriage makes you a bit of a freak, in my experience. The vast majority of people that know a gay person support gay rights in general, and, as gay people make themselves more visible, it’s going to be impossible to reverse. Few want to deny their son, their friend, their cousin, their best friend’s brother, marriage rights. I have no idea how morality has anything to do with homosexuality.
Perhaps it is just too difficult for Alex to understand that support for social conservatism does not require religion. My views on homosexuality, euthanasia and abortion were the mostly the same when I was an atheist.
The correlations are rather unmistakable. I can’t really, even playing devil’s advocate, think of a legitimate secular argument against gay marriage or the social acceptance of homosexuality.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Let’s see. What did I say again….”When gay marriage bans start losing, then you can bring out that argument and dust it off.” Yep that is what I said. Quit putting on the facade of objectivity in your main post if you’re going to substitute fact and evidence for hopes and desires.
I’m just learning history’s lessons.
I suppose we should give up all together on minorities then….Or maybe we’ll be smart and use the issues we agree on to bolster support among minorities.
Well, that could happen, but it would cause a realignment. Gay marriage alone can’t win blacks. You’d have to put up a Huckabee-style candidate. Then the Democrats could steal voters like me, DaveG, and Aron by putting up a moderate Democrat.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Alex,
Basically what I’m saying is that the Republican party you are calling for seems to ne to be the one that existed before Reagan reached out to SoCons. And that was not a majority party.
Unless you really believe that Obama will pursue such extreme economic policies as to alienate moderates then I don’t see how we win a national election on economic issues. Especially during a crisis when people aren’t interested in having a discussion on economic theory – they want security instead.
Add to this the fact that the mishandling of the Iraq war has severely damaged the credibility of the republican party on national security issues, and I think it would be folly for the party to in any way move away from an emphasis on social issues.
Instead I think we should show how emphasizing traditional values and strengthening families can provide security in dynamic and challenging economic times. This can be done in as secular a way as you wish – and will surely appeal to young people and minorities who know first hand the devastation brought about by the breakdown in family structure.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Basically what I’m saying is that the Republican party you are calling for seems to ne to be the one that existed before Reagan reached out to SoCons. And that was not a majority party.
Reagan was no zealot. He knew how to reach out to so-cons without alienating independents and moderates. He was not a religious rabble-rouser, like Huckabee or Palin.
Unless you really believe that Obama will pursue such extreme economic policies as to alienate moderates then I don’t see how we win a national election on economic issues. Especially during a crisis when people aren’t interested in having a discussion on economic theory – they want security instead.
Not “economic issues.” Competence. Good government. Real ideas and solutions. Small government. Constitutional principles. Federalism. A robust defense. American traditions.
Add to this the fact that the mishandling of the Iraq war has severely damaged the credibility of the republican party on national security issues, and I think it would be folly for the party to in any way move away from an emphasis on social issues.
McCain had a huge edge on national security. If this had been a national security election, we’d have won. Our problem was that it wasn’t one.
Instead I think we should show how emphasizing traditional values and strengthening families can provide security in dynamic and challenging economic times. This can be done in as secular a way as you wish – and will surely appeal to young people and minorities who know first hand the devastation brought about by the breakdown in family structure.
On a platform of what? “Vote against gay marriage to help your family in tough economic times” doesn’t sound like a winning message to me.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Social conservatism + conservative populism + charismatic communication + fiscal discipline
=
victory
November 17th, 2008 at 1:48 am
The correlations are rather unmistakable. I can’t really, even playing devil’s advocate, think of a legitimate secular argument against gay marriage or the social acceptance of homosexuality./
Unless I’m mistaken, a chunk of the Californian electorate bought the secular argument re schools.
I’m just learning history’s lessons.
No, that is sadly untrue. You are projecting your own desires onto the current political and cultural landscape. Your argument is unsound.
Well, that could happen, but it would cause a realignment. Gay marriage alone can’t win blacks. You’d have to put up a Huckabee-style candidate. Then the Democrats could steal voters like me, DaveG, and Aron by putting up a moderate Democrat.
