The Religious Right Movement

[Gooblah]

When Reagan came into power, his election represented the revival of the religious right (lotta r's there). So, will it (if ever) subside? When do you think it will end?

 

[Archbob]

As long as the left supports stuff like abortion and gay marriage, no.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Speaking of which, did you hear the US tax dollars are already subsidizing abortions all over the world again?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/us/politics/24obama.html?hp

“For the past eight years, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries,” Mr. Obama said of the restrictions. “For these reasons, it is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development.”

Another campaign promise fulfilled. Now if they will only subsidize gay marriage.

 

[Camikaze]

So, will it (if ever) subside? When do you think it will end?

Only at the final judgement!

 

[Cutlass]

When Reagan came into power, his election represented the revival of the religious right (lotta r's there). So, will it (if ever) subside? When do you think it will end?

It will never be gone. But it is already in decline.

 

[DBear]

It subsided all the way thru the '90s and will never again be to the level it was in the '80s. Remember, Pat Robertson was taken seriously as a Presidential candidate! That's never going to happen again.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Reagan's election arguably destroyed the Republican Party. (Hence why I've seen many people call themselves conservatives rather than Republicans, even if Reagan is the Obama of the Right) With Reagan came the empowerment of the religious right, and big spending truly grabbed ahold of the party, which was once the party of fiscal responsibility. Thankfully, the Republicans' power wanes with each year. We may have to go through a temporary liberal monopoly, but since the Democrats lack the Centrism to stay in power, a newer, fresher party will replace the right-wing loonybins given time.

Perhaps a new party that believes in the free market, the ideals of the Constitution, secularity, and that we shouldn't blow up half the world will replace the Republicans. They are a disgrace to their former selves. They actually used to be the progressive party, go figure.

My personal vote is for the Centrist Party. It's a long shot, but hopefully they can a) replace the Republicans or b) pull enough voters in to gain a prominent place as a third party.

..On the question asked, yes, thankfully in the age of technology and rational thought, the religious right continues to wane in power. There will always be religious extremists and their bigotry, but thankfully most have vanished in developed parts of the world. Secularism continues to grow in power, and atheism is following... so the religious right should die. I think most people will appreciate the end of this disgrace to political thought.

 

[Mowque]

Secularism continues to grow in power, and atheism is following... so the religious right should die. I think most people will appreciate the end of this disgrace to political thought.

I'd just like to say, religious people can vote for the other party. We don't all need to be 'secular' and 'atheist'.

 

[LightSpectra]

Reagan's election arguably destroyed the Republican Party. (Hence why I've seen many people call themselves conservatives rather than Republicans, even if Reagan is the Obama of the Right)

Conservatives like Reagan. They don't like the neoconservatives that hijacked the party after 2000.

With Reagan came the empowerment of the religious right,

The religious right always had a linger influence on the Republicans. I would say it was more so GWB that empowered them.

and big spending truly grabbed ahold of the party, which was once the party of fiscal responsibility.

Reagan deficit spent in the '80s, because that was what was necessary to win the Cold War. Newt Gignrich and Trent Lott attained a balanced budget during Clinton's tenure. The loss of fiscal responsibility didn't happen until GWB was elected.

 

[Cutlass]

Reagan's deficit spending was necessary for nothing except the triumph of incompetence and ideology over integrity

 

[zjl56]

Reagan's election arguably destroyed the Republican Party. (Hence why I've seen many people call themselves
My personal vote is for the Centrist Party. It's a long shot, but hopefully they can a) replace the Republicans or b) pull enough voters in to gain a prominent place as a third party.

Given history this is not a bad idea. The Republicans are likely to bring up a similar round of candidates next election and lose in a Reagan landslide. Even if a centrist party, or libertarian party, only stole 10 or 20 house seats, this would be enough of a realization to get a large reform movement within the party. The recession might just allow for political oddities like the ones surrounding the Great and late 1800s depressions.

 

[LightSpectra]

Reagan's deficit spending was necessary for nothing except the triumph of incompetence and ideology over integrity

You know, I bet we've had this exact same debate at least five times already. Even Gorbachev admits that Reagan won the Cold War, so I don't know why you continue to cling to this fantasy that the evil conservative almost ruined it all.

 

[Cutlass]

You know, I bet we've had this exact same debate at least five times already. Even Gorbachev admits that Reagan won the Cold War, so I don't know why you continue to cling to this fantasy that the evil conservative almost ruined it all.

Because the reality is that the Soviet economy was dead in the water when Reagan took office, then they invaded Afghanistan to finish it off. The small difference between what Reagan spent on the military and what Congress was already planning to spend when Reagan took office did not matter. In fact, Reagan and his people were so stupid and incompetent that they did not even know how much they were spending. All of Reagan's deficits, every single penny, is the result of pure incompetence. And there was no benefit from any of it.

 

[LightSpectra]

Because the reality is that the Soviet economy was dead in the water when Reagan took office, then they invaded Afghanistan to finish it off.

Not according to Gorbachev. Think about this. The man has every reason to lie in his favor; he's still trying to attain office. He should either say that Reagan had no influence on the matter at all, like you said, or that it was his goal for dissolution since the moment he took office. The fact that even the premier of the U.S.S.R. -- who I remind you, had all of the facts on the Soviet economy -- admits Reagan won the Cold War is not something you can ignore.

