The coming evangelical collapse

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by peter12

Although, I can say for sure that your example is a lot less common than mine. Most libertarians/classical liberals/ fiscal conservatives/communitarian conservatives don't give a damn about homosexuality.

You're right, they don't. Probably why a lot of them voted for Obama.

[flip]

Originally Posted by peter12

The myth of an evangelical controlled Republican Party is one of the most soft-minded self-lies that left-wing ideologists tell themselves.

The Republican Party is corrupt, ideologically confused, and is coming out of one of their most unpredictable and disappointing stints with power ever. They will be back. Americans, are at heart, an essentially conservative people. All it takes is another Gingrich.

They don't control it but they are one of the biggest repbublican supporters. As someone who votes conservative in Canada, despite their socially conservative views, I would never bring myself to vote for the Republican party as long as the religious right are Republican supporters and I'm sure there are lots of Americans like me. The religious right is one of the worst things to ever happen to the Republicans. They have managed to make the Republican party completely associated with moral issues.

The Republicans need to stop letting the religious right control their platform and get back to being economic conservatives.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by flip

They don't control it but they are one of the biggest repbublican supporters. As someone who votes conservative in Canada, despite their socially conservative views, I would never bring myself to vote for the Republican party as long as the religious right are Republican supporters and I'm sure there are lots of Americans like me. The religious right is one of the worst things to ever happen to the Republicans. They have managed to make the Republican party completely associated with moral issues.

The Republicans need to stop letting the religious right control their platform and get back to being economic conservatives.

I agree.

Social conservatism, of a sort, is a very important perspective. By this I mean a more Burkian perspective that views community and civil society as vital to the health of a society. The British Conservatives have been "taking over" the social justice issue in the U.K. by changing social conservatism from meaning hating gays and single mothers to an ideology concerned with helping the poor and disenfranchised from a non-statist perspective.

[flip]

I totally want to post that Novak article I had to read for my Poli 431 course but it specifically says not to post anything in part or whole without consent. It is really funny stuff.

Novak (of CNN fame) wrote for the American Spectator that the religious right is the future of the Republican party and they need to stop just paying lip service to the Evangelicals and actually let them control policy.

Yeah because that is all we need is the US turning into a theocracy who believes God controls their policy.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

The myth of an evangelical controlled Republican Party is one of the most soft-minded self-lies that left-wing ideologists tell themselves.

The Republican Party is corrupt, ideologically confused, and is coming out of one of their most unpredictable and disappointing stints with power ever. They will be back. Americans, are at heart, an essentially conservative people. All it takes is another Gingrich.

The myth that Americans are "essentially conservative" is the soft-minded self lie that right-wing ideologists tell themselves. There isn't some silent conservative majority out there. Most Americans aren't ideologues at all, as this recent crisis clearly shows. They're pragmatists--kind of like Obama.

The myth of Obama being an "extreme leftist" is the other lie. He's essentially cut from the same cloth as Clinton--he's said so himself, and his policies and cabinet appointments show it. The left will be disappointed by the Obama presidency--and if they can lift their heads out of the gutter for a second, the right will be pleasantly surprised. Obama is essentially a pragmatic moderate. Personally, I think that's too bad--I'd love to see a President willing to swing for the fences on single-payer health care, for instance. But Obama clearly just is not that guy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The myth that Americans are "essentially conservative" is the soft-minded self lie that right-wing ideologists tell themselves. There isn't some silent conservative majority out there. Most Americans aren't ideologues at all, as this recent crisis clearly shows. They're pragmatists--kind of like Obama.

The myth of Obama being an "extreme leftist" is the other lie. He's essentially cut from the same cloth as Clinton--he's said so himself, and his policies and cabinet appointments show it. The left will be disappointed by the Obama presidency--and if they can lift their heads out of the gutter for a second, the right will be pleasantly surprised. Obama is essentially a pragmatic moderate. Personally, I think that's too bad--I'd love to see a President willing to swing for the fences on single-payer health care, for instance. But Obama clearly just is not that guy.

I think Obama is a great communicator and above-average visionary. However, he has so far demonstrated a very radical understanding of Keynesian economics (yes, helped along by the previous administration) and a very floppy view of foreign policy.

When I say most Americans are conservative, I mean that the American dream is essentially conservative, entrepreneurial and a separation from direct state intervention.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Palin's a terrible candidate in any circumstance. She couldn't name a Supreme Court case. If you have taken American Poli Sci, you know how easy that is. She isn't rhetorically incompetent like a GWB, who at least seemed to have a passably good grasp on American history and law. She actually and scarily incompetent. Enough for a lot of fence-sitters to switch to solid Obama supporters. Palin's incompetence made voting for her in any capacity infathomable to many.