You are quite right; however, blacks won’t consider republicans if we disagree on everything.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Alex,
Yes, “Judges” is a reason for SoCons to vote Republican. But only if you think that the President will not be willing to compromise on judges to further his main agenda.
I think that McCain would have compromised on judges to get support for his foreign policy agenda, for example.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Unless I’m mistaken, a chunk of the Californian electorate bought the secular argument re schools.
?
No, that is sadly untrue. You are projecting your own desires onto the current political and cultural landscape. Your argument is unsound.
I’ll see you in 15 years, when I’m getting married, and then in 30, when people are wondering why on Earth anyone ever opposed it.
Yes, “Judges” is a reason for SoCons to vote Republican. But only if you think that the President will not be willing to compromise on judges to further his main agenda. I think that McCain would have compromised on judges to get support for his foreign policy agenda, for example.
I advocate strict constructionism as a principle that can unite all of the factions of the Republican Party without alienating independents and moderates. Strict adherence to the Constitution gets a thumbs-up from the electorate.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:57 am
“McCain had a huge edge on national security. If this had been a national security election, we’d have won. Our problem was that it wasn’t one.”
He had an edge on national security, but he was still behind even before it became an economic election. The election in 2006 was a national security election – and the republican party lost big.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:59 am
#93, When I was an atheist I opposed the homosexual agenda because it encouraged risky experimentation in family formation and family structure. These structures had evolved in concert with biology over eons and now we were altering them in less than a hundred years? That seemed incredibly irresponsible to me. Our species isn’t good at seeing the negative impacts of tinkering with our fundamental social structures.
If we evolved gradually (over a few hundred years) to accommodate homosexual structures that seemed less risky. Instead were rushing ahead with no concern about the results. In fact the burden of proof was on the status quo, not on the alternatives. It’s as if someone wanted to start fiddling around a nuclear reactor and demanded I give a specific consequence and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or they’d continue fiddling. A bit of a reckless and ignorant attitude to me.
While Ayn Rand didn’t support government restrictions on homosexual behavior, she rejected homosexuality in strong terms. It’s questionable whether she’d have supported same-sex marriage.
My position now is reasoned very differently but the end result isn’t very different.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:00 am
I’ll see you in 15 years, when I’m getting married, and then in 30, when people are wondering why on Earth anyone ever opposed it./
And in the meantime you can continue arguing that your philosophy is the best one, while at the same time pretending to just be reading the numbers. I don’t care if you want gay marriage but try to be intellectually honest at the same time.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Alex statistically speaking you have greater odds of dying in the next 15 years than marrying in the next 15 (even if SSM was legalized tomorrow).
The mortality rate (at each age range) is higher than the marriage rate for homosexuals in every nation that has ever legalized SS unions/marriage in the last 25 years.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:06 am
I’ll see you in 15 years, when I’m getting married, and then in 30, when people are wondering why on Earth anyone ever opposed it.
As long as Bibles are being printed, this will never happen.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:07 am
The mortality rate (at each age range) is higher than the marriage rate for homosexuals in every nation that has ever legalized SS unions/marriage in the last 25 years.
Which only shows the idiotic fallacy of using the mean to show something. Being gay does not inherently make your life expectancy lower.
While Ayn Rand didn’t support government restrictions on homosexual behavior, she rejected homosexuality in strong terms. It’s questionable whether she’d have supported same-sex marriage.
