On Kathleen Parker, Social Conservatives & the GOP
Kathleen Parker has a very good essay today in National Review where she frequently echoes my views on social conservatives and the GOP. Interestingly, she’s a little harsher on social conservatives than I am. I disagree with her suggestion that social conservatives try to “make their arguments without bringing God into it.”
They should be able to make a case for their political views through their faith. That said, I do think she’s onto something when she encourages them to make their case through logic and reason as that tactic might better resonate with voters.
Here is where I totally agree with her:
As long as the religious right is seen as controlling the Republican party, the GOP will continue to lose some percentage of voters, and that percentage likely will increase over time as younger voters shift away from traditional to more progressive values.
As I’ve written before (and this is a topic to which I’d like to devote more attention in the coming weeks and months), the GOP needs to find a way to accommodate social conservatives without being dominated by them.
Should we do that and put forward a consistent conservative message on the economy which resonates with voters, we’ll be back in 2010, if not before.
66 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I do not see how you can take religion out of the public square. Nor do I see how you can tell people who are devoutly religious that they must be “politically correct” and work things out without resorting to their religious beliefs.
Gays must accept that a certain segment of religious society see them as sinners. That is little different, in my mind, as straights understanding that a certain segment of the gay society see them as homophobes.
Obama has not denied his religion. Pelosi and Biden have tried and failed at redefining abortion doctrine of their Catholic faith. Clinton called in Jesse Jackson to help him conduct his atonement tour. Jimmy Carter was full blown religious.
I understand Parker’s point. “Intelligent design” has driven Little Green Footballs around the bend. Liberals have all sorts of tales of Sarah Palin and her purported literalist beliefs of Genesis. There is a great drive for “social moderation” as a plan for the Republican Party: accept abortion as status quo, drop the gay marriage objections, open up stem cell research and write religion out of the basis for taking a moral stance.
The true “Brave New World” is replacing the religion based ethic with rational precepts. Unfortunately, moral relevancy as envisioned by such egos as Biden, Schumer, Obama, Frank, Putin, Chavez, Castro, the Central Committee of China, etc. is transitory at best and fickle in fact.
One can be a fiscal conservative, favor less government, and support a strong defense force while being a social liberal. Or, one can be socially straight laced while craving full blown socialism.
The issue is how one rank orders his beliefs. As a fiscal conservative I do not let social issues much get in my way when I vote. I voted for McCain because Obama is a socialist leftist. I had no choice but McCain. If people sat out the election because McCain didn’t ring their religion chimes, nothing Parker suggests would have made the least difference.
Parker is opposed to the “true believer.” She is promoting “religion lite” and if she can get people to follow her advice, she sees a bigger tent party as a result. Well, others are promoting the idea that Republicans get into the hand-out business and go after our own stable of loyal minorities.
I think trying to redefine the philosophical forces that drive conservatism is essaying to be too clever by half. Just because a kid takes his bat home in anger, it does not change the sand lot baseball game going on a neighborhood away.
Comment by heliotrope — December 5, 2008 @ 1:56 pm - December 5, 2008
Dan, while Katie Parker maybe “a little harsher” so-cons than you have been, I think she’s still missing the boat by at least an ocean’s width.
Emmett Tyrrell, speaking at the American Spectator’s annual dinner on Wed night, crafted a stirring resolve for the conservatives and GOP… and put the so-cons to bed.
Here: http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/12/05/return-to-the-wilderness
While Katie has an interesting take on the so-cons use of God as the perfect rationalization for Right-action, Emmett’s points better focus the need for conservatives and the GOP to restore faith (small “f” by the way) in their principles behind small govt, lower taxes, free market mechanisms, self-empowerment, conservationism, equality of opportunity, national pride and liberty for all, a strong military and 2nd Amendment, exporting democracy to the world and an embrace of our glorious immigrant past and future.
I hope you do write more on what you think is the proper role of the so-cons in the GOP… but as a moderate GOPer, I know that a Party dominated by those interests and issues will not secure any political advantage with voters in the New Brave World of Obama.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 5, 2008 @ 2:10 pm - December 5, 2008
Kathleen was very harsh in this essay. I feel like the leftist illuminati often stereotypes all conservatives as being God-nuts, which of course isn’t true.. but we shouldn’t be (like she says) encouraging people to NOT display their faith- it’s a huge part of who they are
Comment by ew — December 5, 2008 @ 3:33 pm - December 5, 2008
Meanwhile, New York Democrats Throw Gays Under The Political Bus.
Democrats love Gays… especially when they can be used as collateral in order to gain more power…
Comment by sonicfrog — December 5, 2008 @ 4:33 pm - December 5, 2008
I’m not only a gay conservative, but I am also Christian and took great offense to Kathleen Parker’s article which I sliced and diced on my blog here:
http://freedomswings.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/kathleen-parker-is-bathing-in-the-kool-aid/
I agree that the religious right should not be the focus of the GOP, but pushing God out is not the answer. Nothing makes that more apparent then the results in all the gay issues that were on the ballot. Even if the GOP embraced gays in some way, I don’t think liberal gays would come. They don’t have the principles to be part of the GOP. They embrace fascism like idiots without realizing that social conservatives may think gays are sinful, but they wouldn’t slaughter us. The Nazis show where fascism leaves gay people. Kathleen Parker has lost her way and as a conservative I don’t put any credence in anything she writes.
