Monday, October 03, 2005

Conservative Evangelicals who are Republican Apologists: Marks

To Conservative Evangelicals who take a positive view of the national-level Republican Party:

So you're disappointed over President Bush's latest SCOTUS choice? Perhaps she'll turn out to be a good conservative, perhaps not. There seems to be intense pressure on the SCOTUS to drift leftward if one is not self-consciously faithful to conservative principles, and, more importantly, to the US Constitution.

But if she turns out to be another mushy moderate, won't you feel silly. You told me in 2004 that, despite the increase in the size of government and the spending spree enabled by Republicans, despite doing little about the borders, despite giving new subsidies to yet another group with its hand out, etc, we had to support Bush because he could control the SCOTUS.

I learned long ago that the Republican Party plays the "religious right" like a piano, counting on them as a base to whom they can pretty much disdain or appeal, depending on what is the most appropriate strategy. You see, you'll never leave. There is no reason for secular Republicans and moderates to take you seriously. Where are you going to go? The Democrats? The Greens? You're not going anywhere. You are to the Republicans what Black people are to the Democrats. They get whipped up into a frenzy by their leaders, you get whipped up into a frenzy by yours. You'll support big government if it is Republican big government, but decry the Democrats as the socialist moochers and parasites that they are.

All these years you told me that we needed a Republican president, and then a Republican Congress, and then finally we could get back within constitutional parameters. Ah, but we've had a Republican-controlled Congress for over a decade, and we have a guy who said some of the right things in 2000. And what do we have? Big government. Bigger government. Our borders are as porous as before. More people than ever expect the gummint's handout every time there is a crisis.

But that's OK, because as you thump your Bibles, your political memory goes out the window. When '06 comes, the Republicans will again work up a good scarefest to get you Biblethumpers out to the polls, just as the Democrats scare the old folks and minorities with their assorted boogeymen. And, when '08 comes, if a "moderate Republican" like Giuliani [read: liberal] gets the nomination, I can count on your mental gymnastics to justify why Giuliani is a good choice.

What a bunch of marks.


Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

And with a readership of 100 or so each day, I can count on the above thread to have a MAJOR impact in politics!

But, it was cathartic. Had to get it out of the system.

Monday, October 03, 2005 7:52:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

This post is off-key (and also a little too breathy).

Allegiance to the free hand of free market principles is the main thing that effects Republican nonchalance regarding the migration of populations. Just as Japan was supposed to have bought America a decade or two back, only to have to sell it back at a loss, it is generally viewed that though Mexican illegals look like an invasion force now, things kind of work out for the best along those lines. That allegiance to such creative, dynamic chaos is actually very impressive, to my view of things.

Freedom, dynamic free market economy, and tight borders usually don't go together. People move across borders for a reason. If it's to work, so be it, that's the best reason.

If the market for it changes I see many of these 'invaders' going back to Mexico to make their fortunes there in ways they couldn't without being here doing what they're doing now.

The 'big government' tag on Bush is hardly fair. I've already adressed that on your blog. A war, natural disasters, robust economy, cutting taxes, these are a mix of things people can pull whatever they want out of. When he cuts taxes and the deficit is under the percentage that is the ideal of the western world the charges of 'big government' take on a color of mere partisan rhetoric.

Evangelical Christians are actually rather discriminating worker bees for the Republican Party. They don't show up at the polls in big numbers automatically. They are hardly 'marks'.

And Guiliani would get support from the religious right, I believe, and not because they'd have to be fooled or played for idiots. They'd make a political calculation and vote for the man. Personally I don't sense Rudy is a liberal. And the nation is not New York City.

As for Miers... I think there is a reflexive cringe when an unknown (and a woman) is put forward (guilty). We tend to automatically suspect she's a stealth liberal (due to a variety of possible motives that women can be susceptible to). I cringed when I first heard it. Yet I think this bio fact of her obviously strong faith and involvement in her conservative church is the X factor for feeling good about the nomination. You can't fake that for a quarter century. Also the fact that she's never been married shows she has gone through the stages of independence and weathered the strongest kinds of influence one can get from the world which suggests she is not going to be a typical wet noodle the left can court and corrupt.

My main problem with Bush is too much distance from the public on the issue of the War and War effort. Part of his political tactical signature is to allow his opponents to overplay their hand, but on the war he's needed to get more vocal. The media is having its ways in the most shameless way in not reporting what is happening in Iraq. The President can counter that from the bully pulpit, and Bush hasn't.

Also, I havn't been comfortable with his personal schedule with all the workouts and vacation time. Even if he's working alot all along the way it doesn't look it...

Monday, October 03, 2005 10:35:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home