I know you think that I’m some hardline Objectivist, but I am not, although I claim a lot of influence from Ayn Rand. She was truly idiotic on gender/sexuality issues, I must say. She also opposed the idea of a woman president. She was beyond intellectually lazy on gender and sexuality issues.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Alex,
Marriage and family, involving a husband, wife, and the raising of children, are the most valuable traditions in our society, without them you either have chaos and disorganization or some bent dystopia. Thus we cannot justly support anything that promotes the weakening or alteration of that tradition, really we’d be a bit insane to do so with any haste. Perhaps with time gays may be able to establish strong family-oriented traditions, in essence integrate themselves into society better. Until that time, let’s not unnecessarily subsidize something deviating from an important tradition. And it’s not a matter of rights, people need to understand that – gays can vote, can live together, can do anything any other American can. Fighting for equal treatment as human beings is understandable, because its almost always the just thing to do. But considering behaviors equally valuable in the law (ie traditional marriage vs. gay marriage) is a very different game. I’ll consider it once it is proven, and think society would be mistaken to support it out of “moral relativism”, as some might put it.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:10 am
#93, When I was an atheist I opposed the homosexual agenda because it encouraged risky experimentation in family formation and family structure. These structures had evolved in concert with biology over eons and now we were altering them in less than a hundred years? That seemed incredibly irresponsible to me. Our species isn’t good at seeing the negative impacts of tinkering with our fundamental social structures.
Risky experimentation? I would certainly argue that letting single parents raise children is far more radically different than a same-sex marriage based on heterosexual institutions. Do you not realize that gays want to take part in marriage because they admire the framework and don’t want to be left out of it?
If we evolved gradually (over a few hundred years) to accommodate homosexual structures that seemed less risky. Instead were rushing ahead with no concern about the results. In fact the burden of proof was on the status quo, not on the alternatives. It’s as if someone wanted to start fiddling around a nuclear reactor and demanded I give a specific consequence and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or they’d continue fiddling. A bit of a reckless and ignorant attitude to me.
You compare gay relationships to nuclear reactors? I think you have some seriously ill-informed thoughts about homosexuality. All it is is a sexual and emotional attraction to the same sex. There’s no inherent morality (or immorality), lifestyle, or what have you to it.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:11 am
“I advocate strict constructionism as a principle that can unite all of the factions of the Republican Party without alienating independents and moderates”
Won’t the same independents and moderates alienated by a party that supports the federal marriage amendment be alienated by a party that says states can outlaw gay marriage? Or out law abortion?
Won’t talk of “federalism” or “states rights” make this seem even more an echo of the civil rights movement? Especially with an african american president?
November 17th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Alex, Marriage and family, involving a husband, wife, and the raising of children, are the most valuable traditions in our society, without them you either have chaos and disorganization or some bent dystopia.
How does gay marriage alter this system in any way whatsoever? Somehow Massachusetts has managed to not blow up.
Thus we cannot justly support anything that promotes the weakening or alteration of that tradition, really we’d be a bit insane to do so with any haste. Perhaps with time gays may be able to establish strong family-oriented traditions, in essence integrate themselves into society better.
How does it weaken it? If anything, it strengthens it. Gays want to be a part of it because they like the institution. There are a ton of them involved in mock marriages already, but you seem to ignore them.
I’ll consider it once it is proven, and think society would be mistaken to support it out of “moral relativism”, as some might put it.
Do you understand how unimaginably insulted I am as a gay man when you tell me that my relationships are immoral or weaken the institution you cherish?
November 17th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Won’t the same independents and moderates alienated by a party that supports the federal marriage amendment be alienated by a party that says states can outlaw gay marriage? Or out law abortion?
Clearly not, since there are lots of Americans that oppose gay marriage but don’t want it in the Constitution, or realize that there are different attitudes in different states.
Won’t talk of “federalism” or “states rights” make this seem even more an echo of the civil rights movement? Especially with an african american president?
No.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Doug basically summed up my ideas, even better than I could. There comes a point in every society when it has to say “enough is enough” with regards to cultural liberation, and gay marriage at this point is definitely pushing that. Give it some time – if we are going to accept it nationally, it had best be for the correct reasons, not out of some misplaced sympathy.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Alex,
Calm down please, no insult was meant. My point is only that we advocate it for the right reasons, and nothing less.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:27 am
Doug basically summed up my ideas, even better than I could. There comes a point in every society when it has to say “enough is enough” with regards to cultural liberation, and gay marriage at this point is definitely pushing that. Give it some time – if we are going to accept it nationally, it had best be for the correct reasons, not out of some misplaced sympathy.
“My God, it was enough that we finally stopped mocking you fags every time you decided to show up on TV. Now you actually want to collect the same sort of government benefits that we straight people are afforded when we start a family? Hah!”
