This is a subject which I have thought about for awhile, but the recent comments of Fallwell and Robertson have brought it bact to the front of my thoughts. Would the Conservatives among us, and of course the Republican Party, be better off if we cut ties with the “religious right”? Would we gain enough in moderate votes to make up for this group that polarizes so many against us? Personally, as a conservative, I am tired of making excuses, and apologizing for this group that does not speak for me, yet is so connected to my party by the general public. As much as I hate to politicize(is that a word?) the recent tragedy, Is this our chance to kick these reactionaries out of our party?
I’ve said it before. Two parties are not enough. YES, the Republicans would be better off – and the religious right would be better off – if the relig. right split off and formed a separate party. Probably there are more then two separate parties now confined within each of the “big two”. I don’t see any chance of any splits occuring, however.
{{sigh}} Let’s see. I’m not quite sure if you’re talking just the outrageous extremes, such as Jerry Falwell, etc., or the conservative religious segment of the party. I’ll assume there’s little debate about the former and concentrate on the latter.
My answer? No, the conservative religious segment is a sincere and positive part of the party as a whole. Religion is seldom the problem in fact, it’s the human expression of it. For example, can anyone give an honest refutation of the ten commandments? Does anyone dispute the value of moral imperatives such as these? I doubt it. There is solid value to society in a core set of beliefs regarding all manner of human action and interaction. I prefer it be based on something other than just an individual’s preferences. Arguing that human behavior must be subjective, morally equivalent, non-judgemental, etc., etc., is a way of de-valuing human existence. If there is nothing beyond the here and now, one’s incentive to do good is removed. The one thing religion does clearly, is to indicate that behavior has repurcussions beyond the individual. That should be apparent, and acknowledged, and understood. My few cents. Just so you know.
To make it clearer, I am refering to the more extreme part of the religious right(though drawing a line between rational religious conservatives and the extreme portion could easily get quite sticky). My main point is that I believe we would be better off without such an extreme anti-choice(come on, that’s a more accurate name for most vocal pro-lifers), anti-gay, anti-anything they don’t personally believe in, rhetoric. Wouldn’t it be better if we were more inclusive rather than so vocally exclusive? I believe that pro-life(there i said it), religiously conservative people should be able to voice there opinion, but I object to them hijacking my political party.
Looking over your post again, felt I have to be a little more specific. You mention the ‘polarizing’ nature of the religious conservatives. I submit that is to be expected. Encouraging people to forgo any activity because of unintended consequences is always going to make one unpopular. Arguing freedom without responsibility, or conceding the argument because of the vicious assaults hurled against the ‘fundy’ conservative, does a disservice to the legitimate stance of the religious right. Again, my pov.
I’m afraid that once you let the religious far right into your party, you were doomed. They will not leave if you ask them, and you cannot force them out. The Republican Party has a good share of honorable people that have limits to whatthey will do to stay in power-the religious right have no such limits. If you try to vote them out of any precinct, they will run stealth candidates. If they cannot run stealth candidates, they will lie, cheat, steal and attack any moderate Republican opposing them. Of course, if you try to fight back, you will be attacked, most probably in front of elderly churchgoers, as Satanic liberals. They never believed in the Republican values you grew up with, they merely saw your party as a tool, pretty much they way Pat Buchannan viewed H.Ross Perot’s pet Party.
::raises hand:: I can most certainly dispute the moral value of “thou shalt have no other God before me” and “thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images” and “thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” and “remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy”, as probably can many atheists, agnostics and non-“Big Three” religionists of various sorts.
Maybe you’re right. maybe the “polarizing” IS to be expected. I am simply wondering if there are many political conservatives out there that share my resentment over being grouped with the religious conservatives by default. maybe Hazel is right and the problem lies in our having only two political parties. I have always been a GOP(presidential) supporter because I felt that the president has more effect on economic(and business) issues than social issues. perhaps I am wrong. I’m just tired of having to disagree with my party on so many issues because of what seems to be a smaller part of our party.
As Sad As it makes me, I think I’m starting to agree with Czarcasim about this. The worst part is that I disagree with the democrats on so many issues that in this 2 party system, Where do I go?
I’m hoping this doesn’t lead into another vicious religious argument. Oh well. Here’s my take.
Simply being pro-life is going to immediately gore someone’s ox. No one likes being told that his/her behavior is inconsistent with a basic regard for human life. No one likes to be told that his/her behavior has repurcussions on others, and that these others must be taken into account. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. Doesn’t make it easier to accept. Doesn’t mean that because it’s an uphill battle that one concedes when the volume of the attack becomes deafening. It requires persistence to convince others that society benefits when each one of us contributes in a positive manner. Religion is the support system for those who value more than just the here and now. Religion has its place at the center of an informed citizenry debate. Let’s keep the discussion going.
Hello, my name is Vlad, and I’m a conservative
~crowed response: Hi Vlad~
HT, I know where your coming from. I’ve come to hate using phrases like “social liberal, fiscal conservative” or “left leaning Republican” just to avoid justifying the positions of what George 41 once called the “single chromosome conservatives.” I have however wondered why some libs will try to make us feel responsible for scum like David Duke without feeling any responsibility for scum like Al Sharpton.
When it comes right down to it I really don’t think either of the parties really can represent the views of an individual constituent in an overly significant way. Just look at the union people who find themselves backing such an unliberal idea like more oil drilling in Alaska. Does the fact that they’d get a lot of jobs for their membership mean they suddenly become Republicans?
