W. James Antle has written an op/ed asking, "What's wrong with the religious right?" and it's getting some attention in the Nashville blog-world. I perceive that Antle's title is merely a pun, but I'm not sure I'm willing to concede (or that Antle really believes) that the current state of the Religious Right is troubling or unfortunate.
I have to say up front that I am not interested in being a "special interest." I go back and forth on the subject, for example, I enjoy the freedom (speaking movement-wise) that comes with not being too closely aligned with a given political party. Unfortunately, however, Democrats don't leave me much choice. That being said, rhetoric such as that coming from people like Harold Ford, Jr. and Heath Shuler (on abortion) and behavior such as that of Congressman Jerry Lewis and a number of Rockefeller Republicans (on spending) changes the landscape to some degree. And I am encouraged that Democrats (and even candidates like Giuliani) have toned down their Liberal rhetoric (at least for public consumption). Which leads me to the point of this post.
Sure, I would like for those who agree with me on policy issues (and who share my worldview) to be able to call the shots in crafting policy in America. But the seeming ineptitude or impotence of this movement doesn't constitute a crisis. Indeed, power can lead to excess and wrong priorities (or right priorities subjugated to wanting power) can dilute idealism and virtues. And being a "special interest" looks a lot different than being part of the mainstream of a party.
As a Republican and a Religious Conservative, I'm not sweating this "story" because,
The GOP is a consensus party, not a coalition party.
I have often argued this point (here, here), but Republicans agree on a set of core policy views, while Democrats' various sub-groups agree on one thing--being in power. Union workers and open-borders-types and "gays" and Black Evangelicals and feminists and Union workers and Environmentalists make an odd assortment, and the only thing they have in common is that they want a seat at the table and must subvert their own interests to get there.
The GOP is a big tent party, not a line-toeing party.
The fact that the GOP's front-runners have diverse views on bread and butter GOP issues is something that will confound the Liberal Media. Who'd of thunk that the narrow-minded, intolerant, bigoted Conservative-ish party in America would allow more dissent? And this is not a recent phenomenon, as Democrats have little tolerance for a pro-lifer in their midst, certainly not on a national ticket.
The Religious Right is more diverse now than it was in its "heyday."
It is a positive development--and one that is inevitable with expansion of your "tribe," that the Religious Conservative movement has expanded to include a broader range of views. As Antle notes, "moralists" make up the largest single bloc of Republican voters, with an increase in size (and age?) a movement is bound to "lose a step," and that is what I think has happened with the Religious Right . . . I think disagreement within the movement over issues like how to respond to the illegal immigration problem is a good example.
Religious Conservatives--and the GOP, are no longer the only ones doing grassroots mobilization.
Certain Democrat coalitions had always been strong grassroots-wise--African Americans, "Labor," Peaceniks, Greenies--but they began to atrophy and diminish in number/influence for a variety of reasons. Accordingly, the previously unorganized, unmotivated "moral(ist) majority" experienced unprecedented clout (as far as the GOP was concerned). Now that Democrats are pouring funds into their own 72-hour campaigns and have re-energized some of their coalitions (many years in the wilderness can have that effect), the grassroots advantage from Religious Right support has been mitigated.
In sum, reports of the Religious Right's death have been greatly exaggerated, inasmuch as its "power" is being called into question by recent GOP primary dynamics. And I'm not sure it is a bad thing--at least for a time, to trade in the "special interest" label for "pillar" status.
Hello world!
7 years ago
14 comments:
Good Post.
I agree with a couple of your points, disagree with others, but what I'm most curious about is why you put the word gays in scare quotes. Are you suggesting that we aren't a major special interest group in the Democratic Party (that is definitely arguably true, but such an argument doesn't seem to make sense in the context of your post)? If not that, then are you suggesting that people really aren't gay at all, there's just a group of liars who call themselves "gays" in a conspiracy to upset the religious right? Or are you aruging that gays are not actually people to begin with (which does seem consistent with your general worldview as it relates to gay people)? It's very unclear, but singling out one specific group to put in scare quites certainly must mean something.
Well, I think you've come close to my reason . . . I am generally averse to euphemisms; and with this particular one, I don't appreciate that by adopting it I have to use two words in place of one: homosexual.
But I don't consider them "scare" quotes, either. They are simply punctuation marks that demonstrate I am quoting someone else in using a given word. I undoubtedly think you are a major Democrat special interest group with wildly disproportionate influence on the party. I don't believe that "gays" are lying by claiming to be "gay" and I certainly don't believe they're "not actually people."
Funny post about the white christian party. I would say 95% of republican conservatives I've met are white christians. How many gay, agnostic or minority republicans do you know?
You should watch the news more often. Just this week two black conservatives published op/eds:
Why is the GOP scared of black voters?
GOP Candidates Making A "Stupid Decision" Avoiding Black Voter Debate
Sorry, JC Watts interview, not op/ed - link:
here
Well, a majority of Americans are white and "Christian" William, especially activists, but I'm eager to accept your anecdotal evidence as proof of how bigoted "Conservatives" are.