Comment by dsgawrsh — December 5, 2008 @ 4:59 pm - December 5, 2008
K Parker started off a column last week with: So much for the wisdom of The People. A new report from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute on the nation’s civic literacy finds that most Americans are too ignorant to vote.
I noted Ms Parker in an earlier comment in “another argument for making . . . #41
I agree, Many People of Faith made this country great and will continue to do so. But it won’t be just one particular sect or group that should set the rules. People with good hearts and good intentions do not all worship or follow the same religious edicts.
Parker also used material from Shenkman. — In his book, Shenkman, founder of George Mason University’s History News Network, is tough on everyday Americans. Why, he asks, do we value polls when clearly The People don’t know enough to make a reasoned judgment? The founding fathers, Shenkman points out, weren’t so enamored of The People, whom they distrusted. Hence a Republic, not a Democracy.
They understood that an ignorant electorate was susceptible to emotional manipulation and feared the tyranny of the masses.
Both Shenkman and the institute pose a bedeviling question, as crucial as any to the nation’s health: Who will govern a free nation if no one understands the mechanics of that freedom? Answer: Maybe one day, a demagogue. –
Again, some argue that the roots of this country were blessed with the waters that flow from a christnocentric well. But today the world is closer to being that global village, and it will be those willing to vote on shared moral truths and basic human values that will keep America strong.
Comment by rusty — December 5, 2008 @ 5:05 pm - December 5, 2008
Did McCain lose because faith was emphasized or because it wasn’t? This wasn’t an election about faith but about race and about the economy. People of faith should be welcome in the GOP, but faith shouldn’t drive the platform(s) and the message. I would rather have a GOP where members belonged and others selected/elected despite their respective faiths and not because of them. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
Comment by Ignatius — December 5, 2008 @ 6:17 pm - December 5, 2008
The GOP hasn’t been dominated by social conservatives in quite a while.
As a social conservative who has lobbied The Hill from time to time, I don’t like to confess that but it is true. I say that is true because while some are making complaints to the contrary they are just beating up social conservatives and missing an opportunity to actually work with them in a new way.
I would encourage you to dig deeper … take note of the swing between ’04 and ’06. Look for the headlines right before those elections and then the “follow up” on the same subjects.
The GOP sent us invitations in the mail but somehow… we didn’t end up on the guest list. I am still a card carrying Republican for many reasons … but being a part of the “dominant” wing of the right wing just isn’t the reason because it isn’t true.
Comment by Randy — December 5, 2008 @ 6:26 pm - December 5, 2008
If your run-of-the-mill Republican could attack social issues in the same small-government, market based, states-rights way in which we (in theaory at least) attack economic issues, we’d be home free.
That would mean resolving the abortion issue with common-sense and reasoned arguments, as opposed to legislation (i.e. “winning hearts and minds). I’m not sure what it would mean for gay rights — perhaps limiting the marriage debates to the states? Undoubtedly, it would mean coming to terms and making compromises with the gay community.
Comment by Ronnie Gipper — December 5, 2008 @ 7:31 pm - December 5, 2008
That depends on what “through their faith” means.
Many religious and social conservatives think their religious sect’s scriptures and dogmas are appropriate justifications for their political positions. They are not.
In a nation with freedom of religion people have no business assuming that their religious views are, or should be, shared by their fellow citizens.
Comment by Dave — December 5, 2008 @ 7:52 pm - December 5, 2008
I am old enough to remember the religious left during the Vietnam War. I believe in God…………..but, do believe that the Bible was written by mankind, not God.
Comment by Swampfox — December 5, 2008 @ 9:44 pm - December 5, 2008
Why is it taken as a given that people will turn away from traditional values as they mature and embrace progressive values that have failed wherever they’ve been tried? Except for drug-addled hippies, most people get more conservative as they mature.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2008 @ 9:46 pm - December 5, 2008
Dan,
With all due respect, both you and Parker are dead, flat wrong. Not just slightly wrong, but 180-degree bass-ackwards, couldnt-BE-more-wrong wrong.
Not only is the idea that religious conservatives cost Republicans the election and should thus be shunned to the back of the bus a wrong-headed injection of personal predjudices (not to mention grossly offensive scapegoating), but it bears absolutely no relation to the facts on the ground whatsoever. Which are:
1) A mere four years ago the broad consensus, based entirely on the results of exit polls was that President Bush and Republicans won re-election not in spite of “values voters” but precisely because of them. The idea that the country has somehow swung violently away from these same values in four short years and embraced moral centrism is ridiculous on its face, and utterly preposterous in light of the victory of Proposition 8 by a very healthy majority in midnight-blue California which elected Barack Obama by double-digits over John McCain.
2) Bible-thumping George WWJD Bush won the white vote by 12%, John McCain, whom no one accuses of being a bible-thumper, and whom most regard as a social moderate won the white vote by ….12%.
