The Religious Right Movement

[Formaldehyde]

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

Um, I hate to tell you this, but Reagan was the first big Neocon. He essentially created the movement by adopting its philosophies as his own.

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

Um, I hate to tell you this, but Reagan brought all the religious extremists from the old Dixiecrat Party into the Republican party and "empowered" them.

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.

Ahahahah. That's a hot one! You are kidding, right? The Cold War was over even before Reagan became president. He was just too stupid and senile to realize it.

And claiming that the neocons were responsible for balancing the budget under Clinton is sheer .... genius? How do you explain they haven't been able to do it before or since? Bad luck?

 

[LightSpectra]

Um, I hate to tell you this, but Reagan brought all the religious extremists into the Republican party and empowered them.

Would you care to elaborate on this?

Ahahahah. That's a hot one! You are kidding, right? The Cold War was over even before Regan became president. He was just too stupid to realize it.

Then tell me: what actually caused the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.? The crashing economy, right? What caused the economy to dissolve?

And claiming that the neocons were responsible for balancing the budget under Clinton is awesome! How do you explain they haven't been able to do it before or since?

They weren't neocons then. The current GOP has no interest in balancing the budget because they are a subtle mockery of what conservatism used to be.

 

[Kerozine]

The religious 'right'? Then there must be a religious 'left', no?

 

[LightSpectra]

The religious 'right'? Then there must be a religious 'left', no?

i.e., Jimmy Carter and Al Sharpton.

 

[Dachs]

Ahahahah. That's a hot one! You are kidding, right? The Cold War was over even before Reagan became president.

That is a gross misrepresentation and utter distortion of the facts. The 1980s were in many ways the closest the world came to war. RYAN and Able Archer alone would have made it possibly worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cornered, and with a clear sense of growing inferiority, the USSR was probably more likely than ever to lash out in some way, much like the Germans thought that World War I was necessary as they started to fall behind the Anglo-French Entente and Russia.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Or a religious wrong


A lot of Obama's support came from the religious left. It isn't as large or powerful as the religious right, but its influence is growing.

 

[sonorakitch]

Yea, it is ridiculous to assert the Soviets were already destroyed in 1980. No doubt the late 70's-early 80's was a very worrisome time for all who actually were alive then.

~Chris

 

[Kerozine]

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

Those issues should be fairly obvious, no? Both are rooted in the rights of the individual and the only way a person could be opposed to it is morally, not legally.. unless they hate freedom/women/gays or something.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Or a religious wrong


A lot of Obama's support came from the religious left. It isn't as large or powerful as the religious right, but its influence is growing.

That's just getting back to what it used to be. The abolitionist movement was fueled primarily by evangelicals. The women's movement grew out of the abolition movement. The civil rights movement was led by ministers. Even environmentalism has religious roots dating back over 100 years.

The failure of the GOP to deliver on issues like abortion is causing the swing back to the Democrats, who from a religious standpoint are better on social justice and environmental issues.

 

[Perfection]

More like the Religious WRONG Movement.

 

[Tani Coyote]

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

Perhaps I need to elaborate; I did not mean that everyone should become atheist/secularist. Stalinism's suppression of religion was a religion in it's own right. What I mean, is the ignorant religious bigots need to be separated from the flock, perhaps holed up in a mental institution. I question the sanity of anyone who denies scientific evidence. I can see it now: a crazy fundie will jump into the fire because they don't believe the science that says fire will roast you alive! Get their genes out of the pool, I say.

On the other note, yes, there is the religious left, which I'm thankful is growing. I much prefer leftist optimism(even if their ideas are insane, though usually harmless) to right-wing oppression(which as the many persecutions of history show, conservatism is NOT harmless when it's allowed to grow unhindered).

But my point is, the religious right - the extremists - are a blotch on American society and politics.

I think they should just form their own third party and stop corrupting what was once a very respectable one. We all know in politics, separation of Church and State is BS. So they might as well form a crazy Christian party that only elects religious nutjobs.