American politics is not a buffet, to a large extent you can’t just take some of this and some of that and fill your plate with what you want. For the most part you chose menu one or menu two, and don’t expect to get far by asking the server if you can exchange the pabulum for the boiled tripe.
So sure, I voted for Bush, and could likely do it again, not that I agree with everything he says, but because I disagreed with Gore a lot more. The two party system moves in the direction of focus groups and only needs to satisfy a slightly larger group of likely voters than the other party.
This, more than anything makes the best argument for devolving power from Washington back to the states. I think I read something once suggesting that would be the best way to work it, if I recall correctly it was the constitution. Sure the Fed has an important roll, but setting national toilet volume standards might not be it. Instead of establishing a series of one size fits all legislation, designed only to mollify more people than it pisses off, all the while draining money to pay for bureaucrats Georgetown apartments, lets keep the power and the money closer to home where we can affect more directly the important decision making.
Sure, that means one state could become a socialist utopia while another moves only to Adam Smiths invisible hand, but each state can look over it’s shoulder to see what new and innovative programs are working elsewhere and decide *for themselves * what part of those programs to copy.
Gee, progressive and constitutional. Who’da thought.
5-HT, I am so with you on this. What’s a fiscally conservative atheist supposed to do? That’s why I’ve been leaning more and more Libertarian.
Color me naive. For many years I’ve believed that liberals and conservatives had distinct and sincere beliefs contradictory in nature. I also believed that discussion and debate of these differences could lead to understanding and recognition of the inherent value of each side’s stance. I no longer do. Judging by Czarcasm’s pointed response, I reiterate my previous argument. When individuals give no credence to the needs of society, then society, and inevitably individuals suffer. If you can’t argue that without the nasty hyperbole, let’s call it a day.
Believe me, I know. But then I feel like voting libertarian is just helping fiscal liberals. I wrote a letter to the GOP leadership here in Michigan about my concern about their stated goals concerning a social agenda, but since I don’t have enough money to really contribute much more than my vote, i didn’t get a response. ok maybe I’m a little bitter about that. But I still believe that the gov’t that governs least governs best. It’s just getting harder to find canidates in either party that represent that.
Could it be possible that you are mistaking your personal beliefs as being absolutely necessary for the “needs of society”? The crack about those who are not “Pro-Life” not having a basic regard for human life is an example of the polarized thinking that the religious right forced into the Republican Party. You asked if anyone could have a problem with the Ten Commandments, and examples were given. Do you have anything to say about the examples, or are you dismissing them merely because the poster(in your viewpoint) doesn’t have your religious beliefs?
That is one of the major ways the religious right poisoned the Republican Party-when all you see is black and white, you miss most of rainbow that is real life.
Hazel wrote:
You mean like this one?
Yes we especially don’t like hearing this because it
isn’t true. You are begging the question, The disagreement isn’t about regard for life, it’s about at what point it becomes a life.
The notion that humanity begins at conception is a religious conceit. A understanding of biology suggests that humanity comes later in the development of an embryo.
:rolleyes: You should take a few dollars out of your wallet and go buy a clue. Your opinions don’t constitute truth. Hell, they don’t even resemble truth.
I hereby submit NaSultainne’s posts as exibit A of why substituting religion for thought is harmful to the Republican party.
Also, I reject the notion that Republican == Conservative. The leadership of the Republican party, and thus its actual legislative agenda has been controlled by the religious right and corporate interests for the last few years. They have hijacked the language of conservatism, but don’t actually walk the walk.
Well, either party would be better off without its extremist wing, depending on where you draw the line. I don’t think the far right radicals are inherently any more or less wacky or evil than the far left radicals.
Just to let you guys know, I am in the same bind. I don’t think there is a perfect solution. If the race is a foregone conclusion, I vote Libertarian or other 3rd party. If not, I vote Republican, even if I have to hold my nose and vote for a social conservative, as I believe that on balance, the Republicans, for all their warts, are still better than the Democrats.
-
The term “libs” seems to be gaining in use - is that the newer version, for conservative propagandist commentators, of “The Democrat Party”?
-
Re Duke vs. Sharpton: The difference is that the extremist, hateful nuts like Sharpton are not in control of the Democrats or their agenda, while the fundies like Falwell are in control of the Republicans, like it or not. There is no inconsistency in condemning groups that control one party’s agenda and not condemning groups that are ignored by the other party. There especially is no inconsistency in condemning those who continue to adhere to and support the extremist-controlled party while claiming not to be represented by them.
If moderate, thoughtful, principled people who call themselves Republicans don’t like being lumped in with the extremist hate groups, the first thing they have to do is take back control of their party. If that is no longer possible, then the next thing to do is to consider which party more closely represents their interests - a process which includes considering if the other party really stands for what propagandists of either stripe say.
Party affiliation is just a name - principles are constant. Being a moderate myself, I support the party that best represents moderates. In other times and places, that has been the Republicans. Now, it’s the Democrats. And it can change again.
Is there inconsistency in changing the word “Duke” to the word “Falwell” in consecutive sentences?
In any case, if people like Al Sharpton don’t control the Democrats or their agenda, please explain why Hillary Clinton felt it necessary to meet with him to win her Senate election.
I think I can state absolutely unequivocally that the day the Democrats declaim Sharpton and his sheep’s-clothing counterpart Jackson, they will lose an enormous percentage of the African-American vote that makes them so powerful in urban precincts; just so, the day the Republicans declaim Falwell and Robertson, there will be an enormous loss of votes from the traditional-values folks in the heartland.