That means this election was lost largely among blacks and hispanics — two demographics who overwhelmingly SHARE social conservative values with Republicans. Actually, gays and Jews are about the only minorities that don’t share social values with religious conservatives. If Republicans sweep these values under the rug as you and Parker suggest, they demolish the biggest bridge they have to the rapidly-growing ethnic minorities upon whose votes future elections will be decided and lose the social conservative vote in an attempt to curry favor with secularists who are, by in large, economically liberal. I cant think of a more perfect prescription for permanent minority status. Its no coincidence that it also the prescription being proffered in the pages of the NYT and on the Huffington Post.
Parker references perceptions and anecdotal evidence. These, on the other hand, are the facts.
Indeed, the ONLY place Parker is right is that the GOP has a perception problem. But she’s complaining about the wrong perceptions, blaming the wrong people and proposing the wrong solution.
It isn’t that the GOP is overly-religious that is the problem, religion and traditional values remain overwhelmingly popular in America, particularly among those demographics that hold the key to future victory. The people who are complaining about religion in the GOP are mostly urban white liberals like John Stewart, Bill Maher, the entire staff of the Huffington post. and the rest of the Hollywood/media crowd. But as I noted above, Republicans havent lost any support among white people. And these same people are the socialist/secularists who wouldnt vote for Republicans if we shipped every last pentacostal to timbuktu.
The REAL perception problems that the GOP has are three-fold:
1) That Republicans are intolerant and racist. This, not religiosity, is the myth that has blacks voting for Democrats by in excess of 90%. A myth that Democrats political survival absolutely depends upon perpetuating. As I’ve said, Republicans aren’t losing any votes among whites. If the GOP can make even modest inroads — even just 10% — among blacks, hispanics and other ethnic minorities on a permanent basis, then the Democrat party as it exists today is electorally finished.
The irony is that it isnt religious issues that Democrats use to perpetuate this propaganda, it is fiscal policy and core conservative values that they use to do so.
Want to enforce immigration law? You’re racist. Dont want to pay for massive new social programs? Racist! Think the law should treat people the same no matter their skin color? racist! racist! racist!
2) The second perception is that the Republican party is dishonest corrupt. A gross misrepresentation of reality based on a few instances of both real and phony corruption charges which were all routed out of the party. A particularly maddening misperception considering Republicans are the ONLY party that actually discourages and punishes corruption in its ranks while Democrats ignore, defend and reward it.
This perception wouldnt be so bad if President Bush and the rest of the GOP actually refuted all of Democrats phony charges and would hold Democrats accountable for their far more egregious corruption and lies.
3) The perception that Republicans are fiscally irresponsible. A well-earned perception despite the fact that Democrats are far worse.
THOSE are the preception problems Republicans have, those are the reasons Republicans lost, and none of them have anything to do with social conservatives. If anyone needs to be shunned to the back of the bus, its the very same fiscal liberals who are blaming social conservatives now.
Comment by American Elephant — December 5, 2008 @ 10:08 pm - December 5, 2008
V,
There is a short-sighted erroneous belief that society only gets more socially liberal over time, when the fact is that societal values behave more like a pendulum.
Comment by American Elephant — December 5, 2008 @ 10:12 pm - December 5, 2008
So let’s see; Kathleen Parker criticizes Sarah Palin for talking about “God’s will” and claims it’s “pandering to the religious right”, but gladly fawns over, supports, and endorses candidates like Barack Obama who openly invoke and advertise their link with the same thing.
Not only is she an antireligious bigot, she’s a hypocrite.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 5, 2008 @ 10:39 pm - December 5, 2008
Its also worth noting that the only two minorities who DONT share social values with Republicans, gays and secular Jews, are also the two minorities most over-represented in Hollywood and the media.
Comment by American Elephant — December 5, 2008 @ 11:01 pm - December 5, 2008
Well, I can’t top AE. I’ll just have to say “What he said”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 6, 2008 @ 12:44 am - December 6, 2008
Kathleen Parker is a dishonest hypocrite. She’s trying to scapegoat what she calls the “oogety boogety” conservatives as “the real problem” even though the GOP just lost by nominating a geriatric JFK. Then, when people called her out for being an idiot, she tried to walk it back and claim her thesis was “fake but accurate”… i.e. the snake-handlers may not have lost THIS election, but they’re still the main problem!!
Comment by DoDoGuRu — December 6, 2008 @ 7:15 am - December 6, 2008
Not only is the idea that religious conservatives cost Republicans the election and should thus be shunned to the back of the bus a wrong-headed injection of personal predjudices (not to mention grossly offensive scapegoating), but it bears absolutely no relation to the facts on the ground whatsoever.
The idea that this is what is being advocated bears absolutely no relation to what was written.
Comment by Ignatius — December 6, 2008 @ 9:47 am - December 6, 2008
Off-topic, here’s an article re. a Chicago-based lawyer advocating for the elimination of the requirement that a president be a natural-born citizen.
Comment by Ignatius — December 6, 2008 @ 9:53 am - December 6, 2008
Dan writes:
“Her” being Kathleen Parker and Dan presents this quote:
American Elephant notes:
Ignatius cites American Elephant’s statement and rules:
So, now I join the fray. Kathleen Parker clearly does not want the “oogedy-boogedy†part of the religious right to embarrass the party as a whole. She skates all round the topic of fundamentalists who pound people with a God hammer rather than resorting to “reason.” She cites Nat Hentoff who is a liberal’s liberal except he opposes abortion. Nat Hentoff arrived at his “reason” because he opposes state sanctioned death. I am not certain where he stands on soldiers with live ammunition. Nor do I know where he is on stem cell research. But Katheen Parker finds him useful for her argument.
