An excellent article from Tech Central Station.
I’ve been looking at it since yesterday, and will try to comment further by this weekend.
Advance feedback welcome.
G
An excellent article from Tech Central Station.
I’ve been looking at it since yesterday, and will try to comment further by this weekend.
Advance feedback welcome.
I agree with the article but disagree with the title. I would rather use the term consistent conservative. Conservative principles include limited government and federalism. The proposed amendment to the constitution is big, ugly, intrusive government and should be opposed by all true freedom-loving conservatives. It not only takes freedom away from individuals but also from state courts AND legislatures who might want to grant rights to same-sex couples.
FWIW, I frankly don’t believe much of anything that is published in Tech Central Station. Some if it might be right. Some of it is probably wrong. Regardless, it is clear that that publication is nothing more than a flack for anonymous lobbyists. It was founded by James Glassman, the huckster who wrote “Dow 36000” (or something like that) a few years ago.
Take a look at Meet the Press: How James Glassman reinvented journalism–as lobbying.
https://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html
The guy who wrote that article had the same old Young Republican smirk on his face that characterizes why this group is such a headache. What annoyed me the most, aside from that photo of the gay couple which was designed to make them look stupid and “fruity” was that the whole article never ONCE said that maybe some conservatives aren’t upset about same-sex marriage because they are friendly with gays or because they approve of benefits for gays. Instead, he makes them seem like cowed sheep who are badgered by the elite in Washington and metro areas, like blase cowards who don’t want to take a great moral stance. I found the article quite disturbing and borderline offensive. Not excellent. This type of stuff is put out there to demean gays and their problems and to write them off as freaks who are tolerated even though they don’t deserve tolerance or acceptance.
Here’s some more fun from Young Republicans. They bragged about the death of Paul Wellstone:
https://www2.sltrib.com/columnists/RollyWells/main/index.asp
Dear God! James, I go to the school referenced in this article and I’ve seen the Young Rep’s posters up in some buildings on campus. They seem like a belligerent group of people. Thanks so much for posting this link!
My two cents worth (sorry for the length) –
Consider this: What is a true conservative? Ambivalent Conservatives, generally younger people, may be simply more reflective of what a true conservative might be, or at least a branch of conservativism – libertarianism. If one looks at many of the policies and priorities of the Bush administration, they are not truly philosophically conservative, but do fit into a “conservatism” that is redefined by moralizers – the politicized Religious Right. Their definition of “conservative” begins and generally ends with issues of morality defined by their understanding of the Hebrew (Old) and Christian (New) Testaments. This is not necessarily a bad thing, except in the hands of men and women determined to impose their particular understanding upon everyone else.
Until the rise of the Moral Majority in the mid-80’s (along with other factors), Republicanism was generally divided into two groups (a generalization, of course). There were Libertarian Republicans, and Economic Republicans. There were others – staunch Federalists, the John Birch Society members, etc.
With the advent of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant Christians (and to a different extent Mormons) entered the political arena in full-force. Everything changed for the Republican Party at that point. Because Religious Right people do tend to be economic conservatives, too, the Republican Party was their natural home. Now, the loudest group within the Republican Party is the Religious Right moralists.
What drives their agenda is not politics (although they use the political process to gain power and influence), what drives the Religious Right is religion. From Farwell, to Dobson, to Kennedy, to Bauer, to Sheldon, et al., is the attainment of political influence and power in order to institute not a philosophically conservative political agenda, but a religious agenda based on their understanding of God’s will according to questionable interpretations of scripture. The more stringent of the bunch, when they are honest, will admit the ultimate goal is a theocratic form of government, not a liberal-republican system of democracy. There will be a measure of democracy, but only for those who measure up to their standard of who is worthy to guild the nation – in many ways like the Founding Fathers and their initial requirement that voters be landed, white men.
The country and both political parties have moved to the right over the past twenty years for a whole variety of reasons. Young people, however, do not fit into the Religious Right’s tight definition of “conservative.” Most young people don’t care what the Religious Right thinks, regardless of whether they are observant Christians or not. They have more of a libertarian streak in them. For this group, the gay issue in general and gay marriage in particular is not that big of a deal.
Of course, those raised within the Religious Right might and do. For these true believers, no amount of reasoned discourse will persuade them that any policy other than an out-right ban on all things homosexual will do. It is a religious crusade wrapped up in the American flag and a screwed view of American history, and not much else.
The Religious Right has already lost on this issue, because young people, except for the true believers, are not with them. Their only way to enact their agenda is by force! If they could use the court system to enact their policies, they would. They are hypocritical in their accusation of judicial tyranny – they oppose the actions of the judges only because the judges are thwarting their policy agendas, not because of a philosophically derived belief in the function of the judiciary.
Bob’s description of the Religious Right is too simplistic. Note this. The conservative PCA denomination is the denomination of prominent Religious Right member, Dr. D. James Kennedy. He sent up the MFA to be endorsed by his denomination. The denomination smacked it back down. The reason is summarized by part of the church’s confession:
Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.
Not backing the MFA can result from not just a libertarian view but also a conservative — even religious conservative view.
A couple of thoughts after Rich’s post: D. James Kennedy (including his Coral Ridge Ministries, which includes Reclaiming America) is beyond his denominational affiliation. He will do what he wants to do whether his denomination agrees or not – or whether his actions go against his denomination’s by-laws or confessions. He remains within his denomination because it is convenient for him. The PCA is the more conservative of the two predominate Presbyterian denominations.
Most of the politicized Religious Rights groups are para-church in nature. Many Evangelical Protestant and Fundamentalist Christian denominations and churches might find themselves in line with what Focus on the Family, American Family Association, et al., but the primary forces in opposition to equal treatment under the law for gay people are para-church.
Opposition to gay marriage comes from every corner, as can opposition to an amendment to the federal constitution prohibiting gay marriage. Younger people today, even conservative young people of all stripes, are less likely to support anti-gay causes (except perhaps for the true-believers of the Religious Right). That means that the Republican Party is foolish to side with the moralizers on this issue, because the future belongs to those who are not in line with the Religious Right. They are ambivalent. Something like that, anyway.