The GOP eats its own

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Has anyone considered the possiblity that this crazy Tea Partier just might lose this district for the GOP?

Why else would Democrats be happy about this?

[Elok]

well be that as it may, the point i'm making is that there are people who are sincere christians yet at the same time espouse randian ideas, even here, we have posters who do this. what i'm trying to understand is how, because as i said, there is no philosophy less compatible with christianity than objectivism.

AFAICT--and the bulk of this is ancient history, when I was in diapers or earlier, so I'm probably going to get at least part of it wrong--it goes back to the Reagan era, and a political marriage of convenience between the interests of businessmen and social conservatives. Don't know the details, but the "Religious Right" was supposedly born in the early eighties at the latest when Reagan agreed to bash Roe to get the Jesus crowd on his side. And it did so well (at first) that the two sort of fused into one identity, even though they properly should have very little to do with each other.

Since U.S. conservatives tend to be more explicit and enthusiastic than liberals when it comes to questions of tribal loyalty, a lot of them bought into Rand just as devoutly as they bought into scripture--because it's not about logical consistency so much as group adherence, or something. Idunno. Much of it, I think, is simply accepted as a received tradition by younger conservatives. The more zealous don't think to question it, any more than Dinner thinks to question that asinine spew you just quoted.

Now, I think the alliance is coming undone. Many social conservatives have sensed that party leadership has basically used them the same way Democrats use black people; they get trivial sops thrown their way regularly to keep them loyal, but at heart the party simply doesn't give a damn about them. And, since the country's abrupt volte-face on gay marriage, they feel betrayed. Meanwhile, genuine libertarianism is becoming more popular in the wake of all the crazy anti-terrorist rubbish, while big money is less sympathetic since the crash, and probably some other stuff.

I can't be sure, but I suspect that, over the coming twenty years, the decline in religiosity will be partially reversed. For a number of reasons, but mostly since the gross hypocrisy of Randian Christianity, and the whole Religious Right apparatus that went with it, was the prime factor driving people out of religion. And now that marriage is falling apart.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It also is interesting that there has been a marked rise in the visibility of Progressive Christianity (though Jim Wallis has been around for a while), but also in Democratic, and other liberal leaders, being very vocal in their faith (President Obama for example - in one speech he used the rationale of his faith to explain why he was pushing universal health care). I think that a lot of liberal leaders are realizing that, especially with younger believers, that Christianity can be cleaved from the right.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

When's the last time we had a Democratic president who didn't talk about his religion?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Clinton barely did (it was also common knowledge at the time that Hillary was more religious than Bill).

(Of course, up until Jimmy Carter most Presidents weren't so vocal about their faith - Carter did it, I suspect, to show how he was a moral man in contrast to Nixon, who resigned 3 years earlier)

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Well, he did talk about it enough that people have web pages devoted to "proving" he wasn't really religious.

http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_spirit.html

Despite his rift with millions of evangelicals over the issue of abortion and gay rights, President Clinton still considers himself a Southern Baptist who takes his Christian faith seriously.

"I don't think I could do my job as President," Clinton said, "much less continue to try to grow as a person in the absence of my faith in God and my attempt to learn more about what it should be and grow. It provides a solace and support in the face of all these problems that I am not smart enough to solve."
(ABC Interview by Peggy Wehmeyer, "American Agenda", March 22, 1994.)

I'm not sure how this quote is less religious than Obama's remarks

[Dinner]

Clinton talked about his faith all the time and never saw a church he didn't want to have a photo op in. That said, I think most people knew it was window dressing.

[C0ckney]

AFAICT--and the bulk of this is ancient history, when I was in diapers or earlier, so I'm probably going to get at least part of it wrong--it goes back to the Reagan era, and a political marriage of convenience between the interests of businessmen and social conservatives. Don't know the details, but the "Religious Right" was supposedly born in the early eighties at the latest when Reagan agreed to bash Roe to get the Jesus crowd on his side. And it did so well (at first) that the two sort of fused into one identity, even though they properly should have very little to do with each other.

Since U.S. conservatives tend to be more explicit and enthusiastic than liberals when it comes to questions of tribal loyalty, a lot of them bought into Rand just as devoutly as they bought into scripture--because it's not about logical consistency so much as group adherence, or something. Idunno. Much of it, I think, is simply accepted as a received tradition by younger conservatives. The more zealous don't think to question it, any more than Dinner thinks to question that asinine spew you just quoted.

that's very interesting, thank you. it would be interesting though to hear from people (like TMM) about how they try to square this particular circle; whether it is just an attachment to free markets, while discarding, pretty in its entirety, randian ethics, or something different.

Now, I think the alliance is coming undone. Many social conservatives have sensed that party leadership has basically used them the same way Democrats use black people; they get trivial sops thrown their way regularly to keep them loyal, but at heart the party simply doesn't give a damn about them. And, since the country's abrupt volte-face on gay marriage, they feel betrayed. Meanwhile, genuine libertarianism is becoming more popular in the wake of all the crazy anti-terrorist rubbish, while big money is less sympathetic since the crash, and probably some other stuff.

that sounds plausible. although i do wonder how the two party system can and will adapt to increasing numbers becoming disillusioned with what it offers.

I can't be sure, but I suspect that, over the coming twenty years, the decline in religiosity will be partially reversed. For a number of reasons, but mostly since the gross hypocrisy of Randian Christianity, and the whole Religious Right apparatus that went with it, was the prime factor driving people out of religion. And now that marriage is falling apart.

that's interesting to hear. it's also a little strange to me, as i come from a european, and also more recently a south american, perspective, where the decline in religiosity appears irreversible, and religion has retreated, or is retreating (there are some notable exceptions to this however, especially in south america), from the political sphere. out of curiosity, what are the other reasons you have for believing this?

