The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

I heard a great line today, that Sanford didn't wait for "same-sex marriage to destroy his own marriage," since he did a good enough job of it himself. The problem for Republicans is that they are always whining that the "institution of marriage is under seige." Well, I guess - but why worry over gay marriage, with some of these Republican husbands?

 

Remember, blue states have lower divorce rates than red states. Probably because all those homosexuals are out of the closet and doing damage to their own relationships rather than married people's relationships.

Wait, no, that contradicts the 'homosexuality weakens marriage' argument. Hmm. Oh well, I'll think of something.

 

The blue states have more open marriages....

 

Speaking of how those homosexuals are ruining America, OK State Rep Sally Kern

 

wee ... and I thought that gays were only responsible for hurricanes.

From this NPR interview with John Hagee (the two other interviews there unrelated to the topic here, but excellent as well).

 

No, no, no, Rags. Global warming and the evils of exhaling are responsable for hurricanes, remember?

 

...and why would John Hagee be included here in the future of the republican party thread? He's neither a leader in the party nor an advisor to one that I know of.

 

The evangelicals are no longer a powerful part and in the future of the Republican party? That's great news. I wonder where they will go next?

 

T2,
Hagee is part of the the American religious right, Dominionists in particular, and an ardent Christian Zionist. That is to say, he is part of the base many Republican and neo-conservative politicians are wooing. In that sense, Ron Paul is probably a pretty lone exception in the GOP. Considering the purge of moderates from the ranks the republican party under Rove's political strategy for the GOP, religious right members are being strongly represented in the Republican party. That reflects itself in politicians in the GOP (as in AMaster's telling clip) and in the choice of wedge issues in the GOP. As far as I can see the traditional GOP wedge issues like gays, abortion, global warming (in the context of Dominion Over the Earth), eschatology (Israel) still persist as issues in the GOP. That is (perhaps the only way) how someone like Palin could end up being considered VP candidate material.

That said, I still think that many GOP politicos have nothing but contempt for the religious rights. They use them for their purposes, and they perform. They are to the GOP an accessible reservoir of political muscle, motivated activists and voters (or campaign financing) that is. Something like that is handy to have. Think of (former) GOP big whigs like Jack Abramoff using republican linked religious gambling opponents basically as a protection racket - to squash legislation legalising casino or lottery in one state to the protect gambling businesses of his clients in the neighbouring state. He was probably not the only one who played such a cynical game.

I think that the choice of Dominionists as an electoral base of a Party in a democracy (or democratic republic, either way, it doesn't make a difference here) is odd. Dominionists call for a society governed by the rules of God, and that, it has to, inherently conflicts with the man made laws of a society that out of necessity and prudence came to be pluralistic to allow for peaceful coexistence of the different faiths. Dominionists don't accept that. You're with them or against God laws. The Bible, HE, mandates it (Or does he?). They are essentially theocratic and authoritarian. That means, the GOP seeks the support in democratic process of people who oppose the democratic political process.

 

It is conjecture that anyone in the republican party has similar views. You are giving examples of the extreme right and trying to tie those extreme views with a political party. It is a weak argument.

The extreme right will vote republican, but the republican party does not need to cater to that group. This type of post is simply fishing and is clearly meant to mislead. Tie the views of Hagee to a leader in the republican party -- directly tie the views, not use conjecture.

 

If they choose to vote. If they get pissed off, they may just "go fishin instead," as they like to comment.

 

T2,
conjecture? Please ... If you assume that I say that everyone in the GOP shares Hagee's views, you err. I say that Hagee has a strong influence in the GOP. Rep Sally Kern probably shares his views on gays, and so do many more GOP politicians, in all likelihood Sarah Palin as well. Others support him for his views on what America's Israel policy should be. He has met with then deputy national security adviser Elliot Abrams, under Bush Jr. That doesn't mean Hagee has dictated Bush's Israel policy. It simply suggests, strongly, that Hagee has been playing an important role during the Bush era in generating grass roots support for Administration policy on Israel. I am still receiving Hagee's regular newsletters. They make for an interesting read.

The Christian right itself is diverse and made up of diverse individuals and groups, and Hagee and his followers are merely a (well funded and organised, active and vocal) part of it. And of course Hagee's followers don't represent the entire GOP. Like the Christian Right the GOP is an organisation made up of individuals from relatively diverse backgrounds. But recent defections from the GOP have illustrated that the 'GOP tent' has gotten smaller in recent years - we had that as a point here before. I can't quite see the tent getting any larger atm, but I would welcome that development.

Hagee has been endorsed by people as diverse as Israel's Bibi Netanyahu himself, or Joe Lieberman (for Hagee's Israel views) for the neo-con wing of the democrats or Tom DeLay, for whom Hagee is a longtime supporter. I will not enter into speculation about how honest either person's support or endorsements of Hagee is.

The religious right and their views are practical in many ways. As far as the utility of Hagee's views on Israel are concerned, Norman Podhoretz perhaps put it best when he said: 'It's their religion, but it is our Israel.' Christian Right groups like Hagee are political muscle. As long as the religious rights performs well in the useful functions they are having now, they will continue to be a significant factor in GOP (and neo-con) politics. Few things in politics come for free. The Christian Right performs a valuable service for the GOP as a party. That reflects itself in GOP policy.

Of course, it is possible that the Christian Right theoretically can be abandoned or marginalised at some point, but only if some more useful and better performing group takes their place. So far that is unlikely. I don't see such a group anywhere at the horizon of US politics. And then, I don't think that the politicians in the GOP with a Christian right background will abandon their views on the wedge issues that are informed their religious beliefs. Just think of Sarah Palin. I believe that, while some, like Jack Abramoff, are opportunistic cynics, many others are quite sincere in their religious views.

