Let me begin this post with a disclaimer. I am alive and well here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I have not abandoned the site nor my loyal fans (all three of them) nor my ornery yet lovable critics. My posting has been light, if not non-existent, due to a number of factors, not the least of which being my need to detox from politics after the last three years. Also, quite frankly, it’s really hard for a guy like me to get excited about the race for 2012 right now, especially since I feel increasingly alienated from the Republican Party and, while I know I’m not a Democrat, it feels somewhat liberating to be able to stop apologizing for policies I never advocated and for things I don’t believe in. It’s nice to be able to step back and call both parties on their crap, opining that while Republicans got what they deserved last November, President-elect Obama certainly doesn’t deserve to be deified before he actually signs a single piece of legislation or gets a single Executive Branch nominee through the Senate or takes the freakin’ Oath of Office.
Onto the subject of the post. I think we can all agree that Gov. Sarah Palin and her family ought to be congratulated on the new addition to her family: her first grandchild. But for secular folks who attempted to participate in Republican politics this past election season, this news brings with it the memories of old wounds. When Bristol Palin’s pregnancy was revealed to the nation last summer, many right-of-center pundits, including Yours Truly, reacted with something less than boundless enthusiasm at the news. Many of us were concerned with what this said about Gov. Palin’s worldview, especially concerning contraception, gender equality, and the like. The response from the Republican base was short and sweet: anyone who questioned either Gov. Palin’s most recent pregnancy or Bristol Palin’s pregnancy was a godless heathen who hated the Palins because they refrain from killing their children.
But this couldn’t be farther from the truth. I can’t imagine that more than a handful of Americans could be found who believe that the two most recent additions to the Palin family should have been extinguished before they took their respective first breaths. There are probably plenty of Americans who feel that the Palin women should have been legally allowed to terminate their respective pregnancies had they chosen to do so, but I can’t imagine that anyone, particularly anyone open to voting Republican, hates Gov. Palin because she and her daughter didn’t kill their babies. That’s not what this is about. This is about the refusal of the religious Republican base to acknowledge that secular Americans have developed a values system that works as well, if not better, than their own. That admission, you see, would force them to question their entire worldview. Which is why it’s easier just to believe that Palin skeptics hate babies.
One of the most interesting things about the Bristol debate in the summer and fall was that those of us who don’t believe that there’s any evidence that whatever deity may or may not exist has a problem with premarital sex or making babies out of wedlock were the same folks most harshly admonishing Gov. Palin for her parenting skills, and the young Bristol for her decision-making skills, that led to a baby being created out of wedlock. Strikingly, the individuals who seemed most sympathetic to the Palins’ plight were the very people who believed that God had been displeased by the whole ordeal. But there’s little mystery here. Secularists, who are empirical and who believe that morality and values must be discerned through the application of reason to facts and observations, are often the least tolerant of unplanned pregnancy due to the negative impact it has on the lives of those involved. Those of us who made hay over Bristol’s pregnancy were simply thinking of her, and her boyfriend, and the rest of her family. Will Bristol still be able to go to college? Will she be able to pursue the career of which she has always dreamed? Will she and the child’s father have a happy marriage? Are they even ready for marriage? Can the family afford another member? These are the sorts of questions that we instinctively asked. That doesn’t mean that we wanted Bristol Palin to go out and kill her child. It does mean that we wondered whether Bristol Palin becoming pregnant despite the aforementioned consequences was the result of a worldview held by the Palins that included such things as an opposition to contraception, a belief that higher education wasn’t important for women, etc, beliefs that could and would have an impact on public policy if Sarah Palin at any point became President of the United States.
The religious Republican base, however, imputed the worst motives to secular Americans. Perhaps they should actually look at the divorce rates and illegitimacy rates of Secular America before making such judgments. But they rarely do, because admitting that a coherent, functioning values system can be built on rational decision-making based on self-interest would mean that moral codes derived from revealed truth are unnecessary for a civilized society. Therefore, the success of secularists must be ignored and dismissed as the result of a selfish refusal to follow the divine plan to marry, the use of unnatural contraception, and the presence of abortion mills. Meanwhile, high divorce rates and teen pregnancy are considered the pinnacle of morality, a simple reminder of our flawed nature due to man’s fall.
Politics shouldn’t be about religious beliefs. There always have been, and probably always will be, folks who believe that morality isn’t possible without revealed instruction from a non-human intelligence. That’s their right in a free and pluralistic society. But when Americans who don’t hold such views are basically relegated to the periphery of a party they once identified with and were inclined to vote for, that party doesn’t expand, it contracts. It doesn’t operate from a position of strength and confidence, but from one of weakness and fear. And while Republicans didn’t lose the race for 2008 because of social issues, the key to a Republican comeback most certainly isn’t the continued transformation of the Republican Party into a fundamentalist religious organization. What’s needed is more open dialogue and less name-calling, more conversation and less excommunication.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Hear, hear!