Here's a link to my thoughts on the articles to which you linked.
I don't appreciate that by adopting it I have to use two words in place of one: homosexual.
Well, I'd suggest not adopting it then. I prefer when the religious right clings to the word "homosexual" despite that particular word being outdated and no longer in use by legitimate psychological professionals. Gives a quick and easy clue to who you're talking to.
I undoubtedly think you are a major Democrat special interest group with wildly disproportionate influence on the party.
You can think that undoubtedly, but you'd be wrong. Gay people are to the Democratic Party what the religious right used to be to the Republican party (remember it was Bush senior who referred to the religious right as "the crazies"). We are that little group who gets paid some lip service but when it comes to actual policy are generally ignored outright because our votes are virtually in the bag (because we have no other choice).
I certainly don't believe they're "not actually people."
You may be surprised how many of your brethren feel this way (or how you might actually feel if you weren't talking where others can read your words). Jumping from "not deserving of human rights" to "not deserving of being called humans" is only a short leap. I live in the middle of the Bible Belt. I get to hear the religious right talk when they think they are in safe company (folks that share their views). I'm well aware of the stark difference between the face they put on in public and the things that come out of their mouths when among their own. The difference between "Marriage = 1 man, 1 woman" and "We oughta kill the fags" is only a matter of which people you guys are surrounded by at any given moment.
I prefer when the religious right clings to the word "homosexual" despite that particular word being outdated and no longer in use by legitimate psychological professionals.
"Gay" is a psychological term? It's more descriptive than "homosexual"? don't think so, dolphin.
Regarding your disproportional influence on your party--how many Dems passed on the homosexual issues debate? How many homosexuals are there in the population and how many are Democrat primary voters?
You may be surprised how many of your brethren feel this way (or how you might actually feel if you weren't talking where others can read your words).
First, most people don't agree that homosexuals--as you say, are being denied any human rights. And I cannot disprove that assertion, especially if to you thinking homosexual acts are sin amounts to thinking people who engage in homosexual activity are nonhuman.
"Gay" is a psychological term? It's more descriptive than "homosexual"? don't think so, dolphin.
The American Psychological Association has long since issued a public resolution declaring the appropriate terms for gay people to be "gay male" or "lesbian," as the term "homosexual" was incorrectly associated with a pathology for so long as to bear a stigma inappropriate for the modern medical community's understanding of sexual orientation.
So Ned, while I'm thrilled for you to continue to use "homosexual" (or even "fag" if that's what you prefer), I think you'll find it's smarter not to try and engage me on what is "official" regarding gay people. I'd be willing to suppose that I'm a little better researched on it than you.
First, most people don't agree that homosexuals--as you say, are being denied any human rights.
At one time, most people didn't agree that slaves were being denied any human rights. I don't care what "most people" think, I care about what is the reality of it.
if to you thinking homosexual acts are sin amounts to thinking people who engage in homosexual activity are nonhuman.
Do you argue for the removal of human rights from everyone who sins. Let me duck real fast, that log in your eye almost hit me as you spun around to examine the speck in mine. As soon as you show yourself to be without sin, I'll let you start telling me what human rights I do and don't deserve. Deal?
Well, I never asked if you were engaging in homosexual acts, dolphin, but if you are then I guess you are sinning, right? (Though I guess you don't think that the Bible classifies it as sin, but . . .)
The Law brings judgment, and while a person can certainly bring judgment--a sin is a sin whether or not said person brings the judgment or pronounces the judgment over another's sin. In any event, because we're all guilty of sin (you just told me I was!), it is silly to conclude that saying so amounts to viewing all people as non-humans. And no, as we should have cleared up several comments ago, "disapproval" isn't the same as prohibition or de-humanizing.
And that is an interesting report from the APA. Not that I particularly am persuaded with their view on the matter, given the politics of the issue, but that is interesting. You guys are covering every base--even the language, aren't you?
Re. support of slavery being like opposing the redefinition of marriage . . . nice try, but I guess the more you repeat it, the more it may gain traction.
Well, I never asked if you were engaging in homosexual acts, dolphin, but if you are then I guess you are sinning, right?
Well not exactly, I certainly sin, but it has nothing to do with my being gay.
In any event, because we're all guilty of sin (you just told me I was!), it is silly to conclude that saying so amounts to viewing all people as non-humans.
Until such point as you start designating some sinners as being undeserving of human rights. You sin but I've not decided to campaign against your human rights.
And no, as we should have cleared up several comments ago, "disapproval" isn't the same as prohibition or de-humanizing.
Yes! That's exactly my point. You're free to disapprove of me all you want, it's only when you start trying to deny me rights based on your disapproval that we have problems.
You guys are covering every base--even the language, aren't you?
"You guys?" You mean science? Do all those pesky facts, studies, and logic give science a liberal bias?
Re. support of slavery being like opposing the redefinition of marriage . . . nice try, but I guess the more you repeat it, the more it may gain traction.