November 17th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Calm down please, no insult was meant. My point is only that we advocate it for the right reasons, and nothing less.
Except that you oppose it. The right reason is that I’m no less of a human being than you are, that my relationships aren’t any less important than yours, and that if I want to start a family, it should be afforded the same governmental recognition as yours. Keeping gay marriage illegal not only harms gays, but the children that they adopt, love, and care for, just like straights do. Stop paying attention to the morons in the gay pride parades (most gays can’t stand them!) and talk to a gay couple that’s been together for twenty years with two kids, and then walk away and tell me that they’re trying to ruin the institution of marriage.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:44 am
As to weakening marriage, by widely broadening a very, very traditional concept of an immensely valuable social tradition, in any matter, we are on risky ground. Hence I said weakening or altering. That gays can live together is irrelevant, that is a right that not many would question – that this behavior should be sanctioned by the state as good, is the real debate.
Can gay marriage fulfill the same vital roles as traditional marriage? Will advocating it by state sanction weaken the strength of the the tradition by broadening it? I don’t think these questions have been adequately answered (and in honesty I think historical trends point against gay marriage on these questions – broadening traditions usually weakens them and should only occur when it society knows that it is good to do so), something that can only happen with time, and it’d be a mistake for society to take a decision before discovering the truth.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Alex,
People like those you mentioned are the ones, then, who with time can demonstrate otherwise. I do in fact know gay people and am not ignorant to their views, which coincide with yours – I am very mindful of coming off as inconsiderate, because consideration is in fact what I earnestly attempt to give. Once upon a time in my more libertarian days I actually would have agreed with you
I actually would support general civil unions for the reasons you have listed – benefiting and encouraging strong gay unions – while not altering the definition of marriage, reasons for which I have explained above. It boils down to the point that marriage is immensely valuable to society and it is risky business to alter this definition without consideration to the effect that this would have on social behavior (and to this I’m not sold either way, just yet).
November 17th, 2008 at 6:49 am
On what basis can we call Palin a religious populist. I’m racking my brain and the only time I recall her ever talking about religion was in response to reporters asking her about those left-wing fever swamp reports.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I think it would be wise of us to call it ’same sex marriage’, not gay marriage. Why does it matter? Because once people see the economic benefits of doing so, many same sex people who are not gay will want to jump on the bandwagon. For example, look at the situation with Social Security. Today, if a wife has stayed home rearing the children and never worked outside the home, she can still draw 1/2 of her husbands benefits (in addition to what he draws) when she becomes of age. Now think about that. How many non-gay people would jump on that bandwagon if they had a chance to bump their income by around a thousand bucks or more? Heck, they wouldn’t even have to live, together, and they could do it in Nevada so no one would even know about it except the Social Security system that would send them a check each month while they sat their laughing. This one of many examples of the economic benefits ’same sexers’ would be able to cash in on.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Another problem is what does that do to the autonomy of a religious institution? What if a religious denomination lost its tax status as a church because some judge deemed that they had no right to refuse to marry a ’same sex’ couple? Many churches would refuse, and many judges would deem their action discriminatory. What if a person lived a really clean life in almost every way other than a gay life style, would that mean that churches are ruled as discriminating if they would disfellowship, or excommunicate them for continuing that life style? Would a church possibly be force by the courts to allow these people in their most sacred services if they were just ‘gay’ and otherwise righteous? You need to think through or read on line all of what lawyers are believing would be the religious ramifications of this. Once people understand that these things would be in jeopardy, I don’t think they would believe we need to change the meaning of marriage after 6,000 years.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:03 am
[...] latest post the political viability of religious conservatism is a tad [...]
November 17th, 2008 at 9:06 am
I think it would be wise of us to call it ’same sex marriage’, not gay marriage. Why does it matter? Because once people see the economic benefits of doing so, many same sex people who are not gay will want to jump on the bandwagon. For example, look at the situation with Social Security. Today, if a wife has stayed home rearing the children and never worked outside the home, she can still draw 1/2 of her husbands benefits (in addition to what he draws) when she becomes of age. Now think about that. How many non-gay people would jump on that bandwagon if they had a chance to bump their income by around a thousand bucks or more?
