Dr. Dobson, I'd like you to meet Irrelevance. Irrelevance, this is Dr. Dobson. I'll leave you two alone now, to get better acquainted.
The religious right has decided to consider backing a 3rd party (Constitution Party, anyone?) candidate if the GOP nominates a pro-choice candidate, specifically Giuliani. While that would be a disaster for the GOP, leaving them without their foot-soldiers for their campaigns, it would be the death nail for a cohesive and corporate-structured religious right.
What Dobson, and people like him (Richard Viguerie, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins) don't seem to understand, is that their power over people of faith is relative only to that power's usefulness. As long as they were able to keep the "moral values" voters in check, dutifully serving the GOP's machine, they were helpful in separating the GOP from their foot soldiers' ideology. That provided them with plausible deniability over their perceived ties to the religious right, allowing them to remain attractive to self-serving agnostic yuppies.
But in the absence of such a purpose, as would be the case with 22% of voters back in play, you will be irrelevant. In fact, you will become a target, yourselves, as the payoff for taking you down, no longer men of faith, but men of politics, would be your supporters being free to think for themselves again.
Here's what this Giuliani battle is really over; the leaders of the religious right see their power slipping away. The "moral values" voters see that they've been used, and feel abandoned. The GOP had the power to end abortion, to roll back gay rights 25 years, and to push the social agenda of the religious right to ridiculous ends in 2005 and 2006. But they didn't, and the reason for that is simple. When they had the power the religious right gave them, controlling all three branches of government, they had other priorities. That wasn't a mistake, it was a rare illustration of the GOP's true character. Dobson and Perkins are mistaken if they think the way to keep that power is to put their voters back in play.
Today, Tony Perkins got the first indication of what post-GOP life would be like for him. Chris Matthews, with a terrific target-of-opportunity in Giuliani's boy Congressman Peter King (R-NY), chose instead to lay into Perkins for the "pro-abortion" lingo that's been used for ages. If you go out into the third party wilderness, Tony, don't expect anyone to lay off of you any more. At that point, you are political prey with a lot of supporters other people will be happy to take from you.
Consider this fair warning.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"their power over people of faith is relative only to that power's usefulness. As long as they were able to keep the "moral values" voters in check, dutifully serving the GOP's machine, they were helpful in separating the GOP from their foot soldiers' ideology."
Let's make this the base phrase:
As long as they keep the _____ voters in check, dutifully serving the ____ machine, they are helpful in separating the ____ from their foot soldiers' ideology.
Which party could fill these blanks the most??
I'd argue Democrats. Put the Dems as the 2nd and 3rd blanks.
The _____ voters could then be:
gay
feminist
environmentalist
blacks/minority
Jewish
pro-abortion
anti-war
These "foot-soldiers" of the democrats would have plenty of trouble if any of them could separate their "cause" from the rest of the Democratic party platform. Hence why the Democrats try hard to keep every group in check. Can't be a feminist if you're conservative because feminists link themselves to liberals and turn away prominent females who have done much to advance female's status and perceptions in society (Kay Baily Hutchison comes to mind). Their bloodline is maintaining the bogus link that one doesn't support women's rights if they are conservative. Same is true for other voting blocks. Democrats have to continuously harp on racism and class warfare struggles to keep voting blocks from running due to the party's support of values such as homosexuality and pro-abortion. Heaven help the Democrats if these voting blocks every start voting on political ideology rather than solely on their "cause."
While I think a few of those are generalized a little more than I'm comfortable with, you're right.
The Democratic party has been, for years, Hollywood and New York money back reactionary responses to social issues. That's why they haven't been competitive in the South and Midwest for so long.
But that extends the Republicans as well. They've been corporate money backing the opposition to those social issues, and have needed the religious right to do so.
Voters of faith, just like all of those other segments you've listed, have been manipulated away from their own best interests to help focus on winning elections for the pro-corporate GOP.
If Perkins, Viguerie, or Dobson want to keep their power, they have to do it within the GOP. Otherwise, these people will be able to vote for hope, rather than whatever Ralph Reed told them they should instead.
The best interests of voters of faith is away from the GOP?
Isn't it the GOP that supports tax breaks to religious charities?
Aren't liberals the ones trying to remove any and all connection of God and the government? (even when it relates to charitable issues)
Did liberal democrats or members of the GOP censor the student who thanked God during her valedictorian speech? Such a speech has nothing to do with the government establishing a national religion.
You see Mr. Mule, the separation of church and state doesn't mean that private citizens lose their right to practice their religion whenever they enter a public building or attend a public ceremony (such as a school graduation). Yet it is liberals and orgs like the ACLU that favor and support this skewed, twisted interpretation of freedom of religion and no establishment of a national religion.