Marriage is a religious institution that the state has co-adopted as a useful tool for writing property and contract law. The “oogedy-boogedy†religious right is prissy about marriage being between one man and one woman. (They are not alone in this, but they are the most vocal.)
Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi each tried to morph Catholic doctrine into a more “progressive” view of abortion and their respective bishops kicked them in their collective Catholic chops as a result.
All sorts of liberals go to church. All sorts of liberal Jews are Jewish but not religious. (Go figure.) There are plenty of feel good churches to attend where no one is a sinner and progressive fellowship and coffee and doughnuts and do a little kindness gets you a gold star on your wee-wee chart and don’t have to worry about Heaven or Hell because Bill Moyers says not to. That is the “religious” crowd Kathleen Parker can accept.
The “oogedy-boogedy†religious right is Rick Warren daring to force a candidate to expose the foundation for his ethic code. For Kathleen Parker, the Republican Party must cut moral relevance a wider path.
Kathleen Parker clearly says that (1) the religious right is seen as controlling the Republican Party, which (2) causes the GOP to lose “some percentage of voters” and (3) younger voters are shifting from traditional to more progressive values.
Get it? “Oogedy-boogedy†religion is going out of style. “Progressive values” are in. The Republicans need to get with the trend.
I disagree with American Elephant (not really, just for the form of argument) when he says the religious right is being moved to the back of the bus. Kathleen Parker does not have the guts to say it, but she wants them out the back door and off the bus. They can vote, but only if they shut up.
Kathleen Parker’s quote in a warning that “progressive values” are in play and she is comparing “progressive values” to “oogedy-boogedy†values.
Ignatius, what American Elephant wrote is dead on in relation to what was written.
Comment by heliotrope — December 6, 2008 @ 10:55 am - December 6, 2008
I submitted a comment and think it went into the spam folder..can the editors retrieve it?
Comment by Rocket — December 6, 2008 @ 1:15 pm - December 6, 2008
As for whether religious conservatives cost Republicans the election… here is Karl Rove:
Let me try to distill the essence for the quibblers and slow kids. If the comparison is to Bush 2004, then McCain lost millions(!) of votes because:
(1) Significant slices of evangelicals stayed at home.
(2) Slices of evangelicals were pried away by Obama running a deceptive campaign – that our media, which largely fails to do its *job* of educating the voters about the candidates, let him get away with.
Oh, and because the Democrats, this time, were smart enough not to nominate an infamous backstabber whom generations of veterans have rightly hated for 35 years. So veterans were less interested. But I digress. My point over all is, TO WIN, REPUBLICANS NEED CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES.
The balancing act from GOP self-appointed “moderates” is, how do they keep the evangelicals at the back of the bus, while still getting the benefit of the evangelicals’ votes and money and hard work? And the moderates’ contortions can be pretty funny. Sometimes they even forget that the very attempt is demeaning and alienating to group it is perpetrated on.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2008 @ 1:33 pm - December 6, 2008
Here’s Mark Steyn on the social conservatives:
Yup.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2008 @ 1:35 pm - December 6, 2008
Because… why? Because it’s important not to be different from Obama? Important to not rock the boat by presenting a contrast? Because “Me-Too-ism” has worked well for the GOP in the past? Because at the absolute peak of the GOP’s apologetic, “I’m liberal, too” era, which was the Ford era, it produced GOP popularity and electoral success?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2008 @ 1:40 pm - December 6, 2008
I agree with heliotrope agreeing with me.
Ignatus, I suggest you read both Parker’s and Dan’s pieces again.
Comment by American Elephant — December 6, 2008 @ 2:57 pm - December 6, 2008
awww, my words of wisdom disappeared
Comment by a different Dave — December 6, 2008 @ 5:19 pm - December 6, 2008
Dave..so did mine..I wrote them and posted them and then they didn’t show up…..spam folder ate it..
Comment by Rocket — December 6, 2008 @ 5:24 pm - December 6, 2008
As long as the religious right is seen as controlling the Republican party, the GOP will continue to lose some percentage of voters, and that percentage likely will increase over time as younger voters shift away from traditional to more progressive values.
Which is why the same baby-boomers who were abject skeptics, if not completely hostile towards, religion during their flower-power hippie youth are the same generation that pushed social conservativism, the “religious right”, and values voting to new heights.
Age brings experience, experience brings perspective, and perspective produces conservativism. Conservatives are not opposed to change; they are simply opposed to repeating something that has already proven itself a failure.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2008 @ 6:06 pm - December 6, 2008
I also have to ask, why are social conservatives being asked to make *all* the concessions in order to have party unity? Social conservatives are being told to give up on protecting life, give up on protecting marriage, and give up on protecting the individual right to the free exercise of religion. And the “moderates” are being asked to give up… what?
(Crickets chirping)
Comment by V the K — December 6, 2008 @ 7:03 pm - December 6, 2008
NDT, great line!
