The Bush Admin, "Utah" Conservatives and Blowback

[midwinter]

So for the past few weeks, there have been letters to the editor in my local paper from conservatives who describe Bush as pro-UN, pro-one-world government, etc.—the kind of things you typically hear on the 700 Club's news program.

Is anyone else in hardcore red states seeing/hearing this? I'm wondering what kind of political implications such blowback might have in 06 and 08 if the Republicans register among the libertarian wing of the conservatives as nation-building, pro-UN (??), one-world gummit politicians.

[e1618978]

I don't see why anyone would be pro-world government, if you fall out of favor there is nowhere to escape to.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
I don't see why anyone would be pro-world government, if you fall out of favor there is nowhere to escape to.

The anti-UN/One-world gummit thing is a millenarian issue, I believe. A one-world gummit is a sign of the end times, IIRC.

[segovius]

The Christian right are turning on Bush - you will see more of this rhetoric.

I have heard some rumblings from some Xian fundies - mostly along the lines of "I'm afraid Mr Bush has let us down...".

What lies behind it I don't know but that's the way the wind's blowing.

[trumptman]

I've argued around here dozens of times that Bush is not particularly conservative. Those conservatives that "know his heart" (a true Bushism) feel he is weak on abortion. Obviously he is not very fiscally conservative. People love to compare Iraq to Vietnam and while they are not valid comparisons in terms of troop levels, length of fighting, etc. They are valid in the sense that nation-building whether it is done by the U.S. or the U.N. used to be seen as an exclusively liberal domain of which the conservatives wanted no part.

There are plenty more examples but the true question is this, will it have any blow back? I would say absolutely not. Now does that mean the Republicans are immune to good campaigning? Of course they aren't and they are particularly vunerable to Blue-Dog Democrats because those types of Democrats reveal the split within the Republican party. Heck they are basically what has grown the party.

Dminishing Returns (http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_12_19/article1.html)

A good article that goes into the loss in Virginia. Even though it wasn't a loss of a previously held seat, it reveals a good strategy for defeating Republicans. There would be serious fear if the Democrats would adopt and attempt it. However that isn't a real fear as the party is clearly controlled almost exclusively by the North-East and the God is dead at any cost crowd.

Instead, even many capital-punishment supporters viewed the ads as a cheap shot. Kaine avoided playing to type in his response. He emphasized that his was a “faith-based opposition” to the death penalty, thus framing a liberal position in conservative religious terms, and that he would enforce the law. That’s a far cry from invoking the ACLU or coldly disputing the deterrent effect of executions in response to a hypothetical question about the murder of his wife.

As the race progressed, this became a familiar pattern. Kilgore would attack his Democratic rival from the right. On paper, Kaine should have been vulnerable. In practice, he was able to downplay his liberalism, play up his connection to popular Gov. Mark Warner, speak to religious voters about his Roman Catholic faith, and change the subject. After a while, Kilgore’s liberal-baiting began to look like an attempt to avoid talking about local issues.

That right there is the clearest part of the article in terms of Democratic strategy. Many Demcrats believe that religion basically invalidates a position you hold and that you do not need to discuss the view or have a true answer or alternative. This is why Kerry lost Catholics even though he is a Catholic(IN NAME ONLY). This is why Bush has never paid a political cost for the stem cell decision. When the default response becomes "I really don't have to consider your position because it is religious and thus you are a nut job" then you lose by default.

Kaine on the otherhard actually turned a negative into a positive. People who are religious can have differences of opinion and they are on equal footing. There is hope one can influence the other or that working compromises can occur because one party isn't an "evil backward freak that has no basis for their positions."

In fact I would say that this election shows that when you try to discredit a party based off the fact that they, by default should be discredited for who they are instead of dealing with their actual positions and the basis for them, then you lose.

Until Democrats can truly allow religion back into the party, then there is no fear of blowback. For now Democrats believe they have the "one true answer" via some mix of social norms and whatever science they happen to endorse. We've seen the reasoning played out on these boards. If you don't buy into their views, then there is something "wrong" with you as it Kansas. You might be insane. You might be isolated from the real world as Newsweek is trying to portray Bush.