And no American political parties are not disbanding. The Republican party will eventually realize they will have become more viable to the public to survive. It might take a while but that's what will happen. Happens all the time.

Again, 4 or 8 more years might change a lot of that. You have no idea what kind of campaign she could run with more experience, and as the primary Republican candidate.

Could be disaster, could be the opposite.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

You're right, they don't. Probably why a lot of them voted for Obama.

People didn't vote for Obama because of his ideological platform.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Azure

People didn't vote for Obama because of his ideological platform.

It seems a fallacy to assume no one would.

Though I do doubt it would play into the libertarian/communitarian idealogue to vote for him based on his stance on homosexuals. Of course they are against banning gay marriage, as they are more or less against banning anything.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It seems a fallacy to assume no one would.

Though I do doubt it would play into the libertarian/communitarian idealogue to vote for him based on his stance on homosexuals. Of course they are against banning gay marriage, as they are more or less against banning anything.

By definition, they are against big government, which is a STRONG part of Obama's platform.

Why would they vote for someone like that?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think Obama is a great communicator and above-average visionary. However, he has so far demonstrated a very radical understanding of Keynesian economics (yes, helped along by the previous administration) and a very floppy view of foreign policy.

When I say most Americans are conservative, I mean that the American dream is essentially conservative, entrepreneurial and a separation from direct state intervention.

Doesn't sound like we disagree all that much--but I would remind you that in the last quarter of 2008, this financial crisis turned George W. Bush into a Keynesian! So I maintain that Obama's approach to policy is essentially pragmatic and not ideological. I'm not sure I'd agree that his foreign policy is "floppy"--but it does embrace a different reality than the "New Realism" of Condoleeza Rice, and in that sense could also be seen as a pragmatic response to the reality that U.S. influence is on the downswing in a global sense.

I see what you mean about the "American Dream"--and I agree. I'd go one step further and say that the "American Dream" (a much newer phenomenon than people realize) is fundamentally Fordist--and that may be why there is this realignment, because a long view of history suggests that the Fordist regime of accumulation waned along with Reaganomics, and people are now looking for newer, better models in this time of crisis and cyclical change. I don't pretend to know what the new American Dream will look like--but I'm pretty sure "Joe the Plumber" is on the outs!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Doesn't sound like we disagree all that much--but I would remind you that in the last quarter of 2008, this financial crisis turned George W. Bush into a Keynesian! So I maintain that Obama's approach to policy is essentially pragmatic and not ideological. I'm not sure I'd agree that his foreign policy is "floppy"--but it does embrace a different reality than the "New Realism" of Condoleeza Rice, and in that sense could also be seen as a pragmatic response to the reality that U.S. influence is on the downswing in a global sense.

I see what you mean about the "American Dream"--and I agree. I'd go one step further and say that the "American Dream" (a much newer phenomenon than people realize) is fundamentally Fordist--and that may be why there is this realignment, because a long view of history suggests that the Fordist regime of accumulation waned along with Reaganomics, and people are now looking for newer, better models in this time of crisis and cyclical change. I don't pretend to know what the new American Dream will look like--but I'm pretty sure "Joe the Plumber" is on the outs!

Interesting. I do agree with a more pragmatic approach to philosophy. Principles should be the superstructure of any political approach, but they must be interpreted/implemented differently according to the times. Reagan's tax cuts were great when some people were being forced to give over half of their income to the government. We don't need a Reagan right now.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Azure

By definition, they are against big government, which is a STRONG part of Obama's platform.

Why would they vote for someone like that?

Lesser of two evils from what I can gather.

The social conservatism that seems to be growing within the Republican party (as shown by the baffling support Palin saw) is almost the complete anti-thesis of communitarians, and certainly does not endear itself to libertarians. Yeah, the Republicans oppose most gun laws, but the Bush government was so bloated it rivalled some of the most over-stuffed Democratic governments to date.

In a general election, libertarians/communitarians have been shown to vote towards the moderate candidate.

[Gozer]

If memory serves, a lot of registered republicans stayed home on election day because of the RINO/RR ticket.
(republican in name only / religious right)

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Interesting. I do agree with a more pragmatic approach to philosophy. Principles should be the superstructure of any political approach, but they must be interpreted/implemented differently according to the times. Reagan's tax cuts were great when some people were being forced to give over half of their income to the government. We don't need a Reagan right now.

See, I guess I'm really an ideologue--not a pragmatist! So for me, it's a bit of a worry that Obama will do what "seems easy" or "is feasible" rather than what "is right according to previously held principles."

And I agree on Reagan--what his legacy is, exactly, is up for debate--but he was definitely a shrewd reader of his own zeitgeist, and there's no denying the prosperity of the "Age of Reagan"--which I take to be 1981-2001 or so.