December 29th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I left the party this fall after it became more concerned about cultural demographics and religion than about public policy.
I no longer identify as a Republican to those I meet, but criticize the party just as much as I do the Democratic party.
Republicans, you can’t win without people like me who are to the right of Grover Norquist on economics and of Norman Podhoretz on defense.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Dave,
Many conservatives will read this and think that you’re selectively looking at the facts. I’m going to go ahead and say it — you’re over-reacting, exaggerating, and using confirmation bias to see what you want to see.
- It really seems like you watch a lot of mainstream media, and that you accept what they say you should believe about us religious conservatives. Most of us look at what you just wrote and say, “What is that guy talking about?”
- You appear to have a one-way view of tolerance and compromise. Social/religious/whatever conservatives like me compromise a great deal. We enthusiastically rally around people who have significant differences with us, like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Joe Lieberman. Without wanting to compromise our traditional marriage and pro-life views, we still understand that many Republicans will disagree with us — but we expect them to agree with us that the courts should not impose these views.
Give me a break, Dave, US states have some of the most open and un-checked abortion laws in the world. Do you understand how silly it is for you to tell me to stop talking about abortion, when almost every European country has stricter abortion laws?
We do ask that culturally liberal views not be promoted with our tax dollars (through art, education, media). We’re ignored, and we quietly respond by removing more and more kids from schools each year, even though we’re eating taxpayer dollars that we don’t get back.
- Dave, I’ll just ask — are you an economic conservative/libertarian? Because if you’re not, then you should look at the Democratic party.
- What you claim to evidently be — the Giuliani; economic conservative, social liberal/libertarian — almost does not exist. In almost any state capitol, and certainly in Washington, it is far easier to find a pro-life person than a true fiscal conservative. It is the wasteful “Chamber of Commerce, pro-business Republican” that, more than any other type of Republican, led us into the minority. These people oppose school choice, oppose consitutional limitations on taxation/spending, and generally oppose any meaningful reform in government.
- Here’s the reality, Dave, and it’s not going to change in your lifetime — most Americans are religious, most Republicans are religious, and many of them are very religious. Are they perfect, always nice, hypocritical at times — sure. But all in all, they’re decent people. And they happen to believe in things in a very strong way. There is nothing wrong that.
- You call for “less name-calling” while you state that I’m declaring war on you. Whatever.
Really, Dave, I hope you’re more reasonable than you appear to be in this latest article. If you are, I will clearly state — I am a religious conservative, and I do not care if you are pro-life, anti-gay marriage in order for you to be a Republican. But I expect you to show just as much tolerance as you endlessly complain about me giving you.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I like the fact that the baby’s name has the last name of the father and no hyphen. This projects a very traditional and culturally conservative understanding of relationships and could be appealing for potential 2012 Palin voters and values voters in general.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
JA Pruce – oh brother.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Count me among your fans, DaveG
December 29th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
“This is about the refusal of the religious Republican base to acknowledge that secular Americans have developed a values system that works as well, if not better, than their own.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/61_say_life_in_u_s_would_be_better_if_more_lived_as_christians
Second, what evidence can you present that the values system of “secular Americans” works as well as, or better than, that of those with a strong faith?
December 29th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
#3 — “What you claim to evidently be — the Giuliani; economic conservative, social liberal/libertarian — almost does not exist.”
Oh yes it does, and there are a lot more who think this way than you probably care to admit. I don’t consider myself a “social liberal” per se; I do consider myself a conservative of a decidedly libertarian bent. A limited-government, economic and national security conservative who believes that politics and political parties are not about promoting religion and theology; that government and politicians should stay out of peoples personal lives. There are a lot who agree with this framework.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
#3 — “Here’s the reality, Dave, and it’s not going to change in your lifetime — most Americans are religious, most Republicans are religious, and many of them are very religious.”
It is not about being religious v anti-religious or non-religious, it is about the proper role of a political party v that of a church. I consider myself religious, of quiet faith, but I do not believe that politicians and political parties (least of all the Republican Party which is supposed to be about individual liberty and freedom of choice) should be trying to supervise our personal lives including our relationship to God. That’s what this debate is really about.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
…and I have to say, I see far more hostility coming from the left of the party than from the right, more from the secular libertarians than from the religious conservatives…
December 29th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
DaveG, I align closely with your views as well, even though I’m personally very conservative socially (like you, though, I don’t believe that inserting my religiously-based morality into politics is right).
I don’t call myself Republican, and haven’t for some time. I avoid labeling myself Libertarian as well.
I’ve been looking for a political home, and it’s definitely not with any fiscally liberal party.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Most Americans are going to vote based on their personal beliefs, most of those are going to come from their personal values, and most of those are going to come from a person’s upbringing – including, in large part, their religious beliefs.