The belief that "If you knew what I knew, you would do what I do" is something that they seem unable to get past. They really don't believe someone could have the same information and come to a different or even completely opposite conclusion.

They inherently believe that any different conclusions are based off ignorance, (if they knew THIS though, they couldn't possibly hold that view) religious fundimentalism (read also ignorance in their view, if you knew THIS and didn't believe in a magical man in the sky, then you couldn't possibly hold that view) or that you are an oppressor of some sort, are informed, but are simply evil because you desire to insure your favored state. (You do know this and know it is right, but intentionally select a different conclusion because you are a white male who wishes to continue being advantaged by your skin color and sex.)

You can't take advantage of what the other parties does right or wrong when accepting the views of new people that might head in your direction involves tolerating the insane, racist/sexist, and religious nonsense that the members bring. (This from the view of the left.)

Nick

Edit: Quote did not include second paragraph

[BRussell]

Originally posted by segovius
The Christian right are turning on Bush - you will see more of this rhetoric.

I have heard some rumblings from some Xian fundies - mostly along the lines of "I'm afraid Mr Bush has let us down...".

What lies behind it I don't know but that's the way the wind's blowing. The first and really only time I've heard the social/religious conservatives not fall in lock-step with Bush is when he had an open Supreme Court position and nominated Miers, a right wing religious/social conservative, but not quite a nut-job insane in-your-face right wing religious/social conservative. And you see what happened - they said "jump," he said "how high."

[midwinter]

Nick: the interesting thing about what you've said (and I agree with a lot of it) is that you don't indicate that the Republicans have consistently elected folks who appear religious but aren't really all that much. How often does Bush go to church? How often did his father? How often did Reagan? Ford? Nixon?

And yet Clinton went to church all the time and was raised a Southern Baptist (I think). Carter was an evangelical.

My point (and yours, too, really) is that it's about establishing religious credibility. The Republicans have had no truck with it, even though they don't seem to do much more than quote a few hymns or make a reference to revelations every now and then; democrats are terrified of talking about two things: their religion and their liberalism.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
The first and really only time I've heard the social/religious conservatives not fall in lock-step with Bush is when he had an open Supreme Court position and nominated Miers, a right wing religious/social conservative, but not quite a nut-job insane in-your-face right wing religious/social conservative. And you see what happened - they said "jump," he said "how high."

Actually, I think Bush's and Rove's impulse was to tell them to fuck off, since they've been using them from day one, and install one of his cronies. It was the party that said "Dude. We have to win in '06."

[BRussell]

Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, I think Bush's and Rove's impulse was to tell them to fuck off, since they've been using them from day one, and install one of his cronies. It was the party that said "Dude. We have to win in '06." One of the theories I've heard is that Rove was busy with indictments and wasn't involved in the Miers' nomination, and Bush just went with his instinct, and the fact that Laura liked Miers. It's frightening to think that if Rove takes a breather, the Bush coalition immediately falls apart.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by midwinter
Nick: the interesting thing about what you've said (and I agree with a lot of it) is that you don't indicate that the Republicans have consistently elected folks who appear religious but aren't really all that much. How often does Bush go to church? How often did his father? How often did Reagan? Ford? Nixon?

And yet Clinton went to church all the time and was raised a Southern Baptist (I think). Carter was an evangelical.

My point (and yours, too, really) is that it's about establishing religious credibility. The Republicans have had no truck with it, even though they don't seem to do much more than quote a few hymns or make a reference to revelations every now and then; democrats are terrified of talking about two things: their religion and their liberalism. Notice also that Nick referred to Kerry as "Catholic (IN NAME ONLY)," despite the fact that Kerry regularly goes to church/Mass, and has his whole life, when Bush never has, and still doesn't. This is the trick: Many people now accept that religious = conservative. If you're conservative and you're not religious, you're religious anyway (Bush, Reagan, etc.). If you're liberal and you're religious, you're still not religious (Clinton, Kerry, etc.). That's where the work has to come in: Convincing people that religious values are just as liberal as they are conservative, if not more.