The neocons should form their own party too. Enemies are less dangerous if their influence is diluted... I believe this was the rationale for gerrymandering.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Would you care to elaborate on this?

It's common history, but here you go. I'll google it for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

Into the late 20th century, the South changed from a Democratic monolith to a majority Republican sector of the country with GOP gains in state legislatures. This change, which became quite evident in 1972 with the electoral success of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", peaked with the elections of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George H. W. Bush in 1988. It was consolidated in 1994 when Republicans gained a majority in the House of Representatives under the leadership of Newt Gingrich.

Then tell me: what actually caused the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.? The crashing economy, right? What caused the economy to dissolve?

The fact that the Soviet form of lfe was not economically viable? Why do think it crashed? Because Reagan cowed them into submission?

Once again, I'll google for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

Two developments dominated the decade that followed: the increasingly apparent crumbling of the Soviet Union's economic and political structures, and the patchwork attempts at reforms to reverse that process. After the rapid succession of Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, transitional figures with deep roots in Brezhnevite tradition, beginning in 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev made significant changes in the economy (see Perestroika, Glasnost) and the party leadership. His policy of glasnost freed public access to information after decades of heavy government censorship. With the Soviet Union in bad economic shape and its satellite states in eastern Europe abandoning communism, Gorbachev moved to end the Cold War. In 1988, the Soviet Union abandoned its nine-year war with Afghanistan and began to withdraw forces from the country. In the late 1980s, Gorbachev refused to send military support to defend the Soviet Union's former satellite states, resulting in multiple communist regimes in those states being forced from power. With the tearing down of the Berlin Wall with East Germany and West Germany pursuing unification, the Iron curtain took the final blow.

They weren't neocons then. The current GOP has no interest in balancing the budget because they are a subtle mockery of what conservatism used to be.

And they have been since 1980 when Reagan adopted the neocon platform as his own. Once again, let me google it for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. Its key distinction is in international affairs, where it espouses an interventionist approach that seeks to defend what neo-conservatives deem as national interests. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.[1]

The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right".[2][3] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[4] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[5]

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, and considered its founder, is Irving Kristol, (father of William Kristol, who founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century), and wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[2] Kristol's ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[6] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[7][8] The term has been the subject of increasing media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush.[9][10] In particular, discussion has focussed on the neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine, (see "Administration of George W. Bush," below).

During the 1970s political scientist Jeane Kirkpatrick and Marlon Jorge criticized the Democratic Party,[citation needed] to which she belonged. She opposed the nomination of the antiwar George McGovern in 1972,[citation needed] and accused the Jimmy Carter administration (1977-1981) of applying a double standard in human rights, by tolerating abuses in communist states, while withdrawing support of anti-communist autocrats.[citation needed] She joined Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign for president as his foreign policy adviser.[citation needed] She was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 1981 to 1985.

During this period, the United States increased its support for anti-communist governments, including those that engaged in human rights abuses, as part of its general hard line against communism.[citation needed] As the 1980s wore on, younger second-generation neoconservatives, such as Elliott Abrams, pushed for a clear policy of supporting democracy against both left and right wing dictators.[citation needed] This debate led to a policy shift in 1986, when the Reagan administration urged Philippines president Ferdinand Marcos to step down amid turmoil over a rigged election. Abrams also supported the 1988 Chilean plebiscite that resulted in the restoration of democratic rule and Augusto Pinochet's eventual removal from office.[citation needed] Through the National Endowment for Democracy, led by another neoconservative, Carl Gershman,[citation needed] funds were directed to the anti-Pinochet opposition in order to ensure a fair election.[citation needed]

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

So you see, your hero is really responsible for what you readily claim is a failure, but you are trying to blame the wrong idiot for starting it. Reagan really isn't a conservative any more than GWB or any other neocon is. if he was a true conservative, he would have balanced the budget and limited government instead of increasing its power.

