Democrats & Liberals: Archives

AP -

Good article. Unfortunately, Scott’s epic bears much more resemblance to our time than to that which it allegedly portrays, according to the various professional reviews I’ve read. Like a lot of political rhetoric, it’s 3 parts theatre and 1 part reality.

Also, I wish us radical Christians got more play for the really radical things we do. Like the folks who walked a couple thousand miles along the route of the Fourth Crusade, praying and apologizing for the sins of the crusades to the locals whose ancestors were robbed and murdered in the name of the cross.

Sure, Chops. It’s a movie. It’s also good socio-political commentary. And while Pope JPII didn’t walk a couple thousand miles, he apologized to all the same people, and then some.

I don’t know about Ridley Scott, but my point is not that Christians did - or do - bad things. Quite the opposite, we do all kinds of good things. The problem is that some Christian politicians, primarily in the Republican Party, are incapable of being flexible on certain issues because of their strict interpretation of their religion.

Resolute faith is to be admired - but not in a politician who must represent and forge consensus in a pluralistic constituency.

And like I said, this is strictly a battle within the Republican Party between conservatives and crusaders. Because of the uncompromising nature of the crusaders, I think we’re soon going to see either a really messy schism within the GOP, or a quiet exodus of conservatives - those who aren’t purged, anyhow.

BTW, did you actually read the article, or did you just want to put in your two cents on the movie?

And by that I mean, it’s probably the longest article I’ve ever written, so I understand if you just skimmed it really quick. But I’m really interested in your take on this in particular, having enjoyed your article.

Oh, I definitely read the article. I haven’t, however, actually seen the movie :-) So I commented on the movie.

There’s a succinct Non Sequitur comic on this subject of church and state today. It refers to Mr. Delay, of course, but given the approaching nuclear option in the Senate, some might argue that it increasingly applies there as well.

http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/

So here’s a more fulsome comment on your article:

On a lot of things you’re right. Conservatism is confused, though I would say it’s not as confused as liberalism today. For one thing, conservatives are winning elections. The religious base is certainly more vocal than ever before, which is what is causing all this discomfiture among secularists, but the semi- and non-religious Republicans are still very much on board.

I think you and other liberals have a tendancy to believe political B.S. when it’s couched in religious terms. However, as we saw with DeLay’s speech on the National Day of Prayer, the “bromides of faith” are just as mendacious and just as harmless as secular or civic-religious bromides. Just because a politician talks an uncompromising game to the church doesn’t mean that he actually votes that way in Congress.

Now, I grant you that uncompromising-ness has definitely been on the rise with Republican ascendancy. However, the politicians still recognize limits. They haven’t outlawed stem-cell research, just limited its federal funding.

The big no-compromise issues are of course abortion and gay marriage, but those are issues where there has been an immense amount of talk and very little action. In fact, there’s a lot of “political chicken” being played on these issues:

Republican leaders know that forcing in arch-conservative Supreme Court justices would be bad for their party in the long run but they also know that it would be worse for Democrats. So they push, and force the Dems to spend political capital pushing back. Same with the gay marriage amendment. It probably won’t pass, but if they can unseat rural and Southern Democratic Congressmen by driving a wedge between constituency and party, they will.

It’s dirty and it’s lousy, but it’s part of the political game. As a Christian, I probably would never run for a high office because I’m not willing to compromise my morals to play that game. Others apparently are, and I generally dislike and distrust them (ergo my antipathy towards DeLay, whose policies I mainly agree with).

However, don’t put other politicians (e.g. McCain) on a pedestal simply because they aren’t as extreme. They still have their issues, and they play the same dirty political games to get their way.

I guess what I’m saying is a politician is a politician is a politician: don’t be fooled by the “faith-talk”, and don’t be fooled by the lack thereof.

OK, that’s intereting Chops. So all evangelical Christian politicians, because they are politicians, are not true evangelical Christians because they’re willing to compromise their morals. And you cite that fact that stem-cell research hasn’t been banned and the gay marriage amendment hasn’t passed as proof.

I think you’re wrong. None of the “conservatives of faith” has ever voted against banning gay marriage or stem-cell research. In fact, they’re at the forefront of these issues and have only failed to ban them because of opposition by the dwindling number of true conservatives in the GOP who prefer a compromise that doesn’t restrict Constitutionally protected freedoms.

As a Christian, I probably would never run for a high office because I’m not willing to compromise my morals to play that game.

Sure, and I respect that. But I think the extremely devout Christians who do run for high office don’t play that game either. Guys like DeLay, Armee, and Frist have never compromised on their obedience to God for the sake of political expediency. They’ve been very resolute on issues where the Constitution allows freedoms that conflict with Biblical morality.

You haven’t convinced me. I’ve seen nothing to make me think those guys are liars when it comes to “faith-talk”. And if they’re playing dirty, lousy political games to gain still more seats for radical Christian politicians, they’re doing it with the goal of finally getting enough votes to push their uncompromising agenda.