[Chucker]

In all fairness, going to church isn't a requirement for being religious, not for Christianity and not for most other religions either. I know quite a few people that are definitely very, very strongly religious, yet haven't gone to church in a long time. You can practice religion by studying religious books, praying, etc.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Chucker
In all fairness, going to church isn't a requirement for being religious, not for Christianity and not for most other religions either. I know quite a few people that are definitely very, very strongly religious, yet haven't gone to church in a long time. You can practice religion by studying religious books, praying, etc. True enough. But I know of no evidence that, in the example we're discussing, Bush is truly religious while Kerry is not, and yet that's exactly how it's perceived.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
Nick: the interesting thing about what you've said (and I agree with a lot of it) is that you don't indicate that the Republicans have consistently elected folks who appear religious but aren't really all that much. How often does Bush go to church? How often did his father? How often did Reagan? Ford? Nixon?

You are pretty close to understanding at what I was attempting to fully say. It isn't about someone being more religious than another person. It is about actually believing religion is a credible worldview and thus is allowed in the pantheon of ideals.

And yet Clinton went to church all the time and was raised a Southern Baptist (I think). Carter was an evangelical.

This shows that the evangelicals don't really confine themselves to Republicans. Clinton and Carter were both elected and so was Kaine. It isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing. It is a religion is okay to bring to the table and doesn't put your views below mine thing.

My point (and yours, too, really) is that it's about establishing religious credibility. The Republicans have had no truck with it, even though they don't seem to do much more than quote a few hymns or make a reference to revelations every now and then; democrats are terrified of talking about two things: their religion and their liberalism.

I don't think they are afraid of discussing it. I think most of them are actually antagonistic toward it. It isn't about who is a "better" religious person. It is about not considering the religious person to be a backward, insane nutjob.

Originally posted by BRussell
Notice also that Nick referred to Kerry as "Catholic (IN NAME ONLY)," despite the fact that Kerry regularly goes to church/Mass, and has his whole life, when Bush never has, and still doesn't.

When you hold that the entire intellectual basis for the Catholic church is a falsehood you are a Catholic in name only. New England and most of the rest of the world are a bit different with regard to religion. They don't believe you pick so much as you are it. You are Catholic due to the very fact that you are Irish and you can't really be one and not the other. The ideal that you can actually pick your religion is actually relatively new in many ways and that view is much better understood in new parts of the country.

To say to someone because you are white or black and thus you must believe, endorse or be good at X would be considered total nonsense. Kerry is "Catholic" due to his heritage but he dismisses Catholic beliefs just as easily as someone who would dismiss a belief that they must like or be good at something ethnic.

Many people now accept that religious = conservative. If you're conservative and you're not religious, you're religious anyway (Bush, Reagan, etc.). If you're liberal and you're religious, you're still not religious (Clinton, Kerry, etc.). That's where the work has to come in: Convincing people that religious values are just as liberal as they are conservative, if not more.

I don't think you are quite on the mark there. I don't know if it will be any more effective but recall how I mentioned Broussard and how he was a less refined version of Clinton and Carville. Again it wasn't about how "good" a Christian, Catholic or religious person they happen to be. It is simply being of the mindset that having a religious mindset is an acceptable place from which to originate political ideals.

The clearest example of what I am talking about has to be Bill Maher. You will watch him trash people even that he agrees with politically when the basis for their beliefs happens to be religious. I've watched him several times get into it with Andrew Sullivan, Sen. Alan Simpson and others when he is caught just dismissing views because they have a religious basis. They are even views he agrees with but he has to mock the nutty nature of their foundation. For him and many others the conclusion isn't good enough. It is about the foundation and the intent as well.

It isn't about who is the better religious person. You have entire swaths of the Democratic party who dismiss people and ideals simply because they are religious in nature.

Nick

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
I don't think they are afraid of discussing it. I think most of them are actually antagonistic toward it. It isn't about who is a "better" religious person. It is about not considering the religious person to be a backward, insane nutjob.