 

Ragusa, I think you're making something of a mistake by equating "supported by" with "catered to". While I will agree that the Christian Conservatives do still hold some power in the GOP, it's realistically seemed to shrink over the past few years. On top of that, remember that the Religious Right will pretty much vote for Republicans no matter what, if only to prevent an "even worse" scenario with a Dem. That being said, they're pretty much a given, which really means they need only minimal attention to stay on track.

 

NOG - I hope that is strategic mistake the Republicans make, at least in the near future, but not the long term. The evangleicals WILL NOT vote if they feel that the Republican Party is trying to marginalize their influence. IF the RNC came out tomorrow and said that they are no longer opposed to Woman's Choice, or same sex marriages, or Don't Ask, Don't Tell, they would no longer support the GOP. In another words, if the GOP was to turn more towards its libertarian wing, like Ragusa suggests, with Ron Paul. You make it an "either or" proposition, when it is clearly not the case. Given how small the Republican tent has become the evangleicals can probably wipe the GOP off the face of the political map at this point in time. Hopefully, the Republicans (for those who care about them) will broaden their appeal.

 

I did read that the Religious Right is being sort of 'left behind' as far as legislation on their behalf is concerned.

The extent to which the Religious Right has been taking influence on a national scale can be disputed. They certainly have had, despite their defeats also have had their successes (how was that with the surprisingly dominant presence of Regent University alumni at the Justice Department?). Their grass roots activists certainly can and do make life hell for many a biology teacher on school boards throughout the US, and a lot of other people. Granted, that they don't get what they wanted shows that even under complete GOP reign like in the first Bush term there were enough sensible people around to block their advances into actual policy.

But if you throw in the politics of polarisation a la Rove, where 50,1% is a perfectly fine majority, they are the people who tip the scales, which means that they are of course being catered to. They decide over matters of winning or losing elections.

In the religiously conservative US states, local GOP politicians ignore them at their own peril and risk being 'out christianed' by their competitors, be it in the party primaries, or the elections themselves. It's not only that the Religious Right is going to vote Republican, in particular their flock is going to vote, and they are probably going to vote in primaries as well. This also has an impact on candidate funding.

So, while I may overestimate their influence on policy, I say that their influence on and in politics is substantial.

 

Ragusa - There are some very impotant aspects of the Bush policy that responded to the evangelicals in a major way:

1." Faith fundied" groups and programs.

2. The advent of using regime change to also promote religious "change," in the same breath as political change.

3. The rise of an evangelical military, which saw a large increase in evangelical chaplins, actively converting recruits to the evangelical brand of religion. Some on the inside have gone as far as to comment that the US military was "God's Own Army." I'm sure you saw the Runsfeld memos, with the biblical headings.

 

Chandos,
you are right, as you are most of the time. I even read about all of that, I just couldn't remember any of it when I posted It is just too hot and humid here for my memory to work properly ...

Hah, Onward Christian Soldier (or on the wisdom of US troops acting as armed missionaries in a Muslim country, 'hunting people for Jesus', and distributing bibles in local languages)! There were these scandals about the Christian Embassy at the Pentagon and the one at the Air Force Academy, when chaplains and staff members urged evangelical cadets to 'witness to' the other cadets i.e. proselytise them, where they showed Mel Gibson's movie 'Jesus, the Chainsaw Massacre' in the mess during meals so nobody could dodge it, and where there was a 'heathen wing' for non-evangelicals, and where Catholics weren't Christian enough, and where Jews and Atheists, let alone Muslims, had even more trouble. Or there was the case of that Jewish trainee being assaulted in Ft. Benning after complaining about religious harassment.

Excellent on Evangelism in the US Military is Mikey Weinstein, former JAG lawyer and Air Force Academy graduate, who founded the Military Religious Freedom Foundation after his son was harassed at the Air Force Academy for being Jewish.

Cheers

 

I think I've mentioned it before but I the Ron Paul wing of the GOP (like most Libertarians) is both ProLife (not including a baby's view on if it should be aborted denies liberty) & ProGay (for the obvious reason that gay people should be able to make the same decisions for themselves everyone else does). I like their take on some social views and wanted to clarify that.

I see the corporate/country club wing of the GOP not going anywhere else either (though some would claim they have gained influence amongst the more "free market" supporting democrats-which may be to much more limited extent these days). I wanted to mention that wing in particular because PBS had a Wall Street Journal related program showing the same night as NOW. I suspect in an attempt to portray political balance in its friday political shows. I wish I had taped 1 episode of that show because I can swear I saw 1 of the people at its table of commenting editors say that the religious right doesn't really want Roe v Wade overturned. If I had taped it I'm sure I could have profoundly annoyed some of the people I know who generally vote GOP. That is like claiming cynical manipulation is embraced by those manipulated (which it isn't).

 

Chandos, let me put it this way, how many evangelical Christians voted for Obama? McCain was hardly a local favorite in the evangelical circles, but I guarantee you he got the vast majority of their votes.

As for the God's Own Army, well, I think God may have a thing or two to say about that, and their behavior in general. Mind you, I see nothing wrong with Christian Chaplains (or other Christians) encouraging Christian soldiers to witness to other soldiers (as long as it doesn't become harassing), but everything else Rags mentioned is just plain wrong, and much of it goes well against the Bible!

 

I think that's one of the reasons Sarah P. was on the ticket. I don't think a lot of evangelicals were confortable with Mac, as you point out, despite Hagee's very public endorsement.

This is some crazy stuff: