Warning: Politics Ahead
Nov. 19th, 2003 12:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mik3capEver wonder why the Republican party has a religious right component to it?
This shift occured historically, as I understand it, around the time of LBJ's presidency when Texas Democrats realized they were actually Republicans and there was a massive shift from one party to the other. Because the Republicans in Texas were mainly being organized by Christian fundies (because they're good at organizing) they ended up becoming the leaders of the party and becoming powerhouses. This influence has since spread to encompass the rest of the party affiliates across the nation.
So what we're essentially looking at in American politics today is the culmination of several decades of power base building on the part of the fundies, ending in the de facto assumption of two of the branches of government. It's only now a matter of time before the third one follows, as judges die off and get replaced, unless something is done by the opposition party or by the people in the Republican party who don't agree with the fundie platform.
What really, really bothers me is that we are looking at control of one of the two major political parties by a minority group within it. Christian fundamentalism does not represent the will of the majority of the American people. I'll begrudge any tyranny, be it of the minority or majority. I do not want my laws written based on religious principle. We do not live in a theocracy, and my hope is that America never becomes one. Theocracy cannot be a basis for rational governance, and having a religious party in power, even if its core values represent a majority of the country, cannot be just and does not allow for the core American principle of religious freedom.
So what can be done about this? Well - I'm going to register as a Democrat and start voting Democrat as much as my conscience will let me. I don't really agree with the principles of the Democratic party as a whole, but I can't see any other way to reduce the power of the Republican party.
This shift occured historically, as I understand it, around the time of LBJ's presidency when Texas Democrats realized they were actually Republicans and there was a massive shift from one party to the other. Because the Republicans in Texas were mainly being organized by Christian fundies (because they're good at organizing) they ended up becoming the leaders of the party and becoming powerhouses. This influence has since spread to encompass the rest of the party affiliates across the nation.
So what we're essentially looking at in American politics today is the culmination of several decades of power base building on the part of the fundies, ending in the de facto assumption of two of the branches of government. It's only now a matter of time before the third one follows, as judges die off and get replaced, unless something is done by the opposition party or by the people in the Republican party who don't agree with the fundie platform.
What really, really bothers me is that we are looking at control of one of the two major political parties by a minority group within it. Christian fundamentalism does not represent the will of the majority of the American people. I'll begrudge any tyranny, be it of the minority or majority. I do not want my laws written based on religious principle. We do not live in a theocracy, and my hope is that America never becomes one. Theocracy cannot be a basis for rational governance, and having a religious party in power, even if its core values represent a majority of the country, cannot be just and does not allow for the core American principle of religious freedom.
So what can be done about this? Well - I'm going to register as a Democrat and start voting Democrat as much as my conscience will let me. I don't really agree with the principles of the Democratic party as a whole, but I can't see any other way to reduce the power of the Republican party.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2003-11-19 10:08 am (UTC)huh
on 2003-11-19 12:23 pm (UTC)i think the DNC simply got there first...
on 2003-11-19 12:39 pm (UTC)(Mike is very perceptive; the new generation of 'centrist
Democrats' came about as an emergency response to the slaughter
of left-leaning George McGovern and Walter Mondale. Ouch!)
...by which I mean they were a little smarter about grabbing the
centrist vote (with younger not-so-heavily-slanted personalities
such as Clinton, From, lesser-well-known locals such as Sibelius
and/or Napolitano). I'd like to see a similar identity-
transformation take place within the Republican party -- I like
to consider myself a "neo-conservative" (defined, obviously, as
a conservative trained in martial arts who wears black
trenchcoats and sunglasses), and I don't think I'm the only one,
but every time a centrist candidate (like, say, William Weld)
rises through the ranks he/she is conveniently reassigned.