It isn't about who is the better religious person. You have entire swaths of the Democratic party who dismiss people and ideals simply because they are religious in nature.

I think we're on the same page up to this point, at which, frankly, I think you've had a bit too much kool-aid, Nick. Could you provide examples of any Democrat actually being "antagonistic" toward religion? That would mean a Democrat who goes out and says that anyone who has any religious belief whatsoever is a nutjob. Anyone? An elected member of the Democratic party saying that all religious people are nutjobs?

And make sure you pay close attention to the openly religious Democrats we've had: Clinton was impeached and his entire family reviled (sometimes justifiably) until this very day; Carter was hurled out of office; Kennedy was killed and, in his inaugural, had to essentially say that he's not going to take orders from the Pope.

My point is that the Republicans have managed to convince Americans that Republicans are more religious than the Democrats, and without even really bothering to demonstrate that this is the case. Indeed, while offering up Presidents (3, now—I don't know what to make of Nixon, who was a Quaker but who strikes me as being fairly unreligious) who didn't really do much more than pay lip service to religion and religious folk.

At any rate, the issue isn't what " entire swaths of the Democratic party" think or do or are perceived to be/do/believe. The issue is that the Republicans have sold religious folks—and especially evangelical Christians—a bill of goods and have, in this administration, paid with something at odds with much of what was in the contract.

It's not that I think the evangelicals will go and vote democrat (although with someone like Warner, that's not outside the realm of possibility). It's that they'll sit out in 06 and 08. And without them, the Rovian strategy doesn't work.

And maybe that's a good thing for everyone.

[Anders]

Originally posted by midwinter
The anti-UN/One-world gummit thing is a millenarian issue, I believe. A one-world gummit is a sign of the end times, IIRC.

I the "Left Behind" serie this is the magic switch that sets everything else in motion. This line of thought surprises me quite a lot. It leads to the same problem that Marxists always have suffered with: You want something really bad to happen to fulfill the predictions in your theory that will lead to something really good. In short: You want something bad to happen.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
I think we're on the same page up to this point, at which, frankly, I think you've had a bit too much kool-aid, Nick. Could you provide examples of any Democrat actually being "antagonistic" toward religion? That would mean a Democrat who goes out and says that anyone who has any religious belief whatsoever is a nutjob. Anyone? An elected member of the Democratic party saying that all religious people are nutjobs?

And make sure you pay close attention to the openly religious Democrats we've had: Clinton was impeached and his entire family reviled (sometimes justifiably) until this very day; Carter was hurled out of office; Kennedy was killed and, in his inaugural, had to essentially say that he's not going to take orders from the Pope.

My point is that the Republicans have managed to convince Americans that Republicans are more religious than the Democrats, and without even really bothering to demonstrate that this is the case. Indeed, while offering up Presidents (3, now—I don't know what to make of Nixon, who was a Quaker but who strikes me as being fairly unreligious) who didn't really do much more than pay lip service to religion and religious folk.

At any rate, the issue isn't what " entire swaths of the Democratic party" think or do or are perceived to be/do/believe. The issue is that the Republicans have sold religious folks—and especially evangelical Christians—a bill of goods and have, in this administration, paid with something at odds with much of what was in the contract.

It's not that I think the evangelicals will go and vote democrat (although with someone like Warner, that's not outside the realm of possibility). It's that they'll sit out in 06 and 08. And without them, the Rovian strategy doesn't work.

And maybe that's a good thing for everyone.

I assure you mid, that when your explanation holds that the entire nation has been duped into believing one party is this and the other party is that even though they really are this, then it isn't me drinking the kool-aid. You keep claiming that reality is just those evil Republicans who have duped the entire nation and sold everyone a bad bill of goods.

Your point becomes even more unbelievable when you consider the fact that these groups were often previously attached to the Democratic party. Catholics aren't leaving the Democratic party because they were lied to by Republicans and just left without critically examining the claims or questioning their own party. They are leaving because they are being pushed out. Opposition to homosexual marriage or abortion is simply not tolerated. You are treated with contempt for holding such positions.

