What is REALLY going on in the American Evangelical Movement

[sonorakitch]

The Republican Party became a McParty and that worked for a little bit until everyone figured out that they weren't getting what they were looking for.

Sounds like the blacks in the Democratic Party.

I hope we dump the evangelicals. We may not win elections for a while, but I am tired of the Terry Shivo/Say No to Stem Cell Research wing of the Republican party.

I for one yearn for the Goldwater days, and to a lesser extent the Reagan ones.

~Chris

 

[ThePhysicist]

This is exactly what I've been saying will happen for years. And it's not that I'm particularly prescient. Ever since Reagan built the conservative majority back in the 1980s, it's just been a wait to see it fall apart. Just as the Southern Conservatives and the Northern Liberals that formed the New Deal coalition eventually severed ties, the libertarian and business wing of the GOP and the Evangelicals will eventually break apart. American politics is cyclical, and the latest Republican era is coming to a close. The only real question is how fast it will happen.

 

[sonorakitch]

This is exactly what I've been saying will happen for years. And it's not that I'm particularly prescient. Ever since Reagan built the conservative majority back in the 1980s, it's just been a wait to see it fall apart. Just as the Southern Conservatives and the Northern Liberals that formed the New Deal coalition eventually severed ties, the libertarian and business wing of the GOP and the Evangelicals will eventually break apart. American politics is cyclical, and the latest Republican era is coming to a close. The only real question is how fast it will happen.

No, as much as a part of me would love to see the evangelicals leave the party, they are not going to vote for the homosexual-rights party anytime soon. Evangelicals, and people of faith in general have much higher turnouts during election cycles and they will continue to pull the lever for the Republicans, barring a successful primary run in '08 by the likes of Guliani or possibly McCain.

Remember, the Southern Conservatives had an alternative to the Democratic party in the 1960's: the new Republican one. The evangelicals have no alternative at the moment, and I doubt we will see Nancy Pelosi start waving her hands in the air to Christian Rock anytime soon.

~Chris

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think the bigger probelm is that the Dems are pro-abortion than pro-gay marriage, since there is more of a correlation.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Ah, but you assume the Democrats need the evangelicals. They don't. They just need them to either vote less, or they need a few libertarians to join them (which is actually happening, look at the Western State Democratic parties, full of libertarianish Dems). The Democratic party doesn't need a massive shift to take hold of long term power, unlike what the GOP needed and got as the South revolted. The Dems already have a majority, or atleast near majority, behind them. They just need a slight shift to takeover.

 

[Katheryn]

Sounds like the blacks in the Democratic Party.

I hope we dump the evangelicals. We may not win elections for a while, but I am tired of the Terry Shivo/Say No to Stem Cell Research wing of the Republican party.

I for one yearn for the Goldwater days, and to a lesser extent the Reagan ones.

~Chris

there you go.

That is the crux of the article.

The Republican party is now split between Libertarians, like sonorakitch here and the Moral Majority sect.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Ah, but you assume the Democrats need the evangelicals. They don't. They just need them to either vote less, or they need a few libertarians to join them (which is actually happening, look at the Western State Democratic parties, full of libertarianish Dems). The Democratic party doesn't need a massive shift to take hold of long term power, unlike what the GOP needed and got as the South revolted. The Dems already have a majority, or atleast near majority, behind them. They just need a slight shift to takeover.

No, to take long term power, the Democrats just need to have a purpose. They can't keep Washington forever by simply being the anti-Republicans.

 

[sonorakitch]

Ah, but you assume the Democrats need the evangelicals. They don't. They just need them to either vote less, or they need a few libertarians to join them (which is actually happening, look at the Western State Democratic parties, full of libertarianish Dems). The Democratic party doesn't need a massive shift to take hold of long term power, unlike what the GOP needed and got as the South revolted. The Dems already have a majority, or atleast near majority, behind them. They just need a slight shift to takeover.

But I think many moderate Democrats would love to jump ship for a more Libertarian/Pro-Business Republican party without the evangelicals...including a vast number on this board. The evangelical relationship with the Republican party is what holds the moderate Democrats in the left corner.

It would be a very interesting political development and exciting as well. I think you would see the Democrats running for cover (or to their Bibles) if the break-up occurs.