===
As for trying to “supervise personal lives” – well, that another issue that we can talk about, but as I’ve explained many times, I do not believe that liberal social policy will permit the survival of conservative economic policy.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
MatthewK
I see far more hostility coming from the left of the party than from the right
I see far more intolerance, bigotry, and my-way-or-the-highway attitude from the right of the party than from the left
December 29th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
What’s needed is more open dialogue and less name-calling, more conversation and less excommunication.
How about just more condescending posts like this one…
December 29th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“I see far more intolerance, bigotry, and my-way-or-the-highway attitude from the right of the party than from the left”
Intolerance of what? Gay Marraige? Abortion? Things that we view as wrong, sinful, or damaging to the country? Of course – as people of strong religious faith and a firm commitment to out values, we have a clear belief in a definite right and a definite wrong.
But as for the “my way or the highway” attitude – how many social conservatives want ficons to be booted from the party? Not many. How many of the die-hard libertarian capitalists want to throw social conservatism – and its clear sense of a public morality out? Quite a few.
And I have to admit, the hostility that I’ve seen from those like Metro and Alex has damaged my dedication to the no-questions-asked capitalism that they support.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Michael Barone said that the left hates Palin because she didn’t abort her child.
That about sums up the disconnect.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
There always have been, and probably always will be, folks who believe that morality isn’t possible without revealed instruction from a non-human intelligence
Load of crap. No one (at least that I know) thinks unreligous people can’t be moral. They just think Religion helps them live to a higher morality.
It’s funny how some of the most un-religious aare the most Black and White thinkers.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
And I have to admit, the hostility that I’ve seen from those like Metro and Alex has damaged my dedication to the no-questions-asked capitalism that they support.
You call me someone who supports infanticide and does not support morality or virtue, say that my love “defiles” the institution of marriage, and then you turn around and call me hostile? Don’t make me laugh.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
It’s funny how some of the most un-religious aare the most Black and White thinkers.
I am proudly black-and-white in my morality, and much of what I value is the same as what social conservatives claim to.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I wouldn’t go that far – but I do think that Palin’s traditional values, personal morals, etc. – are a big part of the reason the left can’t stand her.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
#14 – Your comment tends to validate DaveG’s point, Adam. I see nothing condescending about his post. I find it interesting that some who post and or comment on this site tend to suggest that anyone who does not buy into the Evangelical Christian Right political agenda is not a legitimate conservative or Republican, other issues not withstanding. Yet, ANY critique of the conflation of Republican political activity with Evangelical religious activity is met with sharp denunciations or ridicule in some way. DaveG is correct—we need more open dialogue and conversation, and less name-calling.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
If you disagree with him, you’re being condescending, Chris L.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I’ve said this before vis-a-vis secularism/religion, but I guess I’ll mention it again. The affluent, the educated, the worldly, etc can take from the Christian tradition, those things that are necessary for the maintenance of order, while leaving the more constraining aspects. But, they’re still, directly or indirectly, relying on mores, traditions, ideas, that evolved out of Christian history. The less affluent, less educated, etc, don’t have that option, and thus the social order breaks down when they adopt the values of the elites. So conservatives aren’t simply, as you say, “refusing to accept” that secularism can lead to moral order. They genuinely believe, and with good reason I think, that secularism is more likely to descend into chaos, and that to the extent that it doesn’t in modern society, it’s constrained by lingering influences of Christianity and by extraneous factors that lead to order (wealth, education, and on down the list).
That’s all I have to say on that particular point. I’m a little puzzled by the rest of your post. I won’t pretend that parents can’t influence children, or that the bad choices a child makes can be entirely divorced from her environment. But, I’m only 4 years older then Bristol Palin, and I know firsthand how ludicrously difficult it is to teach a teenager anything of value. You’re almost reduced to “do what you want, when you want, but do it safely”, which effectively means they’ll do what they want, and maybe do it safely, or “try to follow this moral code” in which case, they might do what they want, and probably won’t do it safely. There are no easy solutions for “good”, but stretched parents, and the person who high-mindedly belittles Governor Palin’s situation, on the assumption that it reflects her “redneck” values, is doing the whole business a disservice.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
“and much of what I value is the same as what social conservatives claim to.”
Then why are you so opposed to their wing of the party?
December 29th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Then why are you so opposed to their wing of the party?
Because honor, cultural confidence, and virtue can’t be imposed by the fist of the government.
Social conservatism today is a parody of what cultural conservatism should be about. The bizarre crusades to stop The Evil Homosexual and the Baby Killers is what has turned the Republican Party into the Stupid Party in the eyes of too many voters. I’d love to be active in a cultural campaign to promote honor, dignity, and virtue, but, well, the people who all pretend to support it are too busy bashing my sexuality. It’s really quite the farce.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Because honor, cultural confidence, and virtue can’t be imposed by the first of the government, nor is that what the current social conservative wing fighting for.**
December 29th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
#17 – Jason. Re-read your quote from DaveG’s posting. He is not stating the opinion you attribute to him; he is saying that some believe that morality isn’t possible without revealed instruction from non-human intelligence. And he is correct. Some people (not all) do believe that.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
There should be a compromise between the secularists and the religious right. A detente of sorts. Secularists should agree that the Religious Right is not going anywhere and is fact “the third-leg” in the stool of the Republican Party and Republicans who are of the Religious Right are not worth less then secularists.