LOL – AE, that won’t be the first time our dear Professor Quibbles has heard that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2008 @ 7:12 pm - December 6, 2008
V,
I dont know about anyone else but Im
askingtelling the moderates to give up on moderation. We tried it and it got us precisely where we are. Time for some good ol unabashed, unapologetic conservatism. Time to run some real conservatives against sitting moderates.Comment by American Elephant — December 6, 2008 @ 10:56 pm - December 6, 2008
One of the big reasons that McCain got shellacked in ’08 is that he did exactly what GPW suggested- he walked the middle of the road, refused to commit to the Right, and expected the vast hordes of moderate and conservative-Democrat voters and donors to sweep over the horizon and rescue his abortive campaign.
How did that work out, GPW? How did your advice leave the party?
Comment by DaveP — December 6, 2008 @ 11:24 pm - December 6, 2008
A little OT, but teh awsum!1!: Cold-Cash Jefferson (D) has lost:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/12/bill_jefferson_loses.html?nav=rss_blog
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2008 @ 1:53 am - December 7, 2008
AP report is better: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081207/ap_on_el_ho/louisiana_congress
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2008 @ 2:27 am - December 7, 2008
Let us all pause and reflect on the passing of totally corrupt Louisiana politics. Our brother William Jefferson
Clintonwas taken down in the prime of his rise to true wealth garnered from influence peddling, bribery and vote selling.Brother William Jefferson
Clintonhas been cast out and will find no Shelter from the likes or Jindal or even the born again Nagin. Please send a love offering to William JeffersonClintonso he can stitch his life together. Hopefully, the Obama justice department will be too busy investigating the vile Bush administration to bother with such a small fish as William JeffersonClinton.By the way, shouldn’t William Jefferson
Clintonhave been accorded the decency of counting the uncast ballots of people who moved out of New Orleans after Katrina? The cold blade of the hopenchange knife has stabbed our brother William JeffersonClintonin the back. Even Jesse and Al won’t show up with their rent-a-mobs for the man. It marks the passing of an era and there won’t even be a good old fashioned New Orleans wake. Amen.Comment by heliotrope — December 7, 2008 @ 9:50 am - December 7, 2008
…and should thus be shunned to the back of the bus a wrong-headed injection of personal predjudices (not to mention grossly offensive scapegoating)…
Ignatus, I suggest you read both Parker’s and Dan’s pieces again.
Where are Parker and GPW stating religious conservatives be shunned to the back of the bus? I take you on your word that you are grossly offended, but that says a whole lot about you and not much about what was written.
Ignatius, what American Elephant wrote is dead on in relation to what was written.
I disagree. I don’t find anything in what Parker wrote or what GPW wrote that advocates people of faith being shunned. (Cite me the passages where they think shunning people of faith is a good idea, if you can.) There is a huge difference between people of faith being active in politics and faith itself driving policy or policy being advertised in religious terms. People of faith should be welcomed in Republican politics not because of their faiths; faith shouldn’t be used as a wedge issue or a means of differentiating Republicans from Democrats. Republican values should be centered around liberty, not God — and that includes religious liberty.
Comment by Ignatius — December 7, 2008 @ 10:46 am - December 7, 2008
Oh.
Comment by heliotrope — December 7, 2008 @ 11:52 am - December 7, 2008
Check your religious convictions – your religious reasons for supporting certain policies – at the door. The GOP obviously can’t win without you – so have a seat, folks – nicely at the back of that bus. Again, stay quiet about religion. See, heliotrope? Parker, Iggy, etc. do so want the evangelicals
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2008 @ 12:45 pm - December 7, 2008
ILC, nice to see that it’s not just my words you twist to make them say what you want. Misinterpretation – the tool of those who can’t use reality to make their points.
Comment by a different Dave — December 7, 2008 @ 2:14 pm - December 7, 2008
See, I totally disagree with the argument that the “religious right” needs to take a back seat for a couple of reasons. If this last election has told us anything, it is that Republicans need to attract a wider range of “groups” as unfortunately defined successfully by years of liberal democrat policies and politicking. Where Republicans seem to agree with Blacks, for example is on issues such as the marriage debate, as for hispanics, it is entrepreneurship, opportunity, and again the marriage issue. These are often defined in context as “religious” issues, so I don’t see how it helps Republicans to step away from that.
Secondly, it is Liberals and Democrats that are the ones that keep defining republicans as being controlled by the “religious Right” even though I would say that secular humanists are FAR more aggressive in changing the rules in our society and applying pressure through their activist judges and constant protests, the ACLU, etc etc. So I don’t think that Republicans whether they want to or not, can get away from that tag.. Republicans need to stop worrying about tags and labels, because Liberals and democrats create a caricature of Republicans and conservatives and their sycophants in the media help them to attack that. Republicans need to just step up, put together a contract and act as one. One message, repeated by their entire political establishment, outreach programs, and alternative media. That is how to succeed.
First visit to the site folks.. Thanks for having me!
Comment by Jim P — December 7, 2008 @ 2:27 pm - December 7, 2008
Dave P, I did not suggest that the GOP follow a course down the middle of the road. Instead, I believe the party should soft peddle social conservative issues and focus on a fiscally conservative message.
