Flibbertigibbet

The Power of the Christian Right

As Mister Bookworm and I were watching the Presidential Forum last night, I remarked that I think the power of the Religious Right is overestimated.

Not long ago, I read the book With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. It's a fascinating and surprisingly well-balanced account of the history, organization, and rise of the Religious Right in American politics. It gives clear account of the issues that incited their involvement at a grass roots level and the events that brought them to the national scene. From there there is significant discussion on their pivotal role in today's Republican party that is disappointing in that the book ends in Clinton's term.

I don't dispute that the religious right is and has been a huge player in national politics. I also firmly believe that they have the Republican Party by the short hairs. Let me amend that: in many significant ways, they ARE the Republican Party. Bush, Buchanan, Gingrich, Santorum, Reed...

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I find it incredibly difficult that the Religious Right represents a majority of America. I am inclined to believe that Bush's two victories in presidential elections were decided primarily because he took the strongest stance against terrorism in the same way that he plays lip service to fiscal conservativism. An strong international policy governed by American interest and a domestic policy of economic freedom are, I think, still the most attractive issues to the American public.

Allow me to temper the above statements by saying that I do also believe the American public is in the middle of a long slide away from this view. Things like national healthcare and other welfare programs have a shocking amount of popular support. Environmentalism, multiculturalism, weird immigration policies, and other leftist ideas have both the support of many in the populace and of a large portion of people on the political right.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that just because an idea is something out of Marx's playbook that it isn't supported by a large number of people in the Republican party. The religious bunch are not exempt either.

But I do think that the majority of people in America can be objectively considered to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative and I submit the midterm elections as evidence of this and the decidedly grudging support of Bush in his presidential elections.

What were the Republican Party's weaknesses in the midterm elections? Iraq is a fiasco; the death toll among Americans alone makes me reconsider my choice of words there. "Fiasco" sounds too kind. Government spending is out of control. Never have we seen a deficit like this. And I know Republicans want to praise the economic bounce-back from the Clinton-era recession, but I am shaking a finger at that. The dollar is weak on international markets. Housing markets are set for a huge upset. I worry about the fluctuations we see in stock indices. Are gold prices on the rise due to a lack of faith in other, less objective, markets? Also, dare we mention the various scandals and charges of corruption?

The American public is extremely diverse and it's difficult to make overarching statements about prevalent attitudes and beliefs, but I do think most people are pro-freedom in the proper sense of the word.

We know that America isn't sold on either the Democrats or the Republicans. Rebels on each side of the aisle enjoy a certain amount of popularity and support. Ron Paul is actually a Libertarian running as a Republican and he's been in office a really long time. Joe Liberman broke with his party over his support for Bush in Iraq. (I think he won out again because of the strong words not actions against terrorism.) Giuliani probably thinks that he has a chance because of his popularity coming out of 9/11, but a not insignificant portion of it has to be due to his more socially liberal views. I was reading in an old issue of GQ this morning about a Republican senator -- his name escapes me -- who has been working to block the runaway spending his party has been driving. John McCain is constantly rankling folks on the right. Senator Lindsey Graham has been known to break rank from time to time and he's from South Carolina of all places. And though some only dissent on occasion, their dissent from the anti-freedom policies of their respective policies, each time it seems to bring them more popularity and support.

If the Republicans wanted to shake off their reputation for hearing voices and thinking the Earth is just 6,000 years old, they would have to be willing to work for votes and actually think. They would have to adopt an ideology based on actually following popular opinion and not one dictated to them by the estate of Jimmy Falwell.

I'd like to say that they would have to adopt an ideology based on reason, but I'm an optimist, not a crazy person; I know that would be setting the bar too high for any politician in office today.

Mister Bookworm remarked last night that the Democrats seem more willing to skew centrist than the Republicans. Based on what I saw last night, this seems true. Although he disagrees (he thinks the race will still be very close), I think that because of this a Democratic president in 2008 is almost a foregone conclusion.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic and over-confident in the Democrats' ability to hold onto their current level of popularity. They've snatched defeat from the jaws of victory before.

Note to my readers: When I say I'm an optimist, I don't do so to downplay my mistrust and disgust with either party.