Do you realize that this same exact argument applies to opposite-sex marriage?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Yes! Even if the phenomena didn’t occur, just the introduction of the gays themselves as recipients of social security would finish off breaking the system. Mothers are given that right for one reason. They are presumed to be staying home producing and rearing those who will support the Social Security system. Gays can’t do that. But the courts will still rule it as disciminatory if those benefits are not being paid to the ’same sex marriage’ people.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:18 am
120
“What if a religious denomination lost its tax status as a church because some judge deemed that they had no right to refuse to marry a ’same sex’ couple? Many churches would refuse, and many judges would deem their action discriminatory.”
That is patently absurd. No judge anywhere in the country would find that discriminatory. To do so would blatently violate the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. You are grossly and dishonestly fearmongering. Churches can marry whomever they want. Church marriages are not the same as civil marriage. Local governments make arrangements with clergy (and often with regular citizens as well) to authorize them to perform a civil marriage simultaneously with a religious marriage – but that too is a voluntary thing on the part of a clergyman. They are not obliged under law to marry anyone.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Why oh why did we let Alex back on the site? He’s just a young punk with a big head.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:05 am
#124 – I guess we should just accept the opinion of a troll and move on to other topics. Regardless of what your opinion is, many, many lawyers are believing that religious autonomy is very much in jeapardy, maybe not immediately, but down the path away. Look what is happening as a result of the LDS support of Prop. 8 in California….lots of people looking for ways to take away their rights as a church, even though the issue was very much a religiously based issue, and even though the church itself did not give money directly to the cause for passage.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Alex would love to see another conservative fight, and allow another candidate weak on social issues to sneak through, like a Crist, for example.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:46 am
#5, #….that being said, as a committed Catholic, I’d rather go down fighting for the truth.#
you know, the term “catholic” means “all emcompassing” in an integrative and not excluding sense. This is why mainstream catholicism is never fundamentalist or fanatic. Now, we get to see factions, wings and you name it, and very often they like to fight each other, because they are commtitted to their interpretation of the “truth”. More often than in catholicism, you find this among the evangelical denominations.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Alex would love to see another conservative fight, and allow another candidate weak on social issues to sneak through, like a Crist, for example.
How was McCain weak on social issues? He fought for the anti-gay marriage amendment in his homestate, said that he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, and swore to appoint strict constructionist judges.
I support Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, and Bobby Jindal right now — all of them are staunch so-cons. Don’t be absurd.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
If you need to ask what was wrong with McCain, you have your answer.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Homosexuality is not bilogical, so it shouldn’t be lumped in with other minorities that are biology-based (ethnicity, gender). I can’t believe that the hundreds of millions of dollars that were spent to prove homosexuality was biological is going for naught just because it produced the opposite answer. People, the research has told us that it is a psychological condition. As more and more professionals look at it this way, real progress can be made for thos who have been afflicted.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
It tells us the exact opposite. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM for this reason.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Lara, you are a liar. Why do you do that?
November 18th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I am surprised what issues the new guard of Republicans are prioritizing on this website. It is remarkable that nothing more important seems to have happened during the past couple of weeks.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
[...] In the past week here on Race42012, we had quite an intense discussion about something called “religious conservatism”. (See here and here) [...]
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 am
[...] the merits and facts behind religious and social conservatism. Here… And [...]
November 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
[...] doesn’t have much, according to Alex Knepper in this post from another blog, date about two weeks ago. I particularly liked the Tenth Amendment point (towards the [...]
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 am
[...] Remember those white evangelicals that Dreher says are the “backbone” of the GOP? Well, they are shrinking: In 2000, according to CNN’s exit polls, 42% of voters claimed to attend church on a weekly [...]
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
[...] Remember those white evangelicals that Dreher says are the “backbone” of the GOP? Well, they are shrinking: In 2000, according to CNN’s exit polls, 42% of voters claimed to attend church on a weekly [...]