The Religious Right should accept secularists in the party like many of them have accepted Mayor Giuliani, and they should not try and purge the GOP of those who aren’t necessarily affiliated with the Religious Right.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
One of the things that can smooth over the various differences, factions and schisms within the Party is for the GOP to embrace ecumenicalism and a new united religious faith.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:02 am
JA Pruce, are you a troll?
December 30th, 2008 at 12:03 am
On a somewhat lighter note, consider this: Both major political parties can now be accurately described as “Social Democrat” (big spending, soon to be big inflation, redistributionist) on economic issues, and they are both very “Wilsonian” on foreign policy issues (one tends to want to use the military more often and the other tends to want to use the UN more often, but they are both Wilsonian). So, by the next election cycle the only difference will be….
A Republican is a Wilsonian Social Democrat who attends church services on Sunday morning.
A Democrat is a Wilsonian Social Democrat who goes to brunch on Sunday morning.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Let me just say that I’m fully with DaveG on the need to avoid kicking the secularists out of the party. The only people I’ve ever advocated kicking out the party, in a fit of rage (though I’m still not too happy with them), are the elitists who thought they could diagnose everything about Governor Palin’s sociological condition, her moral worth, her capacity to improve as individual and absorb new information as time passes, by a few lousy interviews, a glance at her degree, and a whisper of non-Brahmin accent; i.e, those people who think that not only wasn’t Governor Palin not ready in 2008, but that she’s just a silly broad, fundamentally incapable of becoming ready, who ought to go back to hunting moose so we don’t have to hear from her. That’s doesn’t describe everyone who has criticized Palin, thank God, but it describes a disconcertingly high percentage of that group. And be they secular or religious, I confess that I wouldn’t mind seeing the back of them. Oh, and I DESPISE calls for “dialogue and understanding”. Whenever someone says that, you can be sure of three things: 1.) They’re trapped in the liberal net of phraseology, 2.) They really want you to understand them, not the other way around, and 3.) They’re advocating a Utopian policy/idea, useful only in the world of ideas.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:10 am
On a somewhat lighter note, consider this: Both major political parties can now be accurately described as “Social Democrat” (big spending, soon to be big inflation, redistributionist) on economic issues, and they are both very “Wilsonian” on foreign policy issues (one tends to want to use the military more often and the other tends to want to use the UN more often, but they are both Wilsonian). So, by the next election cycle the only difference will be….
People sorely misunderstand what Wilsonianism is. Wilsonianism is liberal internationalism, making the world safe for democracy — through institutions. Neoconservatism is nothing like Wilsonianism, except in its embrace of morals in foreign policy. Neoconservatives believe in using power, rather than paper; the military, rather than useless diplomacy with tyrants.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:22 am
#30,
Alex, your comment illustrates some of what ails our Party. You and I probably agree 95% of the time, but for whatever reason, my open-mindedness to a Palin candidacy in 2012 has caused a schism between us. We need to rejoice in our agreements, not squabble any time we fail to see eye to eye on some philosophical adiophora or another. Truce, brother.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:27 am
No, you said that the GOP needs to embrace a nationalist religion. What the — ?
December 30th, 2008 at 12:32 am
#35,
Ecumenicalism. A national faith based on patriotism and love of country, not unlike what the founding Fathers advocated. Not an establishment of religion but an acknowledgment of all religions under the secular banner of the U.S. flag.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:34 am
#31 – Alex, I’ll stand by my description. Note that I did not use the neocon label; rather, I acknowledged the military v the UN proclivities as a subset of Wilsonianism.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:36 am
#36:
That view is completely incompatible with the Catholic Church. The Church is the Universal Church and any attempt to place religious authority anywhere but the Vatican is against the Church.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:49 am
But Chris, how is the Republican Party “Wilsonian”?
December 30th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Dave G:
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have no ill will against the Palin family, but if you are objective, you have to admit that all of our fellow countrymen are as charitable. I understand the fact that your side does not agree with social conservatism, but your side makes us shake our heads when you try to ignore the fact that Mrs. Palin is also a fiscal and security Conservative. That is in part why many of us are begining to doubt the sincerity of FiCons.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Look man. You keep doing this. Palin has not shown that she is a “security conservative” – at all. She hasn’t been on the scene long enough and was far from hawkish on Iraq recently. She was just more of a so-con asking about “God’s will” realting to Iraq and I suspect that THAT is what you like about her. Where else can Palin claim “security con” street cred? I’m not saying she’s not that way but you can’t keep claiming such a thing as gospel truth without evidence.