I respectfully disagree with American Pundit’s assessment of the politicians in question. I think they use the emotion-laden issues to get the vote and push the forefront issues to drive larger underlying issues. For example, there is the fight about two judges, Pricilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. Frist in particular has loudly said that the democrats have practiced “obstructionism” to prevent said nominees because of their stand on pro-life and abortion. In reality, the larger issue is the nominees’ poor record of upholding hard-won rights: laws on the environment, women’s rights, workers’ rights, the ADA, antidiscrimination legislation, and others. Judge Owen has taken campaign contributions from Enron and Halliburton, yet has refused to recuse herself from serving on cases that involve both corporations. Frist’s Christian view is merely the tip of the iceburg; it hides 90% of the real conservative agenda, which is to undo many of the laws that protect the majority of citizens at the inconvenience of big business.
This type of cross-waving and hiding behind the Bible is especially troublesome, because it preys on the average American church-goer. Many do not check into the facts. They are taught to follow the teachings of the church, and if the church says to vote for a particular candidate they will do so without question. We see this in other religions as well, and are most critical when others follow suit (remember Iran?) It is manipulation often seen in the propaganda of partocratic governments we have seen in the past, the most recent being Hussein’s Iraq. We are becoming the form of government that we most despise in others, yet our “leaders” seem to be basking in the irony.

It was a good movie and I recommend people do see it, but don’t read too much into a medieval epic that fits in with modern political discourse.

A persistent problem for the Kingdom of Jerusalem was indeed that new, more zealous guys kept on arriving from Europe looking for trouble, but it wasn’t clear at the time (or now) if they were looking for trouble mostly for religious or economic reasons. The first arrivals got all the good spots and contrary to the film, this no place at the time ran on pure merit. That is clear even in the movie. Would the main character have gotten the job had his father not already been a baron? So the new guys came to fight for land and riches. As the 4th Crusade indicted, they didn’t always need to fight Muslims to get what they came for. War in those days was profitable for the winners. It is not the case any longer.

The movie has little to tell us about the U.S. today. The U.S. is generally a meritocracy. That is what bothers a lot of people about it, since they see the results of merit as unjust or not representative of all groups. The U.S. is generally well run. People of faith do not have too much power. They can’t pray in school or put up the Ten Commandments and the preacher is almost always a villain in any made for TV movie. People of faith are to liberals what “Hollywood elites” are to conservatives.

I respectfully disagree with American Pundit

It’s about time I got some respect around here! Thanks Kathy. :)

Interesting take from a historian, Jack. But like I pointed out to Chops, it’s a movie. The main character makes it a point to explicitly say Ridley Scott’s Jerusalem is a meritocracy - just as you describe America.

If you watch the movie within the context of the last few years (the time period in which it was made), rather than through the lens of the 1100s the allusion is quite obvious.

People of faith are to liberals what ?Hollywood elites? are to conservatives.

As I mentioned, this is not a Democrat versus Republican issue. This article deals solely with the schism within the GOP. There’s no way Republicans who are uncomfortable with the hard-line taken by fundamentalist politicians are going to vote for a Democrat, but if Pennsylvania is any indication, they’ll vote for a more conservative (conservative in the classical sense of the word) Republican candidate.

The GOP is dealing with a philosophical divide pitting traditional conservatives like McCain, Specter and Snowe against fundamentalist crusaders like Armee, Frist and Hastert. I expect the fundamentalists to continue their purge of the Republican Party unless Republican voters stop them.

AP

I can’t help bickering about history. My daughter won’t go to historical movies with me because I criticize the buttons on the uniforms.

This movie I thought was good from the historical perspective. I mean, as in “Gladiator” details were wrong, but the feeling was right. I frankly didn’t see the heavy hand of Meta message. Anyway let me address your points outside the Crusades.

As the Republican Party gets bigger, it encompasses more diverse points of view. Somebody like me can find common cause with people of faith in a lot of areas. I don’t agree with some of what they say, but I don’t always think it is harmful. For example, Roe v Wade – I just don’t care if it is repealed or upheld, but I can agree with my Christian brethren on judges that will interpret the Constitution more strictly. We each get what we want. I find people of faith generally have integrity and are thoughtful in their responses to issues. The stereotype doesn’t fit most of the people I know.

On the other hand, the Democratic coalition is full of people I don’t like. Even when I agree with them, as in same sex marriage, I don’t like the methods. I like my Democrats to be like Truman, FDR and JFK. I don’t care for Barbara Boxer or Henry Waxman and I won’t even get into the Hollywood wacko types.

But I concluded a few years ago that the reason I am conservative is that I don’t believe in equality beyond all men being created equal etc. Democrats have become the party of equal outcomes. I don’t like that.