We now know a neoconservative is someone who sets his house on fire then boasts six years later that nobody can put it out. Bill Moyers

 

[LightSpectra]

It's common history, but here you go. I'll google it for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

The Dixiecrats were a political party in the '40s and '50s that wanted to keep the Democrats as the segregationist party. They lost influence after Kennedy became president. What does this have to do with Reagan?

The fact that the Soviet form of lfe was not economically viable?

Then why did they survive for 80 years? My question was what actually caused the collapse?

Once again, I'll google for you:

Googling a link that supports my thesis and claiming that you're educating me is a really bad method of argumentation.

And they have been since 1980 when Reagan adopted the neocon platform as his own. Once again, let me google it for you:

The "neocon platform" is that of social conservatism plus economic interventionism. Reagan rejected the latter. He would never have supported these economic bail-outs that the Republicans hopped on.

So you see, your hero is really responsible for what you readily claim is a failure, but you are trying to blame the wrong idiot for starting it. Reagan really isn't a conservative any more than GWB or any other neocon is. if he was a true conservative, he would have balanced the budget and limited government instead of increasing its power.

Reagan did decrease government power. Or, at the very least, he didn't increase it was much as the Bushes and Clinton did. You're showing an embarrassing lack of knowledge, here.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The Dixiecrats were a political party in the '40s and '50s that wanted to keep the Democrats as the segregationist party. They lost influence after Kennedy became president. What does this have to do with Reagan?.

You didn't bother to even read the section I posted? Then why should I try to explain it to you?

Then why did they survive for 80 years? My question was what actually caused the collapse?

Once again, I posted the section that explains this in detail. Let me guess. You didn't read it either.

Googling a link that supports my thesis and claiming that you're educating me is a really bad method of argumentation..

Googling links and providing snippets you cannot even bother to read shows to me who is the one who is really bad at arguing. You can't even provide the most basic facts to support your own assertions and you won't read the ones which support what actually happened.

You're showing an embarrassing lack of knowledge, here.

Heh. Do you know what the word 'hypocrite' means?

Let me guess. You get all your facts from Fox News and the Conservapedia?

 

[Bill3000]

i.e., Jimmy Carter and Al Sharpton.

...and the Catholic Church.

 

[LightSpectra]

You didn't bother to even read the section I posted? Then why should I try to explain it to you?

Your excerpt basically implied: since Reagan was a Republican, he empowered the religious right. I have no idea what this has to do with the Southern Strategy or the Dixiecrats, which were based on racial politics.

Once again, I posted the section that explains this in detail. Let me guess. You didn't read it either.

I did read it. The "the increasingly apparent crumbling of the Soviet Union's economic and political structures" peaked under Reagan's foreign policy, which ruined the Soviet oil market and stretched out their defense industry.

Heh. Do you know what the word 'hypocrite' means?

Running to Wikipedia and copy/pasting paragraphs that show no relevance to your point isn't great argumentation. You have yet to address my points.

...and the Catholic Church.

The Church is socially right-wing on the issues of abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia. Economically it takes no stance, but historically, most Catholic political parties were fiscally centrist.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Of course I haven't. I see you also have already adopted the neocon characteristic of only believing what you want to believe instead of the truth. Good luck with that.

 

[LightSpectra]

Of course I haven't. I see you also have already adopted the neocon characteristic of only believing what you want to believe instead of the truth. Good luck with that.

Let me get this straight. I ask you to elaborate on what your vague Wikipedia copy/pastes have to do with your argument, and because of that, I refuse to see the truth?

 

[Mowque]

The Church is socially right-wing on the issues of abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia. Economically it takes no stance, but historically, most Catholic political parties were fiscally centrist.

It tends to the left with regards to death penalty, charity, environment, and immigration.

 

[LightSpectra]

It tends to the left with regards to death penalty, charity, environment, and immigration.

Conservatives supporting the death penalty is something unique to the U.S. Go to Europe, and the conservatives are usually the ones fanatically against capital punishment.

On the issue of charity: the fact that they prefer charity to government welfare makes them right-wing.

Environmentalism is not strictly a left/right issue, but I concede on that, as well as immigration.