~Chris

 

[Katheryn]

I think the bigger probelm is that the Dems are pro-abortion than pro-gay marriage, since there is more of a correlation.

That is the thing, there has been quite a bit of change on this issue. I remember about 6 months ago, I was cooking something or doing something in the kitchen. The TV was running to keep me company. And all the sudden, there was Mary Landrieu, (Democratic congresswoman from Louisiana) talking about making a compromise on abortion. I was floored.

This year, LA has written and passed anti-abortion legislation, which is now on it's way to the SCOTUS.

We'll see how it does.

But lots of Dems are talking this way. The article discusses this issue.

 

[GenMarshall]

This is the biggest change in the Christian Church for perhaps over 20 years.

Strange, I never felt any changes. Then again, Catholics don't align themselves to the Republican party like the US Protestants do.

 

[Katheryn]

But I think many moderate Democrats would love to jump ship for a more Libertarian/Pro-Business Republican party without the evangelicals...including a vast number on this board. The evangelical relationship with the Republican party is what holds the moderate Democrats in the left corner.

It would be a very interesting political development and exciting as well. I think you would see the Democrats running for cover (or to their Bibles) if the break-up occurs.

~Chris

The lead of the pack? Obama.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Strange, I never felt any changes. Then again, Catholics don't align themselves to the Republican party like the US Protestants do.

No, but the Catholic Church has made it pretty clear how they want people to vote over the past few elections with the non-negotiable issues, and the talk of denying Communion to such politicians as Senator Kerry.

 

[sonorakitch]

there you go.

That is the crux of the article.

The Republican party is now split between Libertarians, like sonorakitch here and the Moral Majority sect.

You are right...but aren't both parties split in every way? This is the beauty of the two party system...the coalitions exist within the party and not within the halls of government.

I think the Democratic party is full of fragile coalitions as well, such as the DLC and the environmental movements. Really, how can one be pro-business and pro-Kyoto at the same time (unless of course you are in the clean energy business )?

~Chris

 

[Katheryn]

No, to take long term power, the Democrats just need to have a purpose. They can't keep Washington forever by simply being the anti-Republicans.

The best they can do is to follow this new Evangelical Call... poverty, environment, wages, health care, aid to Africa, and if they are smart... VOUCHERS.

If they pick up the vouchers issue, the Dems would be unbeatable in 08.

 

[GenMarshall]

No, but the Catholic Church has made it pretty clear how they want people to vote over the past few elections with the non-negotiable issues, and the talk of denying Communion to such politicians as Senator Kerry.

True, but I don't see the church aligning themselves to strictly one party. There are Democrat Catholics and Republican Catholics.

 

[ThePhysicist]

But I think many moderate Democrats would love to jump ship for a more Libertarian/Pro-Business Republican party without the evangelicals...including a vast number on this board. The evangelical relationship with the Republican party is what holds the moderate Democrats in the left corner.

It would be a very interesting political development and exciting as well. I think you would see the Democrats running for cover (or to their Bibles) if the break-up occurs.

~Chris

I don't think moderate Dems will revolt. I see no reason to believe this. Take a look at recent elections, give me an example of a libertarian Republican winning with large crossover votes from Democrats. I on the other hand can give examples of moderate or libertarian republicans leaving and voting Dem. Look at Montana for instance: a state that went for Bush huge, but now has a Democratic Governor and 2 Democratic senators. All three of them tend to be more libertarian than solidly liberal, and all three needed the votes of Republicans to win.

Especially after what's happened with Bush, even more conservative Dems won't revolt. He has ruined the party's image. Just look at Lincoln Chafee: well liked and liberal, but defeated almost solely for being a republican.

It would take a weird turn of events to break up the Democratic Party as I see it.

 

[sonorakitch]

I don't think moderate Dems will revolt. I see no reason to believe this. Take a look at recent elections, give me an example of a libertarian Republican winning with large crossover votes from Democrats. I on the other hand can give examples of moderate or libertarian republicans leaving and voting Dem. Look at Montana for instance: a state that went for Bush huge, but now has a Democratic Governor and 2 Democratic senators. All three of them tend to be more libertarian than solidly liberal, and all three needed the votes of Republicans to win.