I haven’t seen “Kingdom of Heaven” yet, but I intend to — because Ridley Scott always tells a good story and does a fantastic job at directing.

I saw another movie last weekend, however, and it’s one that I can definitely recommend.
It’s a documentary called “Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room”, and it will completely inform, stun, and totally outrage anyone who goes to see it.

I thought you might be particularly interested in seeing it AP, since you might be one of the many people (including yours truly) who got robbed in the state of California during the fake “energy crisis” that was engineered by the crooks at Enron.

Psht! Kingdom of Heaven? With Star Wars Episode III coming out so soon? I think not!

Zeek

I will go see Star Wars, cuz I gotta know, but I expect to be disappointed. The first two were truly horrible.

Somebody like me can find common cause with people of faith in a lot of areas…

Of course, Jack. That just confirms what I wrote in the article,

…real conservatives have given “conservatives of faith” free rein. They’ve done this because “the Republican Party has regularly preferred the promise of power to the satisfaction of schism,” and by nature, moderates “are not particularly aggressive politicians.” Which explains the quiet restraint of Christine Todd Whitman’s conservative counterrevolution.

But you also contend that the Republican Party is encompassing more divers points of view. There are quite a few Republicans in Congress who disagree. They say the GOP “big tent” is shrinking as Republican politicians either scramble for endorsement from fundamentalist Christian PACs or are purged from the party by more devout Christian Republican challengers.

On the other hand, the Democratic coalition is full of people I don?t like.

Jack, again, this is article is not about Democrats versus Republicans. It’s about conservatives versus crusaders within the Republican Party. As I mentioned a couple times already, I don’t expect a Republican to vote for a Democrat as an alternative to a Christian crusader who is incapable of compromise or forging consensus on issues that affect ALL of his constituents, fundamentalist or not.

And obviously, as a Democrat, I’m the wrong person to pen this article. It should have been written by a Republican, and it should have shown up in the red column, but that space seems to be mostly for liberal bashing (Apolgies to Dan Spencer who just posted a serious topic). I figured if I wanted to discuss an internal Republican Party issue, I’d have to bring it up myself.

To distill the longest article I’ve ever written into a single question: Would Republican voters rather be represented by Republicans capable of forging consensus and uniting the nation (like McCain, Snowe, and Hagel), or by inflexible Republican crusaders who will continue to divide this country and the Republican Party (like Armee, Frist, and DeLay)?

From a philosophical point of view, one of the things that I find interesting is that this discussion is (on some level) a return to one of the fundamental philosophical questions of medieval times — i.e., should reason or revelation (e.g., the Bible) be the guide to life?

History has come up with a number of answers to this question. For instance, Aquinas tried to argue that there was ultimately no distinction between what revelation and reason (properly informed) would tell us to do. Others have taken the point of view that divine revelation didn’t stop with the Bible — and that modern experience must continue to inform our religious perspectives (without, of course, discounting the deepest truths from a religious tradition).

What is personally disturbing to me about fundamentalism is the notion that all answers to modern problems can be found from a “literal interpretation” of the Bible. My own perspective is that the Bible was written to apply a religious perspective on issues as they existed thousands of years ago. Which is not to say there aren’t some parallels, lessons, etc. today’s issues. I also certainly do not mean to say that the Bible wasn’t divinely inspired. But to take the sayings from the Bible, to ignore the historical and political context (and, yes, even prejudices of the day) — and then to attempt to apply these teachings to a modern context…well, that’s just silly in my opinion. A deeper reading and understanding of the Christian (or any other religious) tradition must not be afraid to view its major religious texts in the context of history. Nor to deepen its appreciation of the teachings based on this context.

I’ve always found it difficult to understand why people use a literal interpretation of the Bible, I guess they have a great deal of faith in the editors and translators of the bible that have changed the writings within it over the past 2000 years.

Right on brother.

I should make sure that I’m making my point clearly. It seems to me that the division in the Republican party that American Pundit has drawn to our attention is essentially a division on the question of whether revelation or reason should be the guide to life. The “religious right” clearly view revelation (in most of their cases, the Bible) as the primary source of moral and practical guidance. This view conflicts with the more moderate Republicans, who hold onto the idea that reason must also temper our judgments.

Then there are those that think that you need a combination of both revelation and reason in your life. (I would fall into this category) Most scriptures require considerable amounts of thought and reasoning to understand them, especially the Bible with all the things in there that would contradict itself if taken literally.

Thanks Steve. That’s what I’m talking about. Unfortunately, conservatives must be mighty embarrassed about it - or in denial. Kinda like talking about the brother who’s also yer nephew, if you know what I mean.

Thanks everyone for your comments. It’s interesing that both Kathy AND Chops believe these Christian leader’s faith is false. I’m not sure what that says. Jack, as always, I enjoy your posts. They’re always well-rationalized rather than reactionary, which make them harder to argue with. And Adrienne, thanks for the movie tip.