Voters of faith should vote for the party that is trying to keep them from being able just to GIVE THANKS to their God???
Manipulated away from their own best interested?!?! As John Wayne would've said, "not hardly."
Let’s not forget that it was LBJ, a Democrat, who pushed tax-exemption for churches. To assume that either party has a monopoly on morality, simply based on their rhetoric, would prove wrong. And Republicans are in favor of ALL tax cuts, as long as they can hide a little something for the very rich in there, so that’s not a very big show of support on their part. And charities don't need tax breaks, they're exempt (do you mean write-offs for contributions?).
I think the best condition for any voting block is to be free and able to think for themselves, and decide for themselves what their priorities are, rather than having them dictated to them by appointed hacks who seek retribution against dissenters.
The Democrats are wrong on many of those positions pertaining to religion, but have become so partly (I stress partly, it’s been a shared failure) because these issues have been tied by the corporate leadership of the religious right to other issues. It’s possible to be opposed to neither school prayer nor civil unions for gays. It’s possible to be opposed to abortion and in favor of contraception. It’s possible to be all of these things as a matter of faith, because I am. But this is not a plausible discussion as long as two sides accuse each other of being “immoral scum” or “religious nut-jobs”.
A dialogue between “social liberals” and “morality voters” (coined for the block of 22% that cited moral values as their most important issue in 2004) is not out of the realm of possibility, but neither side can be represented at the table by people who are more inclined to burn the house down than share it. The Perkins’, Dobson’s, and Robertson’s are agents (in this case, someone who controls and motivates their followers for someone else) of the Republican establishment, just as much as Cecile Richards and Michael Moore act as agents for the Democrats. In the end, it’s about controlling a voting block for the party by using hot-button issues that aren’t necessarily representative of that block’s true interests.
The question, however, has to be whether the freedom of the voting block to protect its identity (religious freedoms) are more important, or is codification of Christian morality more important to them? And, is the answer different for them as a block from as a majority of individual voters?
Compelling response Mr. Mule. I agree 100% with: "It’s possible to be opposed to neither school prayer nor civil unions for gays. It’s possible to be opposed to abortion and in favor of contraception." Those are the exact the positions I would take as well.
However, while using "hot-button issues that aren’t necessarily representative of that block’s true interests" is a fine point, it doesn't apply here, as I think you're mistaken that for many religious voters they end up voting against their true interests. I would argue the opposite, that their true interests are very much in line with voting for the GOP.
Sadly, the Democratic party has become so influenced by these singular issue voting blocks that in courting the extreme secular liberals, they've gone beyond just balancing religion and society. Instead if one opposes abortion for faith based reasons, the liberals accuse them of being intolerant bigots. Just look at public schools. Observe the "holiday season" (the liberal push to eliminate it as the "Christmas season." The attacks on practicing Christianity in the public sphere is coming nearly entirely from the Left. The voters of faith on the right realizes the threat the secularists on the left pose.
How would voting for the Democrats be in their best interest?
And I'm not saying all voters of faith have to be conservative republicans. But you say this voting block has "been manipulated away from their own best interests to help focus on winning elections for the pro-corporate GOP." I say they are voting very much in their best interest.
Oh, I'll call it now. Giuliani will get the GOP nomination. These "voters of faith" will NOT vote for a 3rd party. Why? Because they will realize ON THEIR OWN (by evidence of what liberals have done the past 40+ years in terms of religion) that the GOP best suits their BEST interests.
Thanks for the posts Panda. I'm gonna try and cry my Cubbies to a rally here, and if that doesn't work I might throw things. I don't want it to be the laptop :)
So I'm going to set this aside for the night and return to it tomorrow with a full post on the topic you've brought up. I'll post a link in the comments so you get it and we can continue whenever you have time. Thanks.
I have a full next two days, but I'll try to take a look at it tomorrow. Can't promise I'll have time to unfortunately.
I anticipate you might think I've played the "superior morality" card. I haven't, so you yourself don't need to play that either (you tried to earlier).
Instead of getting into the issue of moral superiority, address in your post how the Democrats would BETTER represent the Religious Right's best interests than the GOP? I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on that.
As your yourself said, as long as the "two sides accuse each other of being “immoral scum” or “religious nut-jobs” this discussion goes nowhere. I haven't intended my argument to be that the "religious right" is superior morally. My point has been that the GOP protects their best interests significantly better than the Dems, and I don't think it takes Dobson, Robertson, etc. for them to realize that. BECAUSE, in your own words: "The Democrats are wrong on many of those positions pertaining to religion." A person who identifies themselves with the "religious right" is going to obviously want the party that they view as right on the issues of religion....the party they view will best protect their religion. And it's extremely unfortunate that in these times, Christianity has to be protected.
Ok, g'night.
Post a Comment