The small difference between what Reagan spent on the military and what Congress was already planning to spend when Reagan took office did not matter.

Yes, but inflation of oil prices was entirely his doing. He struck a deal with Saudi Arabia to triple their oil production, and as oil was the U.S.S.R.'s primary export, their economy suddenly collapsed.

In fact, Reagan and his people were so stupid and incompetent that they did not even know how much they were spending. All of Reagan's deficits, every single penny, is the result of pure incompetence. And there was no benefit from any of it.

Absolutely false. Donald Regan actually produced an impressive figure of spending cuts they could make, that amounted to something like $200b. Not even the Republican in Congress would approve it. But Reagan didn't care -- he knew that spending cuts wasn't realistic, and he knew that the deficit was necessary to end the war.

 

[Bill3000]

Conservatives like Reagan. They don't like the neoconservatives that hijacked the party after 2000.

Neoconservatives were Reagan's main supporters and the directors of his foreign policy. They didn't come into existence in 2000; the direction merely changed.

 

[civ_king]

I hope it ends soon... I hope that the Ultra-religious right/neoconservatives leave,
I would like to see a decently powerful third party controlling say 15 seats in the senate and 50 or so in the house, but that might not happen just because the democrats allow independents to vote in their primaries

 

[Irish Caesar]

When Reagan came into power, his election represented the revival of the religious right (lotta r's there). So, will it (if ever) subside? When do you think it will end?

Will what subside? Simply saying "the Religious Right" is pretty vague. Do you mean evangelical Christianity's influence on Republican Party platforms? Lots of mega-churches? Block voting by certain Christian groups? Something else entirely?

Conservatives like Reagan. They don't like the neoconservatives that hijacked the party after 2000.

President Reagan was an excellent example of "do as I say, not as I do." Reading through many of his speeches and addresses, there's plenty of inspiring things. His Administration wasn't necessarily the fulfillment of these ideas... but when you say one thing and do another, people who like what you had to say will keep it in mind.

For the record... the famous "evil empire" speech was given at a meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals in 1983.

Given history this is not a bad idea. The Republicans are likely to bring up a similar round of candidates next election and lose in a Reagan landslide. Even if a centrist party, or libertarian party, only stole 10 or 20 house seats, this would be enough of a realization to get a large reform movement within the party. The recession might just allow for political oddities like the ones surrounding the Great and late 1800s depressions.

A third party can't win 10 seats in Congress.

 

[Cutlass]

Not according to Gorbachev. Think about this. The man has every reason to lie in his favor; he's still trying to attain office. He should either say that Reagan had no influence on the matter at all, like you said, or that it was his goal for dissolution since the moment he took office. The fact that even the premier of the U.S.S.R. -- who I remind you, had all of the facts on the Soviet economy -- admits Reagan won the Cold War is not something you can ignore.

Yes it is. Because the facts do no support it. Gorby didn't want to admit they'd run themselves into the ground. besides that, Reagan really didn't spend much more than would have been spent under Carter. it wasn't that great of a difference.

Yes, but inflation of oil prices was entirely his doing. He struck a deal with Saudi Arabia to triple their oil production, and as oil was the U.S.S.R.'s primary export, their economy suddenly collapsed.

There is no evidence I have seen on this anywhere. It does not fit any known facts.

Absolutely false. Donald Regan actually produced an impressive figure of spending cuts they could make, that amounted to something like $200b. Not even the Republican in Congress would approve it. But Reagan didn't care -- he knew that spending cuts wasn't realistic, and he knew that the deficit was necessary to end the war.

You are not paying attention to what actually happened. Reagan was constantly fed false info by his own staff, and every time the info was proven false, he wasn't competent to run his own personal staff and fire people that lied to him and hire people that would not.


Moreover, Reagan used US tax dollars to prevent the collapse of the USSR in the form of US government subsidized grain sales so that their economy would remain standing. That at least offset anything else he might have done.

 

[LightSpectra]

Yes it is. Because the facts do no support it. Gorby didn't want to admit they'd run themselves into the ground. besides that, Reagan really didn't spend much more than would have been spent under Carter. it wasn't that great of a difference.

So, the premier of the Soviet Union knew less about his own country than you do?

There is no evidence I have seen on this anywhere. It does not fit any known facts.

Huh?

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7125/recall_reagan_had_riyadh_to_thank.html

You are not paying attention to what actually happened. Reagan was constantly fed false info by his own staff, and every time the info was proven false, he wasn't competent to run his own personal staff and fire people that lied to him and hire people that would not.

Would you care to provide some examples of this happening?

Moreover, Reagan used US tax dollars to prevent the collapse of the USSR in the form of US government subsidized grain sales so that their economy would remain standing. That at least offset anything else he might have done.

Yes, because the U.S.S.R.'s economy was entirely built on grain, as opposed to oil?

 

[Leonel]

As long as the left supports stuff like abortion and gay marriage, no.

Well if they were significantly less... flamboyant, perhaps the right wing supporters wouldn't be so outspoken themselves. Like how terrorists use stuff like Gitmo as an excuse to blow up stuff and how people use blowing up stuff as an excuse for Gitmo.

Right wingers will use gay pride parades as an excuse and Left wingers will use moral crusades as an excuse to carry on.