On the fiscal conservatism – Alaska is a special case. It’s not like the lower 48. She has a mixed record on that. The best you can say is “not applicable”.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Reading DaveG’s post and many of the comments here:
Why is it apparently desirable to be a “secularist”? Whatever it is, it seems to make “secularists” holier than thou.
Organized religion gets on my nerves. And this superiority complex in the Church of the Enlightened Secularist leaves me no option but to leave that church. Maybe I’ll try animism for a while.
M.E.M. #23: Nicely put.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:52 am
“She was just more of a so-con asking about “God’s will” realting to Iraq” Yes it is all well and good that she seeks GOD’s will, but I for do not pretend to know what GOD’s will is, I do not speak for HIM. I disagree with such people, but many Christians claim that GOD is actually anti-war. I certainly cannot show that Mrs. Palin’s military record is as good as Mrs. Palin’s, but nobody else has a record that good either. I’ll refrain from getting into a contest in comparing Mrs. Palin with everybody single other major candidate, but I do not remember Mrs. Palin calling for an exit plan, I do not recall her trashing American foreign policy at all and I do not remember her claiming that this war is unconstitutional. To be clear, I’m not going to get into a trashing contest with various candidates, but I realy fail to see few other candidates are better than her. Yes, I for one would like her to be a bit more knowledgable about International Affairs, but frankly I wish the other candidates would do the same. If she were not Pro-War, she would have tried to stop her son from joining the military.
I also disgree that her fiscal record is not applicable. Yes, Alaska is not the same as the other 49, but she nevertheless balanced the budget while keeping taxes low. To be sure, she may be lucky and does not deserve all the credit, but few Governors can claim to have the successful fiscal record that she has. Comparing Alaska to another state may be comparing apples to oranges, but both are still fruit.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:02 am
She didn’t say anything about foreign policy because she didn’t know about it. Yet you claim it’s a “fact” that Palin is a “security conservative”. Maybe she is and maybe she isn’t, but it’s hardly a fact – as you claim it is. We don’t know anything about Palin on military matters except that she has been pretty reticent. You can’t claim something as an obvious fact without evidence. And alluding to what other candidates may have said or done doesn’t automatically elevate Palin. Is your position that silence is evidence of conservatism? By that logic, Teri Schiavo is a model conservative.
I don’t mean to be harsh, but it’s pretty clear to me that you are just projecting on to Palin things that you want to see.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:18 am
john thune / jeb bush ticket beats obama and saves us from this mess. get to work to help make this ticket happen
December 30th, 2008 at 9:38 am
#37 – Alex – Wilsonian here is used to describe a state-of-mind or a tendency. The Bush GOP was on a “make the world safe for democracy” type crusade. Take a look at his second Inaugural address. Some neocons are little more than militaristic Wilsonians, some are not. But I still contend that the GOP under Bush has become somewhat Wilsonian albeit with a little less emphasis on international organizations than was Wilson but still very internationalistic, world’s policeman type activity. Now, that could change under future leadership (if there is any); a Pat Buchanan type could emerge. But for the foreseeable future I bet we will have two essentially Wilsonian Social Democrat Parties–one with a religious facade, one with a secular facade.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:56 am
42 – “Why is it apparently desirable to be a “secularist”?”
Because secularism is the fundamental contribution of America to politics. Secularism lies at the heart of what the American system is all about.
Before our revolution, all countries, certainly all European countries, used religion as part of their system of governance – as much a system of social control as anything spiritual. This lead to profound corrruptions of religious institutions (not just the Catholic Church), and also led to severe repression of all those who followed a non-official creed.
Central to our Revolution was the notion of religous freedom – government will not get in the way of any sect, and the insight that to accomplish that, one simply kept the government out of the religion business.
Thats what secularism is. It is a political philosophy – that government should be concerned with basic civil affairs, and leave religion to the free people to pursue for themselves, by their own lights.
Secularism is not a statement of personal belief or non-belief. Anyone from an athiest to the pope could be a secularist – it means simply how you view the government relative to religion.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Dave G,
I think it’s over. I’m with you, but I just don’t see a future for people like us in the GOP. In fact, the only future I see for the GOP that isn’t a shrinking, regional party is if they can embrace the minority voters who are far more socially conservative than their voting records would indicate. Of course, just glancing at this web page or any newspaper is proof enough that the GOP is a long ways away from even acknowledging that they will need minority voters moving forward, but I predict that eventually when the old rednecks who pretend that the “magic negro” is somehow satire are gone it will happen. In this new socially conservative GOP future, I predict that the democrats will become the party of fiscal responsibility and the GOP will become a Mike Huckabee’s Arkansian dream.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Someone needs to explain this to those who are not religious and/or atheist whenever they use the fact that Gov. Palin is religious to leap to the conclusion that she’s a “Christianist,” i.e., a wannabe theocrat. The same holds for conclusions about Mike Huckabee.
All this fear of a burgeoning theocracy arriving on the political right is driven by an ignorant conflation of puritanical Islam with Christianity — an Abrahamic monotheistic religion that rather uniquely accepts the separation of Church and State.
