Listen to William F Buckley or George Will or read the National Review or Wall Street Journal. And Conservapedia are basically a right-wing Ministry of Truth who don’t mind rewriting the Bible to suit their views which of course rightly angers most Christians. Ignore them.
As for me I’m a pragmatic neoconservative. Ultra-hawk/interventionist/internationalist in foreign policy (though not of “Bomb Iran” type), economically pro free-trade and generally few regulations as possible (although some are necessary), ideally wishes for elimination of most taxes on business, and on social issues all over the place (I support the immediate nation-wide ban on abortion for all reasons except to save the mother’s life but I am willing to let gay marriage be decided by the states and legalize marijuana).
I think you missed the point of Table 3. A lot of those entries in that single clump you refer to are further away from center than either Special Report or Washington Times. Both of these just appear to be a severe outlier to you because they are the only two on the right. Here…from the study:
It’s not nitpicky so much as a No True Scotsman. There are lots of Christians who are neutral or conflicted on these issues, and yet proudly identify as Christian. The either-or dichotomy you’re proposing tends to be a feature (or bug) of the evangelical community.
You could likely demonstrate a lack of overlap between evangelicals and Democrats, but you’re unfairly dismissing a much larger and quieter proportion of Christians who are simply more moderate on issues of faith and its role in the public sphere.
Where does this idea come from that William F. Buckley Jr. and George Will are intellectuals? Adding a preening pretentiousness to the same old moronic arguments and running it all up a flag pole does not an intellectual make.
Actually, I was brought up Catholic, and their position on gays and abortion are pretty much in lockstep with the Evangelicals. (The Church is kind of wishy-washy on the evolution thing).
Now, don’t get me wrong, I have no sympathy for they hypocrites on the right who go on all day about abortions or gays, but have no problem voting for guys who’ve gotten multiple divorces (which Jesus was a lot clearer on than the other two issues).
My point was to try to explain why so many working class Christian types vote for guys whose first order of business is to usually give tax breaks to guys who want to move their jobs to China. I would never presume to say who is a “True” Christian.
My point is that they say that they believe in the Bible, but the fact is, there is a lot of stuff in the Bible that is just silly nonsense that a lot of people who call themselves Christians don’t really believe in.
I also think a lot of them are closet atheists, because an atheist could never get elected to office in this country.
Personally, I agree with the philosophy of Jesus, that we should love our neighbor, treat people the way we’d want to be treated, forgive our enemies, etc.
I don’t think for a minute he rose from the dead, his mother was a virgin, etc. I think there is even an argument to be made that he’s a composite of several people.
I understand that you’re not pointing to “them” and saying “you’re not one of us”. Nonetheless, you’re ignoring the fact that many Christians (and Catholics specifically) are not 100% in lockstep with their church or their pastor’s pronunciations on doctrine. Catholics in the U.S., for example, are by majority in favour of gay marriage and birth control despite church doctrine, and it would be incorrect to describe them as “closet atheists”. They’re Catholics who disagree with the Pope.
But can you call yourself a Catholic and disagree with the pope.
Let’s be honest, Catholic Dogma says the Pope is Infalliable, and he’s on “God’s Fave Five”. When he speaks on a matter of faith, you’d all better listen…
But yeah, most Catholics in the US live in the real world where you can’t have five kids like my parents did because you can’t afford five kids after they moved all the good jobs to China.
I think it was fair summary of your argument, such as it was.
If you don’t think WFB qualifies as an intellectual, you’re saying it’s impossible to be a conservative intellectual. Their political positions are “moronic”.
You’re free to let us know who you do think the conservative intellectuals are…
John, have you read/listened to George Will lately? The man hasn’t had an original thought since Reagan was in office. I think the description of Will smearing old arguments with a veneer of “preening pretentiousness” is fairly apt.
I do agree though that William F. Buckley was indeed the real deal, but Buckley’s problem nowadays is that he’s pretty fucking dead. His son’s pretty smart, and conservative, but considered an apostate. (Bad habits of independent thinking.)
This is the crux of it. Whatever the theologians decide, huge parts of the Catholic family don’t see an issue with identifying as Catholic while disagreeing with the Pope on particular matters. Similarly, during the worst of the child abuse scandals for the Catholic Church, large numbers of Catholic were very openly disgusted and in disagreement with the Holy See, and saw no contradiction between that and still sincerely calling themselves Catholic. My mother still goes to weekly mass, and is still extremely vocal about the stupidity and mendacity of the Catholic hierarchy, right up to the Pope.
For purposes of politics, it’s the latter that is relevant, not the theological arguments.
Buckley could dress up a bad argument in good rhetoric, but he was still, just as he remarked, standing athwart history and shouting “Stop!”. If that is an “intellectual”, you are welcome to it. But I say its spinach, and I say to hell with it.
Three things there are not: ex-Jews, ex-Catholics, ex-Texans. Each life experience stains right to the bone. I know several Catholic atheists. I see no reason someone cannot love a church they no longer obey.
Goldwater was considered a fairly reasonable conservative, but he wouldn’t be caught dead with GIngrich and the 90s republicans who looking back were reasonable compared to people like Palin and Angle.
I know I’m biased, but not even Reagan would cut it in todays GOP. He did a dozen things that would disqualify him in the increasingly puritanical GOP.
Maybe a movement that is becoming more and more doctrinarian and ideological can’t offer mainstream pragmatic solutions to real problems. Just talking points. There are intelligent conservatives, but they don’t get to be on TV.
ie, maybe you can’t find rational, pragmatic, solutions oriented conservatives willing to compromise in the mainstream media or leadership positions because they’ve been purged. They still exist, but the ones I know in person hate Sarah Palin while the base of the GOP (who all the candidates are trying to appeal to) love her. The ones I know in person who are fairly reasonable also know our health care system is a mess that needs reform, the mainstream conservatives just repeat the talking point that since we are americans, our american health care system must be the best in the world since it was designed and funded by americans.
I think that is a good litmus test on what kind of conservative you are dealing with. Do they like or dislike Palin. If they dislike her, maybe they are what you are looking for.
Ah. I called them dishonest and compared them to a Communist propaganda tool, therefore I’m just like a Communist regime. The reasoning behind that must be…interesting.
But yes, liberal or moderate people will tend to speak the truth more often since those positions are correct more often, therefore they don’t need to lie. You can pretend to a false equivalence, but pretending won’t make the American right any less extreme or any less detached from reality. They do lie more often because they have to lie more often, because their views are so far from the truth that honesty doesn’t work.