![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Warning: Politics Ahead
Ever 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.
i think the DNC simply got there first...
(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...
Re: i think the DNC simply got there first...
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...
Re: i think the DNC simply got there first...