On domestic issues at least, neither McCain nor George W. Bush for that matter failed to articulate (or implement) a particularly conservatives message/plan.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 7, 2008 @ 3:00 pm - December 7, 2008
ADD, I re-state, perhaps lightly exaggerating for humor, in order to show truth. Too bad the truth hurts, when you (among others) say idiotic things.
In this case, Professor Quibbles had said at #36:
In other words, using basic principles of English interpretation, and in context with the dear Professor’s other words:
1) Being “active in politics” and just happening to have religious convictions, as long as you keep them out of political discourse: something he’s willing to tolerate.
2) Letting your faith give rise to (or “drive”) your policy views: something he doesn’t like.
3) Explaining (or “advertising”) your policy views in terms of your religious convictions which had given rise to them: something he doesn’t like.
Thus, my re-statement at #38 nails it. Openly religious voters are not to be “shunned”, the Professor has explicitly told us. But being at the back of the bus isn’t “shunning”; being off the bus would be. The dear Professor wants evangelicals on the bus – perhaps so the GOP can still have their votes and money – but evangelicals had best ix-nay the eligious-ray anguage-lay, when it comes to THEM developing and “advertising” THEIR policy views, eh? So no, don’t shun ‘em, but give ‘em a second-class bus ride.
If (note IF) that isn’t what the dear Professor meant, then he’d better say his views better. Because, going by what he did say, we’d have to throw Thomas Jefferson – a liberty-lover, tax-cutter and small-government guy par excellence – to the back of the bus, along with the evangelicals:
Tsk, tsk. That nasty Jefferson developed and advertised his policy in the highlighted *religious* terms.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2008 @ 3:52 pm - December 7, 2008
P.S. To clarify – There is some disagreement here over whether “being at the back of the bus” is “shunning” or not. The Professor, I will admit, was responding to AE’s formulation about evangelicals being “shunned to the back of the bus”. And I disagree with that formulation, because I see 3 options:
A. You can have evangelicals on the bus, as equals, free to “advertise” their views and reasons as they see fit.
B. You can have evangelicals on the bus, but they better STFU. Second-class.
C. You can have evangelicals “shunned” off the bus.
That’s my way. I only interpret option C as “shunning”. And the Professor rejects it. I got it. But he, and Parker, and other “moderates” attach qualifying language in favor of option B. Evangelicals should still show up for the GOP, but STFU. That’s being on the bus – not “shunned” – but being second-class.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2008 @ 4:05 pm - December 7, 2008
(P.P.S. I hereby retract calling Jefferson a liberty lover “par excellence”, because he was a slaveholder. Let’s just leave it that he was a liberty-lover… who, yes, developed and “advertised” his pro-liberty policies in terms of his particular form of *faith*.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2008 @ 4:34 pm - December 7, 2008
Perhaps you have such difficulty seeing the obvious because you agree with it, but it is, nonetheless, painfully obvious:
To continue the vehicular metaphor, accomodate without being dominated by, means you can come along for the ride, but you cant drive. It means, “you need to take a lesser role.” We’ll allow you to vote for us, but please keep your “oogity boogity” opinions to yourselves and quit embarrassing the rest of us. and dont expect us to address any of your issues. In other words, a straight-forward demand that religious conservatives take a back seat.
And yes, it is both intellectually and morally offensive to imply that the election was lost due to religous conservatives and as such, something needs to be “done” about “them”, when its so demonstrably untrue. That I find dishonest scapegoating offensive does say something about me I’m happy to report; that you dont, unfortunately, doesn’t speak so well of you.
Comment by American Elephant — December 7, 2008 @ 7:26 pm - December 7, 2008
Dear ILC,
It is apparent that you have engaged in “protecting the metaphor” which is somewhat curious as we do not know whether y(our) Purfeser Quibbles considers the “back of the bus” as a place of honor rather than a place of scorn as would be commonly thought. Furthermore, we do not know for certain whether the folks on the back of the bus are even on the correct bus! Consider the idea that they entered through the back of the bus in order to avoid paying the fare and they entered the wrong bus as well.
I offer this as an example of how very confusing things can become when one is being monitored by Perfeser Quibbles. I suggest we switch to throwing people out of airplanes as the metaphor of choice. (I also like the thought of firing people through the torpedo tubes of a submerged submarine.)
Comment by heliotrope — December 7, 2008 @ 7:42 pm - December 7, 2008
Oh.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2008 @ 8:03 pm - December 7, 2008
For the record, I dont object to the idea that it would behoove Christian conservatives to make secular arguments for their positions — telling people they should oppose gay marriage because God says so doesnt go very far with people who dont believe in God (not that I hear many of them making this argument, just as an example). My objection is to scapegoating them for the electoral loss and suggesting they should lock themselves in their rooms til election day.
Comment by American Elephant — December 8, 2008 @ 1:36 am - December 8, 2008
Drat! Filtered again! And all because of those meddling kids!
Comment by American Elephant — December 8, 2008 @ 1:37 am - December 8, 2008
The simplest plan would be for the GOP to represent social *and* fiscal conservatism. That way, they wouldn’t have to kick out anybody.
And it will be very easy to contrast fiscal conservatism with a Democrat congress that, if a fire broke out in the capitol, their first instinct would be to try and smother it under piles of money.
