Christian Right: Despised By Republican Elites
Crooks and Liars has an interesting video up. Tucker Carlson made extremely clear to Matthews what “Republican elites feel about the Extreme Christian Right”.
From the transcript:
CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in…
MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?
CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. They live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they’re beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don’t share their values.
MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?
CARLSON: That’s exactly right. It’s pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out.
This seems to be quite logical to me. Goldwater conservatives, paleoconservatives, etc. cannot possibly agree with the, relatively, extreme views from Christian Right and especially not with the influence of Christian Right within the Republican Party. Sure, they help the Republicans win elections, but because Republican leaders have to ‘pander to the base’, they are also giving the Republican Party a particular image. An image (other) conservatives will – at least to a degree – despise.
Shakesspeare’s Sister adds that, in the end though, the leaders of Christian Right could not care less:
Surely the conservative evangelical leaders like Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson, who dutifully lead their flocks to the GOP over and over in every election, know—and have known for quite some time—exactly what the game is. They serve as conduit for the “values” message and talk up the GOP, who then reward them with legislation that continues to make religion once of the best businesses in America…
Evangelical leaders aren’t hurting for a return on their investment; it’s the voters, the people who genuinely expect a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, who are waking up to the reality that they’ve been suckered.
As a liberal conservative and as a Christian, I cannot say that I have a lot of sympathy for ‘Christian Right’.
As a Christian: they should take the Christian part out of ‘Christian Right: that would make much more sense as far as I am concerned: “let him who is without sin cast the first stone” for instance, seems to be a Biblical truth, conveniently ignored by them.
As a European liberal, of course, I simply oppose all attempts to legislate religion.
62 Responses to “Christian Right: Despised By Republican Elites”
Ha, I see I responded to hastily:
CS, I agree with most of that.
In the Netherlands, we marry not just for Church but also for a government official. How silly is that? Since when can the government ‘bind’ two people in a marriage? It cannot.
I believe that the government should not be able to do so: to conduct ‘marriage ceremonies’. Instead, the marriage ceremony should be performed by the Church, synagogues, mosques, etc. Or even simply by people themselves, if they are not religious.
The only thing that might be relevant to the government is whether or not they form an economic union.
Tommy, for the record, if you consider Kos as far left as that ridiculous site you linked to is far right, you’ll be happy to know I can not recall the last time I visited Kos. I know it would have to be measured in years, not weeks or months.
The fact is that was obviously a satire site but it was a ridiculously far right satire site. As I’ve said about sites that are that ridiculous before, it’s so far right it’s in danger of wrapping around and becoming left (and yes, I have said the same in reverse about far left sites).
Michael, you sound like you would agree with what I’ve been stating about the marriage issue for some time. The government should not be in the business of legislating marriage. Take the government completely out of marriage and leave that up to the church. In the meantime, let government handle a “civil union” type of legal contract between any two consenting adults. This would be a contract that basically grants all the rights now gained through “legal marriage” but would not be trapped by the “marriage” definition and hence controlled by religion. A couple could get married in a church without the legal contract if the church chose to allow that and a couple could get the contract without getting married. Or, of course, a couple could both get married in a church and get the contract.
Ryan, that is in essence something I could agree with. However, I would not call it a ‘civil union’ but a ‘civil economical union’. Simply a legal document in which, in essence, the economical matters of two individuals become legally one.
People could, indeed, not get the contract, but that would be stupid, since it will bring them financial benefits. However, the marriage ceremony in all its respects, could not be executed by any government. When people ‘divorce’, they can simply terminate their economical union.
Not sure if anyone is still following this thread, but I wanted to follow up on this:
No, I don’t think this is a widespread idea and it really just represents my personal views. I do know some conservatives who agree with me but I don’t know of anyone or any group that is publicly taking the debate in this direction. I think it is the only consistent and logical view for conservatives to take though, and here’s how I arrived at this:
First, as someone brought up earlier, we start with the argument that the social contract of marriage exists mainly to foster the creation of stable families for children. In that sense, you could say that the goverment has taken the position of sanctioning a commitment made between two heterosexuals as a lifelong commitment which will provide a stable home for the children that are likely to result from their sexual union. That view, IMO, is not one of government endorsing the religious views (although indirectly it does so) but it is a case of government endorsing a social condition that results in the good of society and protection of a segment of society (children). If the majority agrees with this view, then I see nothing unconstitutional or discriminatory about it.