We are only just starting to see an unanticipated backlash of
this transformation -- the Democrat party is experiencing some
social schism (particularly in the southern and bread-basket
states, which happen to be religiously-affiliated) and needs to
shake their reputation of godless-elitists who cater to the
idealistic upper-crust and the destitute impoverished, but can't
identify with the middle/lower-middle classes anymore. I think
this one-two combo caused the fundamentalist backswing... failure
of the RNC to assemble their own centrist/Clintonian strategy,
coupled with a goodly swath of America's mainland not knowing
where to turn or who to trust to tend to their best interests.
Complete separation of church and state would do much to remove
this dilemma, but is unlikely to happen within our lifetimes.
Perhaps the best imperfect compromise is a fiscally/socially
moderate candidate in 2008 -- be that candidate Democrat, GOP or
otherwise. Constant whipsawing between extremes is theoretically
one way of reaching a happy medium, but in practice it seems to
p*ss a different subset of people off to greater and greater
extents every 4-8 years. We diehards love nothing so much as
close competition.
Sven
Re: i think the DNC simply got there first...
on 2003-11-19 02:27 pm (UTC)Re: i think the DNC simply got there first...
on 2003-11-19 03:37 pm (UTC)Do you think? There are depressingly few niches into which socially-
progressive/fiscally-conservative young urban professionals can fit
themselves. Neoconservatism is one. Libertarianism is another. I'm
no Jay Severin, but I like to think I embody a mix of both disciplines.
Sven (who, at least, isn't a Nazi about it)
Re: i think the DNC simply got there first...
on 2003-11-19 04:38 pm (UTC)Re: i think the DNC simply got there first...
on 2003-11-20 05:04 am (UTC)no subject
on 2003-11-19 04:36 pm (UTC)I (and probably a number of people reading this) am not into those "values", nor do we tend to surround ourselves with it. But that does NOT negate the fact that A LOT OF PEOPLE DO. As frightening as it may sound, a hell of a lot of people are fans of people like Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh and even Presidente himself.
In this country, for a long time, "religious freedom" really meant "free to be any time of Christian"
Throughout US history, intense conservatism tends to rear its head when a lot of social change happens. When nothing changes, the majority doesn't feel threatened. They don't need to grasp onto something bigger than themselves.
At this point, a lot of white heterosexual americans feel threatened, to some extent. threatened by this gay marriage thing, threatened by the WAR, threatened by the shitty economy. A return to "OLD FASHIONED CHRISTIAN VALUES" sounds pretty appealing, even if that means returning to a "good ol' days" of the US that never really existed.
But these values are so appealing in a time of social and political confusion that both republicans and democrats seek them out to some extent.
The result is a very fuzzy line between democrats and republicans.
babble babble babble i gotta pass out medications now. woo!
in any case, i'm Jewish and i'm registered as a Green.
no subject
on 2003-11-19 06:07 pm (UTC)Right Wing Christianity
on 2003-11-26 10:59 am (UTC)First I am proud to say that I love the "ideals" of the Republican party. Unfortunately those ideals are now only espoused by Individualists. The Republican party has, on the whole, turned into something else. Here's my argument for this: Republicans are supposed to be small gov't, Lassie Faire, Separation of church and state folks. The Republican party has of late not been voting/passing bills that are in line with what the “ideal” party would even look at. Instead many Republicans in power are incorporating Christian values into laws and making the gov't bigger. For examples look at the Patriot act and the Medicare Bill, both sponsored and pushed by Republicans.
Idea two: I lived in Colorado Springs for a few years and now I live in Virginia, now these are both bastions of Republicanism but they are different as night and day. Colorado Springs was the headquarters for ‘Focus on the Family’ a national right wing Christian coalition. They dominated the political landscape of the area. Virginia is still "religiously conservative" but far far more open. There are Wiccan shops in Richmond, movies of… ‘dubious moral character’ at the video store etc. So It is apparent that not all republicans hold the same ideas. That’s great, not surprising though. The question is, why is the republican power house not republican? It is as Mikecap said, being hijacked by the Moral right.
This angers me, I don’t want to vote democratic because I don’t agree with a lot of their principles but I also cannot vote republican now for the same reason. I need a powerful Individualist party to vote for.