Is that a rebuttal? Sorry, where I'm from "nice try" doesn't qualify as a reasoned response. Let me explain to you how basic debate works. You suggested that gay marriage was wrong because "most people" opposed it (already a dubious assumption at best). I suggested that most people at one time supported slavery, but that didn't make it right. If you wish to rebut my claim you need to either show (a) at no point in history did "most people" support slavery, or (b) during the time that "most people" supported slavery it was therefore not wrong.
I thought that was something we could have both agreed on, but I shudder at the fact that you won't.
To be precise, you said, "You may be surprised how many of your brethren feel this way." By "this way" you meant "feel that homosexuals are 'not actually people'" which you infer from your premise that "not thinking marriage needs to be re-defined equals wanting to deny homosexuals of human rights."
Well, most people don't equate those two things--unless you are prepared to assert that 81% of Tennesseans think that someone who engages in homosexual acts is "not actually human."
Muddling the distinction between the two concepts (or leaping over one of the premises) certainly advances your argument along, but it isn't legitimate debate.
So, no, I do not think a majority of "my brethren" or of my fellow Tennesseans thinks people who engage in homosexual acts are less than human.
And as far as rebutting your assertion: slavery=no-same-sex-marriage, the only way that a "debate" on the subject is necessary is if you can't fathom that there is a reasonable (even though contingent on a different worldview) opposing view to yours. But "freedom" isn't a privilege; "marriage" is; "driving" is. I know, as you've cited before, there was a Supreme Court case that said in dicta that "marriage is a fundamental right," but the facts completely alter the calculation. Is one's race equal to one's sexual proclivities? Not in my opinion, for a number of reasons.
But haven't we had all these debates before dolphin?
By "this way" you meant "feel that homosexuals are 'not actually people'" which you infer from your premise that "not thinking marriage needs to be re-defined equals wanting to deny homosexuals of human rights."
No, re-read. The only inference I make about people who want to see gay people denied human rights is that they don't think gay people deserve human rights. I infer that some of them don't think gay people are actually people per their references to wanting to march us into concentration camps and turn on the gas, and other similar thoughts. One major way it's different to be of a different sexual orientation than to be of a different race. Nobody know I'm different than them unless I choose to let them know, so I get to hear what is said when they think they're in only friendly company. The true views of the religious right are chilling indeed I've learned.
And as far as rebutting your assertion: slavery=no-same-sex-marriage
I'm learning your argument style now Ned. Soon as you get backed into a corner you start putting words int he other person's mouth. I imagine that can be somewhat effective in the right company, but it doesn't bode well for your intellectual honesty.
The only assertion that I've made with regards to slavery is that it is wrong no matter how many people think otherwise. It is most disturbing (and actually a little surprising, but then maybe I've given you more credit that you deserve) to me that you disagree.
But "freedom" isn't a privilege; "marriage" is
Marriage is not a privilege either. The fact that marriage is a right simply isn't even on the table for debate. It's a matter of settled case-law. You have your reasons for thinking gay US citizens don't deserve to be given their constitutional rights, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you position is anything but precisely that.
Dolphin,
I have long known that one of your debating techniques is to uberfisk a person's statements so that--by arguing with phrases in the sentences rather than sentences (much less complete thoughts) you can somehow seem to land a blow.
Another thing you do is presume that certain of your premises are "settled," and then indefatigably argue from your perceived catbird seat . . . repetition of an flawed premise doesn't make it less flawed, though it sure can wear down opponents and give you the feeling that you've won an argument.
Some particular problematic presumptions:
--That being allowed to marry is a "right." I know, you disagree. Got that point.
--That dicta in a S.Ct. holding about a man and a woman (who other than being of different races satisfied all the requirements for the privilege of marrying) is applicable to two men, and is therefore "setttled law." I know, you disagree. Got that point, and I'm pretty confident I know what constitutes "settled case law."
--That I or a significant proportion of Religious Conservatives think people who engage in homosexual acts are less than human, either because of the flawed premise above or because some purported card-carrying (!) Religious Conservatives have said some mean things to you or in front of you.
One issue that seems obvious to me, but that you have latched onto . . . (this is an uberfisking example) certainly the majority has been wrong on many issues in the past. But I wasn't fallaciously appealing to popularity, I was challenging your implication ("Jumping from "not deserving of human rights" to "not deserving of being called humans"") that all voters who oppose same-sex marriage are people who view the opportunity to get married as a "right." While some of the majority who oppose same-sex marriage may consider marriage a human right and may be willing to deny the right to homosexuals and could therefore be fairly accused of viewing homosexuals as less than human, it is not a majority and it is not many. That was my point. It is okay to disagree with assertion, but not to dissemble my assertion.
I'm closing this thread for comments, dolphin. And I'm contemplating closing all threads to your comments. I'm glad that you care to visit my blog, and I don't mind opposing viewpoints. But you (and some others in the past) can do some major hectoring, and since there aren't thousands of people reading our debates, let's try to see that our debates are edifying for us, the participants.
Post a Comment