Christianity is not only compatible with “secularism,” it cries out for it.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:29 am
“I’d love to be active in a cultural campaign to promote honor, dignity, and virtue, but, well, the people who all pretend to support it are too busy bashing my sexuality.”
Sexual morality is a huge part of values and morals – now I understand the personal conflict that you have here – but you have to understand the view of social conservatives, who want to promote traditional, heterosexual, procreating marraiges….
====
As for secular Americans, well, I’m not calling for a “war” against them, but in case you haven’t seen, there is a group suing to stop use of the Bible at the innauguration, prayers by a minister, and the use of the phrase “so help me God”
Certainly secularists who accept the important role that faith plays are fine, as are those who recognize the need for a public moral standard – but there are some secularists – like those I mentioned above, and like those who want “under God” out of the pledge, who we need to fight to the last breath.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Figures…these are the types of folks running things in GOP DC circles:
On other topics, David Kuo, who served as deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, disputed the idea that the Bush White House was dominated by religious conservatives and catered to the needs of a religious right voting bloc.
“The reality in the White House is — if you look at the most senior staff — you’re seeing people who aren’t personally religious and have no particular affection for people who are religious-right leaders,” Kuo said.
“In the political affairs shop in particular, you saw a lot of people who just rolled their eyes at … basically every religious-right leader that was out there, because they just found them annoying and insufferable. These guys were pains in the butt who had to be accommodated.”
December 30th, 2008 at 11:58 am
maybe they were – but the Bush WH has still been better for the Socially Conservative agenda than any recent administration that I can think of – even Reagan couldn’t accomplish the things we saw under Bush.
We are realistically only one seat away from overturning Roe – and its likely we’ll be in the same spot in four years. Most states now prohibit Gay Marriage, etc…
December 30th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Look, the facts are this: Many socons were threatening to not vote because Sen McCain was the nominee, DESPITE the fact that he has a very solid socon voting record. That attitude was singularly unhelpful, and only seemed to begin to thaw after Saddleback (because of his absolutely affirmative response on abortion, which anyone who knew his record would have known that would be his response). The freeze was back on at mention of Myr Giuliani and Gov Ridge (despite them not having a bit of impact on the socon agenda from the VP slot). This kind of wishy-washiness is exactly what Reps DID NOT NEED from ANY of the base. This is emblematic of what secular Reps feel is an “assault” on them and their voice (all you secular Reps let me know if I’m off base on that).
To me, that’s an absurd “My way or no way” response, and is a large part of the problem with the GOP. On the flip side, the response by secular Reps is becoming just as bad. Perhaps they think that the tantrum thrown by the socons got them what they wanted (Gov Palin as VP), so they’ll throw their own to get what they want (an end of Gov Palin, Gov Huckabee, and anyone who dares acknowledge their faith publicly). The problem with that is that it’s exactly what the Dems want to see, as it will split the GOP and make an already weak party virtually catatonic. Everyone needs to come back and become realistic about what they are doing and where we need to be headed (I applaud Alex for turning this to issues with his 5 posts on the direction of the GOP).
I know what I’m saying won’t happen today, tomorrow, next week, or even next year. It needs to happen, however, or the GOP is toast until they do.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Major kudos to Matthew Miller’s comments. Comment 23 is so spot on, a perfect reply to Dave G’s post
Regarding 32, I’m not a Palin guy, but I definately think she’s redeemable as a candidate with a lot of room for growth. If she continues to grow as a candidate, I could become anenthusiastic supporter. However, she was uniquely unqualified and undeserving this time around. The fact that she does nothing to enlarge the GOP’s demographics is also a problem going forward, but I love her story and her family.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
“(because of his absolutely affirmative response on abortion, which anyone who knew his record would have known that would be his response).”
In fairness, McCain had previously opposed overturning Roe…
December 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
This was a weird read. Like Robert Bork said, people say you shouldn’t legislate morality but in reality we legislate little else. Secularists are religious. It is just a different kind of religion, depending on who it is.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Sexual morality is a huge part of values and morals – now I understand the personal conflict that you have here – but you have to understand the view of social conservatives, who want to promote traditional, heterosexual, procreating marraiges….
So what is my place, here? What should homosexuals do, in MatthewK’s world?
December 30th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Yeah, this scumbag is a perfect example:
December 30th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Mic, you’re taking him out of context. When he said that he left the party over religion, he meant that he left it because it became too concerned with pushing religion in the public square, a la Huckabee. That does not mean that you shouldn’t take a candidate’s religion into consideration if it has electoral repercussions.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
And again, how despicable!
December 30th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Why didn’t he shut up?
December 30th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Indefensible!