Would Republican voters rather be represented by Republicans capable of forging consensus and uniting the nation (like McCain, Snowe, and Hagel), or by inflexible Republican crusaders who will continue to divide this country and the Republican Party (like Armee, Frist, and DeLay)?

Obviously, this question is too tough to tackle for our brethren in the red column, so in keeping with the level of punditry over there (Voinovich is a RINO, liberal moms are stupid, and President Bush deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for invading Iraq(!)), I’ll shift the direction of this thread,

How many liberals does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Well written comment. I believe that the seeming dichotomoy within the Republican party can be easily explained by studying the difference between the traditional conservative bent, and the Neo-Conservative insurgency. The crew of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitrz, and company and the Bush business interests have been in cabal for over twenty years since they assembled during Bush senior’s administration. George, an ideologically apathetic and personally ambitious good old boy was galvanizing into succumbing to the management of his Dad’s crew by the events of 9-11. They got to orchestrate the invasion of Iraq they had been salivating for for over fifteen years (see Wolfowitz’s memo on pre-emptive war, and the letter to Clinton urging him to invade Iraq). This is why Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qeuida. They pressured the intelligence agencies to produce junk they used on the American people, and now they blame the agencies.

Do a Google search on “Neo-Conservative,” and look at the 14 page article in Wikipedia. The Neo Cons are for big government with military initiative wherever it aids big business. The one thing I would credit them for is that racism is not one of their motivations, again in contrast to the most extreme of traditional conservatives. They believe in their version of democracy and equate it with “free enterprise.” There is a dogmatic belief that “exporting democracy” will automatically provide the best environment for thirving US business interests in those nations. They are not pragmatic like traditional conservatives, they are ideologues who fit reality to the procrustean bed of their assumptions. They also visceral;y oppose detente with China (as they opposed detente with the Soviets), which traditional conservatives since Nixon’s success have embraced. They favor the deconstruction of the conventional European based Army, and want it replaced by a modernized quick-deployment strike force that can be used pre-emptively to advance our business interests and attack pre-emptively. read the article.

Sadly, the vocal Evangelical minority is being used cynically by the likes of puppet masters Cheney et al, while Bush, never a deep thinker, has experienced a sincere conversion whose rigidity keeps his dry alcoholism at bay. He appeals to Evangelicals, while the crew uses the power base to advance their Neo-Con agenda.

Traditional conservatives are torn. On one hand they are exhilarated by the superficial succes of this party called “Republican.” Yet they have not quite caught up to the fact that this party is not the conservatives’ party any more but the party of Evangelicals and Neo-Conservatives. More and more thinking conservatives are catching on. Ask Pat Buchanan.

We still have along way to go to expose this Neo-Con takeover…they are so cynical and so “ends justifies the means” that most of us still do not know what hit us. We cannot believe that this is indeed happening to our nation. But if you study the Neo Conservative agenda, it becomes very clear that there is a method to the madness of this oligarchical group of architects.

Yet they have not quite caught up to the fact that this party is not the conservatives’ party any more but the party of Evangelicals and Neo-Conservatives.

Julian, I think you’re exactly right to break the GOP into those three main factions, but the evangelical faction is far stronger than the neo-conservatives who only have President Bush’s ear on foreign policy.

The GOP’s domestic policy and, to some extent (especially once Iraq turned out to be a bust), its foreign policy are controlled by the evangelicals. Whereas traditional conservatives are against bigger government, the evangelicals don’t see it as a problem since a good portion of the money is being channeled into various faith-based initiatives and - to the surprise of international NGOs - into aid programs in Africa and anywhere there are Christian minorities in danger or good Christian works to be done,

You can’t deny that the GOP has left behind it’s traditional conservative constituency. But it looks like - even after four years of it - most conservatives still think this is a momentary aberration. That’s why grassroots movements like Christine Todd Whiman’s PAC are so important,

2008 will be the first time since 1952 that neither Party has had an incumbent running for office. No president to re-elect, no vice-president waiting in the wings. It is, therefore, the perfect time to talk about the future look of our party.

…It is time for moderates in the Republican Party to become activists—activists for the sensible center, for reasonable policies based on the fundamental republican principles, which address the challenges Americans face at home and around the world.

…we must begin to organize at the local level, involving like-minded moderates in the state and local party structures to ensure that the candidates the party nominates do not represent just the far fringes of the party, but instead come from the heart of the party’s moderate middle.

Even though I’m a Democrat, I’m a moderate one. I fully support what Whitman is doing. Stop the madness. Stop the out of control government growth and government spending. Stop the borrow and spend wackiness. Stop the militant, ultra-liberal democracy export experiments. Stop the runaway expansion of federal power at the expense of state’s rights.

I want my conservatives back.