Especially after what's happened with Bush, even more conservative Dems won't revolt. He has ruined the party's image. Just look at Lincoln Chafee: well liked and liberal, but defeated almost solely for being a republican.

It would take a weird turn of events to break up the Democratic Party as I see it.

But you are only looking at this latest election, more a resounding display of defiance towards the administration. This is a very temporary result and not a good way to take the long term pulse of the nation's political direction.

Over the last twenty years or so, many more moderate Republicans have been elected with the help of Democrats. The Governors of New York, Massachussetts, Pennyslvania, California, and Michigan have all experienced well-liked Republican Governors and certainly these states are the heartbeat of the Democratic Party. Consider about a dozen Senators who hail from solidly Liberal states but enjoy victory after victory because of their disassociation from the evangelical movement. The Democrats don't have such a track record with crossover voting, and haven't for a long time. The phenomenon in the Rocky Mountain West is more a temporary revolt from the Bush administration more than a long term signifcant political change (apart from Colorado maybe).

In looking at successful Republican candidates in solidly Democratic states, the one unifying creed is the distance from the religious wing of the Republican Party. In looking at successful Democratic candidates in solidly Republican states (apart from this last mid-term election), they tend to be very moderate and pro-business. The exact type of Democrat that many libertarian business-oriented Republicans are happy to vote for. And the type of Democrats that may indeed migrate to a new party if the Pelosipolitik continues.

It would be hard to say the Ensign or Pataki or Romney's of American politics aren't quite different than mainstream Democrats.

Only a couple years ago there was great rumblings within the establishment of a rebellion in the Democratic party to move it towards the center. This didn't happen in the recent elections per se because this recent election was much more against the Republicans than for the Democrats.

We will have to wait and see...

~Chris

 

[Katheryn]

Don't forget the corruption issue.

That was a big part of the rebellion.

 

[Katheryn]

But you are only looking at this latest election, more a resounding display of defiance towards the administration. This is a very temporary result and not a good way to take the long term pulse of the nation's political direction.

Over the last twenty years or so, many more moderate Republicans have been elected with the help of Democrats. The Governors of New York, Massachussetts, Pennyslvania, California, and Michigan have all experienced well-liked Republican Governors and certainly these states are the heartbeat of the Democratic Party. Consider about a dozen Senators who hail from solidly Liberal states but enjoy victory after victory because of their disassociation from the evangelical movement. The Democrats don't have such a track record with crossover voting, and haven't for a long time. The phenomenon in the Rocky Mountain West is more a temporary revolt from the Bush administration more than a long term signifcant political change (apart from Colorado maybe).

In looking at successful Republican candidates in solidly Democratic states, the one unifying creed is the distance from the religious wing of the Republican Party. In looking at successful Democratic candidates in solidly Republican states (apart from this last mid-term election), they tend to be very moderate and pro-business. The exact type of Democrat that many libertarian business-oriented Republicans are happy to vote for. And the type of Democrats that may indeed migrate to a new party if the Pelosipolitik continues.

It would be hard to say the Ensign or Pataki or Romney's of American politics aren't quite different than mainstream Democrats.

Only a couple years ago there was great rumblings within the establishment of a rebellion in the Democratic party to move it towards the center. This didn't happen in the recent elections per se because this recent election was much more against the Republicans than for the Democrats.

We will have to wait and see...

~Chris

Oh nonsense.

Schwarzeneggar won in CA due to his star power. That is all.

He was soundly trounced when he did his special election.

And, it was more a vote to get rid of Gray Davis, the one we evicted from office - due to the illegal immigrant getting driver's licenses.

He nearly signed the new illegal immigrant driver's license bill. The whole state about erupted. He has learned to listen. Too bad Bush never will.

The point is that Evangelicals will move to a more Democratic platform if they lose their anchor to the liberal whackos. They are a huge voting block. They could move the election to Barak Obama.

 

[Sims2789]

The Religious Right is completely opposed to libertarian views; they seek government support for religious institutions as opposed to seeing government support/attack of religious institutions as oppressive to religious freedom. Freedom of religion is not their goal. Instead of the Republicans drawing the Religious Right toward libertarianism, the Religious Right has caused the GOP to almost entirely abandon small and limited government and personal responsibility, instead choosing to blame (perceived) ills of society on the "liberal media," non-abstinence sex education, etc.