December 30th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
#59 What a simpleminded defense, if somebody’s religion makes them unacceptable to a small portion of the republican party then they are unacceptable. If however their views on religion aren’t acceptable to a large portion of republicans, then the party should bend over backwards for them.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
#59 Besides how is it out of context – it’s on the same page. It is in-fact IN context.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Mic,
You are intentionally ignoring the difference between electability and policy. Please stop.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
eric, you are intentionally ignoring the fact that this guy cried about paying too much attention to religion, while in fact he used religion as a hammer to beat Mitt Romney with.
Please stop.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
And on Huckabee:
December 30th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Look, mic, I have issues with some of the things Metro has said, but I really think it’s not productive to sit around calling him a scumbag and despicable. That’s no way to persuade anyone of anything (and if you’re not here to be persuasive, why are you wasting time here?).
December 30th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Honesty is important. It’s more important to persuade people to be honest, than vote for a certain person.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“One of the most interesting things about the Bristol debate in the summer and fall was that those of us who don’t believe that there’s any evidence that whatever deity may or may not exist has a problem with premarital sex or making babies out of wedlock were the same folks most harshly admonishing Gov. Palin for her parenting skills, and the young Bristol for her decision-making skills, that led to a baby being created out of wedlock. Strikingly, the individuals who seemed most sympathetic to the Palins’ plight were the very people who believed that God had been displeased by the whole ordeal. But there’s little mystery here. Secularists, who are empirical and who believe that morality and values must be discerned through the application of reason to facts and observations, are often the least tolerant of unplanned pregnancy due to the negative impact it has on the lives of those involved. Those of us who made hay over Bristol’s pregnancy were simply thinking of her, and her boyfriend, and the rest of her family. Will Bristol still be able to go to college? Will she be able to pursue the career of which she has always dreamed? Will she and the child’s father have a happy marriage? Are they even ready for marriage? Can the family afford another member? These are the sorts of questions that we instinctively asked. That doesn’t mean that we wanted Bristol Palin to go out and kill her child. It does mean that we wondered whether Bristol Palin becoming pregnant despite the aforementioned consequences was the result of a worldview held by the Palins that included such things as an opposition to contraception, a belief that higher education wasn’t important for women, etc, beliefs that could and would have an impact on public policy if Sarah Palin at any point became President of the United States.”
How about the fact that none of this any of your freaking business. When a cultural liberal makes poor personal decisions like lying and cheating on his wife ( think Rudy) You guys are the first to defend him, and say someone’s personal life is not the public’s business. But if it be a cultural conservative who screws up, or not even that, but their kid, than suddenly its the public’s business. At least you admit that cultural liberals are less tolerant, of people screwing up. Which is rather suprising since I thought tolerance and not judging was supposed to be one of trademarks of cultural liberalism. But instead you condemn a woman who is faced with the consequences of living a culturally liberal lifestyle. You people condemn a woman for following a lifestyle you do not condemn, and those us of who do condemn the action, forgive the woman. There is irony here, but not an irony that favors you. OTOH you have condemning the action, but accepting the person, OTOH you have favoring the action that destroys the person and condemning the injured person.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“So what is my place, here? What should homosexuals do, in MatthewK’s world?”
A couple things:
1) Bounce the leaders of the movement who flaunt their sexuality, who Homosexuality into an activist movement rather than a sexual orientation (either by choice or birth).
2) Accept a compromise. Agree to preserve marriage as being between a man and a woman, and recognize that traditional families are something to be promoted and encouraged. Accept that a different, new institution that would be open to both straight and gay couples that would provide most of the benefits of marriage is the optimal solution.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
As long as we’re on this subject: given that there is nothing anybody can do to stop gay couples from having a marriage ceremony, or calling each other husband or wife, how many people are against some sort of civil union? Providing that it didn’t bestow any sort of adoption or custodial rights, and it didn’t FORCE anybody or any company to bestow upon them the same benefits they might give to married couples.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
1) Bounce the leaders of the movement who flaunt their sexuality, who Homosexuality into an activist movement rather than a sexual orientation (either by choice or birth).
Sorry, but I can’t really stop people from doing what they’re gonna do. How about you accept that they don’t represent people like me, and stop telling me that I need to find some way to make them less visible to your liking before you stop denying me hospital visitation rights based upon the gender of my partner?
2) Accept a compromise. Agree to preserve marriage as being between a man and a woman, and recognize that traditional families are something to be promoted and encouraged. Accept that a different, new institution that would be open to both straight and gay couples that would provide most of the benefits of marriage is the optimal solution.
Yeah, but that ain’t gonna happen.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
MatthewK, your #1 is completely unreasonable, as those like Alex are not part of the militant homosexual movement. I presume your objection is to the ones who march in gay pride parades, showing off their leather chaps and feather boas (among other things).