Comment by V the K — December 8, 2008 @ 7:17 am - December 8, 2008
Social “conservatism” is anti-conservative. Anyone who would use the state to control society might as well be a leftist. And if Mike Hillbilly gets the GOP nomination in 2012 Obama’s second term is as good as guaranteed.
Comment by Attmay — December 8, 2008 @ 1:19 pm - December 8, 2008
#45 Cite me where GPW and/or Parker advocate shunning religious conservatives. You won’t find such phantom phrases because they aren’t there. I don’t read anything about shunning, banishing, ignoring, marginalizing, excluding, repelling.
If by ‘shunning to the back of the bus’ you mean something along the lines of ‘relegating to the position of least influence’, you still fail. Neither writer states anything of the kind. And so I’m back to my original statement waaaaay back in #19: “The idea that this is what is being advocated bears absolutely no relation to what was written.” I think you’re overreacting by being “grossly offended”, but you’re free to react in any way you see fit. I’m not attacking you, I’m just pointing out where I think you’re misinterpreting. I’m not putting you down, calling you names, insulting you.
In other words, a straight-forward demand that religious conservatives take a back seat.
As far as I know, GPW is a religious Jew. Does it make sense that he would advocate that he be ‘shunned’? Does it make sense that you can read the suggestion that a party be less dominated by religious conservatives and then make the leap to that suggestion being “…a straight-forward demand that religious conservatives take a back seat”…? Perhaps it makes sense to you, but once again, that says more about you than about what we’re discussing.
It might have been better had Parker’s article dealt specifically with religious conservatism rather than conservatives. That way we could avoid hypersensitive religious folk getting upset with imaginary dissing. But I doubt it. I guess the part in the Decalogue about not bearing false witness is situational.
Comment by Ignatius — December 8, 2008 @ 2:26 pm - December 8, 2008
Funny Ignatius, I just heard Michael Medved, and later Laura Ingraham discussing a Ross Doubthat column and they both have exactly the same interpretation of Parker’s column that I, and others here do. Seems the only person in disagreement over interpretation here is you.
And no, I dont think anyone is suggesting that gay Jews take a back seat, they are clearly, however, suggesting that “the religious right” or “social conservatives” take a back seat… I dont know many people who think of gay Jews when the phrase “the religious right” is employed, except, again, apparently you. Most think of fundamentalist Christians. You might notice that Dan refers to “them” and not “we”, meaning even he recognizes that he is talking about a group of which he doesn’t consider himself a part.
But if you insist on continuing this line of reasoning, you might consider stretching first — this kind of contortion can lead to injury.
Comment by American Elephant — December 8, 2008 @ 7:44 pm - December 8, 2008
Dammit Jim! Filtered again!
Comment by American Elephant — December 8, 2008 @ 7:44 pm - December 8, 2008
#51 Ignatius bellows:
Since #45 is American Elephant, I am not going to presume to speak in his stead. But as a linguist, I have an opinion of my own about the efficacy of “reading between the lines” and discerning an author’s voice and intent. (We all know what “ACME” means when Wile E. Coyote drags open a box in The Road Runner.)
Ignatius has proved a positive. That is as unremarkable a feat as testing a red hot burner with your finger to determine if the burn will be as painful as the last time you did the same thing. GPW and/or Parker did not use the phrase of “shunning religious conservatives.” You can read for yourself and find no such wording.
But poor Ignatius screws up his proving a positive exercise by saying something paradoxical and ironic that is worthy of Gilbert and Sullivan. He wants American Elephant to point out where the “phantom phrases” that are not there are.
Now, boys and girls, we must put on our thinking caps to get to the heart of this. I suggest this old poem as a model: Yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man who wasn’t there. He wasn’t there again today. How I wish that man would go away.
Ignatius seems to advocate being a literalist. One reads word for word and takes no meaning other than what is written. This erases the place of parable or moral fable or metaphor or anything approaching creative writing. The spirit is in the word and the mind need only accomplish the reading of the word and Webster’s first definition of it.
To go beyond that formula is to have Ignatius cry “foul” and start upon the construction of a circular argument of rules constructed on the spot to prove his point.
Aristotle framed the “argument” as the agreement to disagree. He meant that to argue the two sides must understand that they are not in agreement. They proceed to show the fallacy in one another’s argument. When one plays a “rule” with which the other does not agree, the argument is over. Not won. Just over. That is why formal logic and its hard rules were set down. Aristotle is still studied and basically his rules of logic remain unchanged and unaugmented.
Ignatius would do well to bone up on the basic rules of argument. He is particularly in need of understanding the “undistributed middle term” and all of its cousins.