My worry is that what we "need" right now is an FDR--and we have a Harry Truman or an LBJ. Obama seems so worried about building consensus that he really is limiting himself in terms of the kinds of reforms that he could take charge of if he really swung for the fences. This is a time for a "nothing ventured, nothing gained" mentality in my view. Obama is a very measured, careful person--and that may be his flaw.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

See, I guess I'm really an ideologue--not a pragmatist! So for me, it's a bit of a worry that Obama will do what "seems easy" or "is feasible" rather than what "is right according to previously held principles."

And I agree on Reagan--what his legacy is, exactly, is up for debate--but he was definitely a shrewd reader of his own zeitgeist, and there's no denying the prosperity of the "Age of Reagan"--which I take to be 1981-2001 or so.

My worry is that what we "need" right now is an FDR--and we have a Harry Truman or an LBJ. Obama seems so worried about building consensus that he really is limiting himself in terms of the kinds of reforms that he could take charge of if he really swung for the fences. This is a time for a "nothing ventured, nothing gained" mentality in my view. Obama is a very measured, careful person--and that may be his flaw.

Obama is just another politician. His skin color is different so wow it's just so special that he is the president(more like pathetic it's even a factor). He is a very good speaker and stayed on his message. Yes the message which meant zilch but sounded good.

Once in, of course and true to form, he instantly reverses himself. No lobbyists working for me becomes, of course, lobbyists hired right away. No Washington insiders controlling everything becomes, of course, a cabinet etc. literally filled with same. The boys out of Iraq becomes, of course, 50 thousand left there and who knows how many thousand transferred to Afghanistan instead. It will continue no doubt--he is a politician. Yak/promise whatever to get in--do whatever when in--spin.


You are entirely right in that what is needed is to actually vote someone in who has principles they will stick to. Principles that they outline in minute detail on the way in. And a public that has some brain power and votes on principles rather than some lame popularity contest. Way, way too much to ask for I know!!!!!!!!!!!

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Obama is just another politician. His skin color is different so wow it's just so special that he is the president(more like pathetic it's even a factor). He is a very good speaker and stayed on his message. Yes the message which meant zilch but sounded good.

Once in, of course and true to form, he instantly reverses himself. No lobbyists working for me becomes, of course, lobbyists hired right away. No Washington insiders controlling everything becomes, of course, a cabinet etc. literally filled with same. The boys out of Iraq becomes, of course, 50 thousand left there and who knows how many thousand transferred to Afghanistan instead. It will continue no doubt--he is a politician. Yak/promise whatever to get in--do whatever when in--spin.


You are entirely right in that what is needed is to actually vote someone in who has principles they will stick to. Principles that they outline in minute detail on the way in. And a public that has some brain power and votes on principles rather than some lame popularity contest. Way, way too much to ask for I know!!!!!!!!!!!

I think they would need something other than a 2 party system to accomplish this however.

Ugly candidates rarely win

[Azure]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I think they would need something other than a 2 party system to accomplish this however.

Ugly candidates rarely win

Or a completely new batch of politicians that actually WANT to change things, instead of just talking about it.

Congress needs to go. At least 90% of it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Or a completely new batch of politicians that actually WANT to change things, instead of just talking about it.

Congress needs to go. At least 90% of it.

You and I don't often agree, but I will agree with this. People don't realize that the President is relatively powerless in legislative matters--the reins of power are held by a small club of mostly incompetent, mostly not-very-smart people whose single substantial (and bipartisan) achievement over the decades has been to protect incumbency through gerrymandering. It is a toxic influence on American political culture.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, 4 or 8 more years might change a lot of that. You have no idea what kind of campaign she could run with more experience, and as the primary Republican candidate.

Could be disaster, could be the opposite.

What I'm saying is, she's so far away from being a viable candidate that 4 or 8 years isn't enough time. Maybe 20 years.

Originally Posted by Iowa Flames Fan

You and I don't often agree, but I will agree with this. People don't realize that the President is relatively powerless in legislative matters--the reins of power are held by a small club of mostly incompetent, mostly not-very-smart people whose single substantial (and bipartisan) achievement over the decades has been to protect incumbency through gerrymandering. It is a toxic influence on American political culture.

Sort of. Gerrymandering certainly helps incumbents stay in office but American government is set up so Members of Congress serve their constituents first, and worry about the nation second. Research shows they are actually very good representing their own constituents concerns to the extent that the nation as a whole is often harmed. If you poll a voter about their own representative, they are likely to be in favor of the job he's doing. If you poll a voter about Congress as a whole they are very likely to not be in favor of the job they are doing.

Want change? Change the system. Give individual Members of Congress less power. Replacing the cogs will not really do much long term.