Alex, what “ain’t gonna happen” concerning #2? Are you going to oppose it, or do you think it wouldn’t be accepted by Republicans? I think that’s the next logical step forward on the road to mainstreaming homosexual unions. It’s precisely because of efforts to redefine marriage too quickly that bans (such as in CA) are being passed.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
We could always have one party for the religiously enlightened and another party for infidels. That way, none of those relatively incidental issues like Capitalism vs. Socialism, whether to have a strong defense and intelligence capability or let the Muslims and/or Communists take over the place, or whether or not to tax the people who are producing until they stop producing get in the way. We could do that. Of course we know that would leave the defense of what’s left of Western Civilization to those who are currently basking in the Light of the Lord…..but hey! It always has been anyway. To any heathens who want to jump ship and join the statists, it’s been good.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
DaveG, I just want to applaud your post. I agree almost 100%.
For those that think the left hated Palin because of her religious beliefs, you’re wrong. The left didn’t hate her, they didn’t trust her to look past her religious beliefs to care about them. The “no abortion for rape” and the “rape victims paid for their rape kits” made every woman I knew angry. They also saw the few interviews she did and did not come away impressed.
I have a friend with a Downs daughter that’s 20. She felt terrible because she couldn’t bring herself to vote for Palin because she didn’t think the woman could be President if something happened to McCain. To quote her, “I really wanted to vote for her because of that sweet baby but I just can’t”.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“…some sort of civil union? Providing that it didn’t bestow any sort of adoption or custodial rights,”
Huh? Why that? Are gay couples to be denied the right to adopt? Why such bigotry?
December 31st, 2008 at 12:18 am
I’ll admit I come from the social conservative side, as well as conservative on the other legs of the stool (see my rankings of issues from several weeks ago). But, I try to be objective and fair. It seems to me social liberals do a lot more complaining about having to put up with the social conservatives in the party than the reverse. I rarely see any social conservatives insinuating that we would like to get rid of those more socially liberal, but the reverse can not be said. Having said that, I think that some of the candidates turn off a large part of the voting public by flaunting their religion than is wise. Mitt Romney showed through his personal life and family that he was very much a man of faith. But, he didn’t attempt to wear it on his sleeve everyday. I believe he felt that living the Christian life is much more important than claiming to be one. All Christian candidates could learn from his example. I believe his speech on faith was very excellent, and put into perspective the historical significance of faith in American politics.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:33 am
Really, DaveG, this is a shallow post. You make a lot of statements about the way the World is and you have no proof to back it up. Such as that secularists have found a way to live that works just as well. Okay, proof, please? Explanation. And as proof of the good will of people on the cultural left, you offer your imagination.
Plus the bottom line is that you’re saying the folks who tore into Sarah Palin personally, suggested that Trig was Sarah’s grandson, and passed judgment on her and her family are the ones being persecuted. Poor you.
Give me a break.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:04 am
Such as that secularists have found a way to live that works just as well. Okay, proof, please? Explanation.
Um. I think I’m living quite well, thank you.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:05 am
Plus the bottom line is that you’re saying the folks who tore into Sarah Palin personally, suggested that Trig was Sarah’s grandson, and passed judgment on her and her family are the ones being persecuted.
Since when have you so-cons had a problem with passing judgment on people’s personal lives?
December 31st, 2008 at 8:57 am
#77 “…some sort of civil union? Providing that it didn’t bestow any sort of adoption or custodial rights,”
Who said that, Tano? I’d like to wholeheartedly disagree with them about that statement.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:58 am
82 – Richard,
Sorry, I should have given the ref…
hrs in #72
December 31st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
#72 – hrs, on what basis would you prevent gay couples from adopting or having custody rights? That’s absurd! The parentless children of this country need a real home more than they need to be kept away from homosexuals. Just because you don’t like homosexuality doesn’t mean you should deprive children of a potential adoptive home they might not otherwise get!
December 31st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
[...] wanted to wish everyone a safe, and happy New Years. Following up on DaveG’s disclaimer, I have not abandoned the site nor my responsibilities to the masses either. I’m just taking [...]
December 31st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
#77, #84
Homosexuals can adopt as much as they see fit from private organization, friends, family, associates, or anybody who sees fit to give them a baby. Besides that, some of them can have babies if they so desire. They don’t need the government to get a baby.
The idea that we need gay partners to adopt masses of children that are longing for adoption is also false. Most adoption agencies have long waiting lists due to the demand for adoption being higher than the supply of babies.
It’s the ultra-liberal viewpoints on gay marriage, and resistance to any compromise that keep civil unions from getting passed. This country isn’t very divided on “gay marriage”.
January 1st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
#86, that sounds much different than what you said in #72. It sounded to me like you were suggesting that gay couples should be banned from consideration for adoptions entirely. I personally think a two-parent household is better than a single-parent household, though I would give preference to a mixed gender couple on the theory that, all other things being equal, a man and woman as parents exposes the child to a more diverse atmosphere than two men or two women. That isn’t to say there aren’t some gay couples I’d prefer to raise children over some man and woman couples (because there are).
January 4th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
[...] G writes: Politics shouldn’t be about religious [...]
January 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
[...] G writes: Politics shouldn’t be about religious [...]