Comment by heliotrope — December 9, 2008 @ 11:42 am - December 9, 2008
Yes. Except that a word may have multiple definitions, and when it does, I find that the Professor focuses exclusively on the particular one that will serve his argumentative goal, and insists it was the one you meant, though often it wasn’t. I would describe his tactic as argument-by-straw-man. He misinterprets a person’s words, then demonstrates the absurdity of “their” position (which is his misinterpretation). Recent example: this thread: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/12/03/media-malpractice-led-to-ignorant-electorate/
In the present thread, AE perhaps stepped into the trap (sorry, AE) with his formulation “shunned to the back of the bus”. All the Professor has to do is show that he and/or Parker never called for anyone to be shunned, and he’s won – by his rules. And of course he and Parker don’t want evangelicals to be shunned: the GOP still needs their votes. But, as I’ve been pointing out, Parker and the Professor nonetheless paint a picture where evangelicals should STFU, when it comes to explaining or “advertising” the reasons and motivations for their policies. As the Professor has put it:
In other words: Let’s have policies developed and “advertised” in strictly non-religious terms. In practice, it means the non-religious can “advertise” their (generally non-religious) wishes and reasons freely, while the religious must be much more circumspect. That *is* a second-class status. If widely adopted as a standard, I guarantee it will alienate enough religious conservatives to cost the GOP many future elections. See #23 for Rove’s take on how the partial alienation of religious conservatives already impacted the 2008 election.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 9, 2008 @ 2:52 pm - December 9, 2008
I spoke in my stead, but I keep getting filtered.
*knock, knock, knock*, anyone home???
Comment by American Elephant — December 9, 2008 @ 4:39 pm - December 9, 2008
ILC,
The point of quibbling, as you have pointed out, is to deny the premise not disprove it. Perfesser Qibbles relies on tripping you on your own words by recasting what you say to his supposed advantage. He starts and finishes with the assurance that he is absolutely correct. His only unsettled business is to cast the other views as invalid. This is not intellectual argument by any definition. It is sophistry. I expect to be corrected in my use of the word sophistry. Unfortunately, Perfessor Quibbles has honed sophistry to an art form. He just may not know it.
Comment by heliotrope — December 9, 2008 @ 4:41 pm - December 9, 2008
heliotrope,
Good points. I have to slightly defend myself now, as follows. There are many things I’m certain of. And if somebody disagrees with me (or I them), it usually comes down to a difference in fundamental premises, making the argument un-resolvable. I do not accept their premises, taking the attitude that my basic premises are right. In the end, I share much of Professor Quibbles’ “I’m right, you’re wrong” attitude. But I usually try to at least name the difference in basic premises. I may even say the words, “I object to your underlying premise that…” to try to shed light on the real difference. As opposed to, you know, employing fallacies of equivocation to create men-of-straw that are easily knocked down, then feeling great about myself. There it is.
AE – Send an e-mail to Dan. In these situations, I often send him an empty mail with a one-word title, ‘spamfilter’. He is great about it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 9, 2008 @ 7:40 pm - December 9, 2008
[...] GayPatriot » On Kathleen Parker, Social Conservatives & the GOP As long as the religious right is seen as controlling the Republican party, the GOP will continue to lose some percentage of voters, and that percentage likely will increase over time as younger voters shift away from traditional to … [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » On Kathleen Parker, Social Conservatives & the GOP — December 10, 2008 @ 11:47 pm - December 10, 2008
The December Limbaugh Letter quotes Kathleen Parker as follows:
“I love Obama for his style, grace, intellect and his way with words. I want the healing power than an Obama Presidency could deliver to this country.” (syndicated column 9/19/08.)
“If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.” (syndicated column 9/26/08.)
“I would not vote for someone who appeals to our lesser selves.” (The Colbert Report, 10/13/08.)
Sounds like Kathleen Parker is trying to get a gig as the radical right spokeswoman on the MSM bobblehead festival.
Comment by heliotrope — December 11, 2008 @ 6:52 pm - December 11, 2008
My comment was finally retrieved from spam, so I repost it:
Funny Ignatius, I just heard Michael Medved, and later Laura Ingraham discussing a Ross Doubthat column and they both have exactly the same interpretation of Parker’s column that I, and others here do. Seems the only person in disagreement over interpretation here is you.
And no, I dont think anyone is suggesting that gay Jews take a back seat, they are clearly, however, suggesting that “the religious right†or “social conservatives†take a back seat… I dont know many people who think of gay Jews when the phrase “the religious right†is employed, except, again, apparently you. Most think of fundamentalist Christians. You might notice that Dan refers to “them†and not “weâ€, meaning even he recognizes that he is talking about a group of which he doesn’t consider himself a part.
But if you insist on continuing this line of reasoning, you might consider stretching first — this kind of contortion can lead to injury.
Comment by American Elephant — December 12, 2008 @ 12:54 am - December 12, 2008
My comment was finally retrieved from spam, and is posted above. I tried posting it again, and, lo and behold, it got spammed again. Must be a bad word in there somewhere.
Comment by American Elephant — December 12, 2008 @ 12:55 am - December 12, 2008
Barf!!! Man, anyone *that* easily misled is surely a CINO, or the new Andrew Sullivan.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2008 @ 2:15 pm - December 12, 2008
Why doesn’t Parker write: “As long as the dem party is seen hostage to special interests, unions, trial lawyers, environazis and radical feminists, and extreme left wing religionists and antiwar activists, they will lose some portion of the popular vote and so should jettison those parts of their coalition”?
Because then she wouldn’t be invited to so many cocktail parties. But she should look at John McCain to see how fragile libs’ enamourment of backstabbing republicans really are.
Comment by eaglewingz08 — December 14, 2008 @ 5:02 pm - December 14, 2008