[Elok]

Probably part of it is just my own bias, in that a secular POV makes no sense to me personally. However, there are other factors:

1. Growth of Hispanics as a demographic. Traditionally devout Catholics, and while some will fall away that will be a factor.

2. The RCC is FINALLY starting to look like it might maybe start actually cracking down on pervert priests and their enablers, along with corruption in general, in the foreseeable future. But it's hard to tell.

3. Gay marriage is basically a done deal at this point. That galvanized opposition to traditional Xian views on sexuality, together with Xianity itself. The outrage will die down some--some denominations may cave and grow gay-tolerant, others will hold tight and be marginalized for a while until the fickle public moves on--and there will be a different fight to mobilize people looking for an idealistic clash. What, I don't know. Transgender rights, possibly, but basically all other aspects of Christian sexual and social morality have been eroded away. There's just not much left to fight over.

4. "New Atheism" of the Dawkins type seems self-limiting; if you're defined mainly by negation, once there's a big enough group of you, the act of negation becomes increasingly silly and pointless. Apathetic atheism has more staying power, but I think for many people it still depends on having a church around to despise, or specific aspects of that church. New religious systems have the appeal to draw the curious in, and people will always be curious. Possibly the beliefs of the future will be very different from what we've got now, but seriously, religion's been around since the dawn of civilization, if not before.

5. Perhaps most importantly, we aren't Europe. We're the most individualistic society on Earth, even more than Europe, and we're spread out and mobile where you're settled and compact. Churches served as a buffer to that for a long time--among other things, religion functions as an anchoring point for communities. Traditional American community is declining; we're moving farther and faster than ever. You simply can't build lasting communities around irreligion by itself; the Sunday Assembly (or whatever it's called) is only the latest of many attempts. When people want a glue to bind them, what will they use, if not religion?

I do think much of religion is going to leave the political sphere for a while. But that, too, tends to encourage the growth of actual belief. Political entanglements lead to corruption, which leads to disillusionment and disgust. As for the two-party system, it's hard to say. At present, pure greed-is-good conservatism isn't super-popular, but Bible-thumping is doing worse. Possibly some social conservatives will rediscover a taste for the social gospel and invent a new subspecies of Democrat? Who knows? The existing alliance is only about as old as I am. New alliances are always possible.

[Elok]

We have a bad tendency to assume history follows a linear and progressive narrative; that as one society goes, so will others, and there is, if not a single end goal, at least a common vector we all end up following. But I think we're generally mistaken. Remember that guy who declared "The End of History"? The commies are gone, so we're all going to be democracies now! Or not. There have been periods of greater or lesser religiosity before now; I wouldn't assume anything is irreversible.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is true. It is generally acknowledged that we (Americans) are more religious now than we were at the time of the Revolution (which was before the Second Great Awakening, which really jump started things).

Oh, and yes, Francis Fukayama (the "End of History" dude) has actually stated he was very wrong with that (actually admitting wrongness is rare enough it should be acknowledged).

[Dinner]

The more zealous don't think to question it, any more than Dinner thinks to question that asinine spew you just quoted.

Do you know what is asinine? You denying that race is a major factor behind most GOP positions. Oh, and, yes, like most people I started out with the position that race was no longer a big deal then I spent time with right wing conservatives, went to forums full of right wing conservatives, and the honest ones will explicitly say race is their big motivation. That's why they're always talking about cutting welfare, eliminating food stamps, talking about "takers", they truly believe it is mostly blacks and other nonwhites who mostly use those services and thus feel non-white "takers" are some how stealing from them. You're either blind, in denial, or a fool not to see this. Look at any right wing forum on the net, listen to any GOP debate, or better yet just spend time with some tea baggers and race is always bubbling just under the surface. WTF do you think they're so opposed to immigration reform? It's because they don't want more brown people in the country. Notice how the GOP ALWAYS puts in their platform that they want to repeal the voting rights act? Or how they are always trying to prevent minorities from voting?

Yes, one of us is being asinine here, but, that would be you with your denials about the racial motivations of the far right.

[Sava]

Race is a primary motivation in GOP policy.

[MrFun]

Do you know what is asinine? You denying that race is a major factor behind most GOP positions. Oh, and, yes, like most people I started out with the position that race was no longer a big deal then I spent time with right wing conservatives, went to forums full of right wing conservatives, and the honest ones will explicitly say race is their big motivation. That's why they're always talking about cutting welfare, eliminating food stamps, talking about "takers", they truly believe it is mostly blacks and other nonwhites who mostly use those services and thus feel non-white "takers" are some how stealing from them. You're either blind, in denial, or a fool not to see this. Look at any right wing forum on the net, listen to any GOP debate, or better yet just spend time with some tea baggers and race is always bubbling just under the surface. WTF do you think they're so opposed to immigration reform? It's because they don't want more brown people in the country. Notice how the GOP ALWAYS puts in their platform that they want to repeal the voting rights act? Or how they are always trying to prevent minorities from voting?

Yes, one of us is being asinine here, but, that would be you with your denials about the racial motivations of the far right.

Dinner, some people are too ignorant to acknowledge the issue of race in America.

Their knee-jerk retort to any attempt in an intelligent, grown-up discussion about race and its related issues is, "Another liberal playing the race card."

[Sava]

Ignorance.