Give this a read. To me, it would be more convincing than a quote.

Our secularist Democratic party (http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2002fall/article1.html)

Nick

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
I assure you mid, that when your explanation holds that the entire nation has been duped into believing one party is this and the other party is that even though they really are this, then it isn't me drinking the kool-aid.

Hey, what you call kool-aid, I call a 30 year strategy.

You keep claiming that reality is just those evil Republicans who have duped the entire nation and sold everyone a bad bill of goods.

No. I didn't say anything about evil. And I didn't say anything about the entire nation. I said "religious folks," by which I meant that the Republican party has actively courted evangelical Christians for the past thirty years, and they have done so with promises for this and that and they've never really delivered on any of it. The Bush admin has been particularly bad about this—going so far as to attempt to screw them with Miers—and now there's a backlash.

Your point becomes even more unbelievable when you consider the fact that these groups were often previously attached to the Democratic party.

Where did I say that these groups have been previously attached to anything?

Catholics aren't leaving the Democratic party because they were lied to by Republicans and just left without critically examining the claims or questioning their own party. They are leaving because they are being pushed out. Opposition to homosexual marriage or abortion is simply not tolerated. You are treated with contempt for holding such positions.

The subject isn't how sucky the Democratic party is to religious folks. The subject is whether or not there is a backlash against the Bush admin from the evangelicals and millenarian-type Christian right.

[quote[Give this a read. To me, it would be more convincing than a quote.

Our secularist Democratic party (http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2002fall/article1.html) [/quote]

Will do. Must get ready to watch people graduate.

[e1618978]

Universal healthcare and secularism are the only things that appeal to me about the democratic party...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
When you hold that the entire intellectual basis for the Catholic church is a falsehood you are a Catholic in name only. New England and most of the rest of the world are a bit different with regard to religion. They don't believe you pick so much as you are it. You are Catholic due to the very fact that you are Irish and you can't really be one and not the other. The ideal that you can actually pick your religion is actually relatively new in many ways and that view is much better understood in new parts of the country.

To say to someone because you are white or black and thus you must believe, endorse or be good at X would be considered total nonsense. Kerry is "Catholic" due to his heritage but he dismisses Catholic beliefs just as easily as someone who would dismiss a belief that they must like or be good at something ethnic. What is the entire intellectual basis for the Catholic church, and what evidence do you have that Kerry believes it's a falsehood? Furthermore, what evidence do you have that, comparatively, Bush is a better Christian? Again, you seem to be going from the premise that conservative = Christian, and liberal = "believing the entire intellectual basis for the Church is a falsehood." IMO, Christianity is fundamentally liberal, and conservatism is absolutely antithetical to it. But at the very least political conservatism is not a necessary condition for genuine religious beliefs.

I don't think you are quite on the mark there. I don't know if it will be any more effective but recall how I mentioned Broussard and how he was a less refined version of Clinton and Carville. Again it wasn't about how "good" a Christian, Catholic or religious person they happen to be. It is simply being of the mindset that having a religious mindset is an acceptable place from which to originate political ideals.

The clearest example of what I am talking about has to be Bill Maher. You will watch him trash people even that he agrees with politically when the basis for their beliefs happens to be religious. I've watched him several times get into it with Andrew Sullivan, Sen. Alan Simpson and others when he is caught just dismissing views because they have a religious basis. They are even views he agrees with but he has to mock the nutty nature of their foundation. For him and many others the conclusion isn't good enough. It is about the foundation and the intent as well.

It isn't about who is the better religious person. You have entire swaths of the Democratic party who dismiss people and ideals simply because they are religious in nature.

Nick You use Bill Maher as an example - has he ever supported a Democratic candidate? I haven't watched his show since he left ABC in 2002, but at that time he had not. Not the best example of your point that Democrats are hostile to religion.

In any case, I partially agree with you: Democrats have to explain their positions in religious terms, in order to change the default perception that conservative politics are the only politics that follow from Christianity.