But the problem is, that government and churches both have lost the claim to that argument because they have already allowed the marriage contract to become something different. Most churches won’t acknowledge that, but I think they should face up to that reality. And, since they have done so, marriage as it currently exists isn’t worthy of government sanction from the standpoint of protection of children. Therefore there is no way to say that gays shouldn’t enter into these contracts on the basis of the “heterosexual union= creation of families” argument. Thus, any legal restriction on gays entering into marriage contracts really is unconstitutional because it denies participation in these contracts without any reason for giving preference to the heterosexuals. In other words, marriage has already been watered down so that now there is no constitutional basis to reserve it as a contract between heterosexuals.
But rather than just say that we should accept that marriage now is what it is, I say that we should decide whether or not we want it to be as it is. I’m really not sure how I’d deal with the details, but in theory I think we ought to recognize that some people currently wish to enter into traditional, committed marriages while others want a more loosely binding social and economic contract between two adults. I think that both of these should be recognized by the government, and personally I think only the former should be recognized by churches but of course that is my personal view and the church leaders should be the ones to make that determination.
MvdG:
I think this probably reflects differences in European and American liberals. In theory I think American liberals agree with the original definition of liberalism as being non-intrusive, but in practice in the modern US political scene, I see them as having an anti-theism morality that they wish to impose through legislation and judicial activism, by declaring many traditional Christian practices to be in violation of the Constitution. There are many instances where the first amendment rights of Christians are not upheld because of a belief that expression of Christian ideas is offensive to the minority, for example.
It all comes down to the difference between theory and practice; just as modern conservatives have moved very far from the ideal of small government, so too have liberals in my opinion (though each side of course has different views on where the government should intervene)
C.S.: you know, one of the things European and American liberals would most likely disagree on is that European liberals would consider it the right of the Church to not marry homosexuals.
Furthermore: there are many differences I can point out, but the easiest way for you to conclude those for yourself, is simply by observing what I and other European liberals think of certain issues and compare them to those of Americans. It will not take one a long time to understand the significant differences, not just in specific ideas, but also in the mere foundation of their political ideology. In short, American liberals look more like our labor parties than anything else.
Marriage is nothing more than a business contract in my eyes. If gheys want to reap the benefits of such a contract, let ‘em. I don’t know how this is going to harm anyone, really. I like C Stanley’s proposal the best. Let them enjoy the tax benefits and whatever whatever of a “Civil Union,” a business contract, but keep it apart from “Marriage.” But it’s all in the semantics anyway.
Actually, I don’t think that American liberals are trying to force the Church to marry homosexuals. Most people I have heard from who are in favor of gay marriage don’t care if churches perform the ceremony or not. They just want the state issued marriage certificate and the legal rights and responsibilities that come along with it. It’s not about the church at all, it’s about the legal contract. This is why I have come to my view (which I’ll address your response to in the new topic, along with probably expanding on this post) that I have to say looks a lot like C Stanley’s.
Ryan,
You and a few others have mentioned that you don’t know any gays who care about what the churches think, but that is anecdotal. I don’t know any conservatives that are up in arms about the idea of civil unions for gays, either, but I know that there is a vocal part of the Republican party that does fight that concept and I also know there is a vocal contingency of gays who are very vehemently opposed to the churches’ right to make these decisions for their members. It may be that the right fringe is a bigger group than the left fringe, but still each group does exist, and each one fuels the other because when people take a hard line extremist approach, there will be an opposite reaction from the other side of the political spectrum.
C Stanley,
I’m sure there are some out there but I think they are a minority and I strongly disagree with them. As a religious institution, it should be left up to the church. Of course, this is largely the reason I believe legal rights should not be tied in with marriage. That leaves us in a position where the church is determining who is granted those legal rights.
My observation is anecdotal but, with a step-sister who is gay, I am more exposed to the community than some others would be. From all I have seen, most of these people are fighting for their legal rights such as my step-sister’s partner’s parental rights with their daughter. They had to fight the hospital just to get her partner permission to be present when their daughter was born. This is a non-issue for married couples and was even a non-issue for my unmarried brother because he was the father, although that could be changing in Wisconsin for reasons you will see in my reply on the other topic.
CS: It all comes down to the difference between theory and practice; just as modern conservatives have moved very far from the ideal of small government, so too have liberals in my opinion (though each side of course has different views on where the government should intervene)
That is, IMO, another example of the extreme ends pulling (taunting) eachother.
Rambie,
I’m not sure what you mean; do you mean that I’m guilty of the taunting?