Take a look at this comment from Mike Huckabee's interview yesterday with the Visalia (CA) Times-Delta:
Here's what I find: People that are social conservatives are also economic conservatives. But a lot of the economic conservatives are not social conservatives. Throw the social conservatives the pro-life, pro-family people overboard and the Republican party will be as irrelevant as the Whigs.If you accept Huckabee's assertion -- that social conservatives are always economic conservatives, but economic conservatives are not always social conservatives -- it follows that social conservatives are necessarily a subset of economic conservatives:
If this is the case, however, is does not follow, as Huckabee states, that "[t]hrow the social conservatives, the pro-life, pro-family people overboard and the Republican party will be as irrelevant as the Whigs." After all, the social conservatives are also economic conservatives. If you adopt a message of economic conservatism, it will also appeal to the social conservatives. On the other hand, if you adopt a socially conservative message, a lot of the economic conservatives might be turned off by it and could leave the party.
So the equilibrium strategy under Huckabee's model is probably to adopt an economically conservative, but socially moderate message. Sure, the social conservatives might not be particularly happy about this state of affairs -- but unless they wanted to form a third party, they wouldn't have anywhere else to go. (For reasons that we will leave as an exercise to the reader, it wouldn't make sense for the Democrats to adopt a socially conservative, economically liberal platform under this scenario.)
The GOP's real problem, of course, is that there is far from perfect overlap between social conservatives and economic conservatives. You probably have something like this:
The base voters are the ones that are both economically and socially conservative; these are ~25 percent of voters the that still identify as Republican. However, whereas during 1994-2004, the Republicans seemed to be winning many or most swing voters who were either economically conservative or socially but not both, they now seem to be losing much of both groups.
In November, for instance, Obama won 43 percent of voters who attended church on an at-least-weekly basis. Considering that many of the 57 percent of such voters he didn't win were probably also economic conservatives, that suggests that Obama won a majority of voters who are socially conservative but economically liberal -- particularly African-American and Latino voters, who often fit this description.
Obama also, however, won a majority of voters making $200,000 or more, who as a group can be presumed to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
We should also mention the importance of the War on Terror to the GOP's successes in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 Presidential election. In 2004, 19 percent of voters described terrorism as their most important issue, and 86 percent of such voters picked George W. Bush (this was more than enough to outweigh the gains that John Kerry made on Iraq). By comparison, only 9 percent of voters described terrorism as the most important issue in 2008 (86 percent of them voted for John McCain). That change alone accounts for a drop of about 7 percent in the GOP's margins.
Security issues, indeed, may have been the glue that was helping to hold the fiscal and social conservatives together into a winning electoral coalition. There were a lot of security conservatives after 9/11 -- and my guess is that the Republicans were winning the vast majority of them provided they were either social conservatives or economic conservatives. With homeland security issues having faded into the background, however, and foreign policy issues starting to work against the Republicans, the strange-bedfellowness of the relationship between social and fiscal conservatives is now becoming more apparent.
The irony of all of this is that Huckabee's greatest appeal is probably to economically moderate (or even liberal), but socially conservative voters, precisely the sorts of voters that he says don't exist. But these voters do exist, and the GOP's medium-term choice is probably in picking between them (which, FWIW, probably requires their making significant into the Hispanic and perhaps even African-American communities) and their alter egos, which are fiscally conservative but socially moderate, libertarianish voters. Right now, however, the GOP's messaging is so haphazard that they are probably losing majorities of both groups.
70 comments
Trenchant analysis; I can't disagree with any of it!
Do we have stats on how quickly the country is becoming more progressive on social issues, and could those be contrasted with this analysis to determine via regression exactly how much longer the Republicans can remain somewhat viable (better than, say, one-third chance of winning a national majority of generic ballot matchups) while using a Huckabee-type platform of social conservatism?
I think that a sub title for this article could be 'Huckabee tries out message for 2012 primary season'. And basically the message is 'Whatever you think of my economics, you can't win without my core support.' And it also has a tip of the hat to economic conservatives. Of course he is wrong though. 30+ years of New Deal politics would tell you that. Keep social issues of the table and Southerners for instance are more than happy to vote Democrat, even for an upper crust economic uber liberal like FDR.
And that is the nub of the GOP problem. In order to keep the South, they need to play the social conservative card, but that increasingly loses them votes in the north and the west. In order to win the North and West, they need to down play the social card, and bring out a more economically conservative message, but that doesn't give them the South. I am not saying thats an impossible problem to solve, and indeed the security conservatives that Nate points out are often crucial to squaring the circle. But it is a tricky line to walk [have I mixed enough metaphors yet?] when you are in opposition.
Of course Huckabee's gonna say that.. If the Republicans dump social conservatives, his chances of becoming president disappear.
If Huckabee is correct, and there are no social conservatives who are economic liberals.. then Mike Huckabee has successfuly disproven the existence of Jesus Christ.
Ahem: "...a lot of the economic conservatives might be turned off by it and could BOLT the party."
Great analysis.
Huckabee's statements seem contradicted by the fact that the Club for Growth ran ads against him in the 2008 Republican primary.
Indeed, Huck has been attacked by the right as a liberal on economic issues.
The question is what Huckabee had in mind when he was talking about the Whigs. I'd guess he meant a party without a proper base, about to split into factions and brawl itself to death. Then his comment makes better sense.
Wayward Son - that's a good one, only Jesus Christ was actually extremely liberal (in the American sense of "liberal"), both economically and socially, for his time.
I feel like it would be important to point out that the concept of the "security conservative" far predates 9/11 and goes back to the end of World War II with the start of the cold war. While the larger part of the electorate has always erred toward the security-side, Republicans have always had the edge when it comes to this platform.
Can we please stop speculating on the "politics of Jesus Christ"?!
Esepcially from an end of the political spectrum that panders to and has a strong base of support from people who denied he even existed.
I love how the group who has the biggest share of people who deny he even existed, believe he existed but was not the son of God and didn't do anywhere near 99% of the things the Bible says he did, or otherwise just twists and distorts the things he said (or didn't say), are the very ones who have the shrewd insight and intellectual acumen as to where he stood, left-to-right, on economic or social issues.
Growing up I'd make the joke about the Republicans being the party with brains and the Democrats being the party with heart. Ever since W showed up the Republicans have lost any semblance of intelligence.
Well, lets think about this for a moment here.
Glibness/superficial charm With a heavy emphasis on bumper sticker slogans such as 'stay the course' and 'these colors don't run' in lieu of an actual strategy or anything remotely resembling a plan, we can say that modern social conservatism is excessively glib.
Grandiose sense of self-worth Sarah Palin's inability to see herself in the same light that she is cast in by the majority of Americans, Mike Huckabee's claims to understand the will and therefore the mind of God, and Limbaugh's insistence that he is on a par with the President all point to a bloated sense of self-worth.
Pathological lying There are Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Saddam Husein is in league with Al Quaeda. We will be greeted as liberators. The fundamentals of our economy are sound. Yeah, pretty much.
Cunning/manipulative When faced with the horror of 9/11, social conservatives saw this situation not as a tragedy or an opportunity to help heal the mental disturbance caused by these events, but as an opportunity to grab more power. Which is why FOX replayed footage of the planes flying into the twin towers almost non-stop for months after it happened while the administration rammed the PATRIOT Act through Congress and hired lawyers to justify torture and illegal wiretpas on the phones of the average American, all the while shouting down opponents as unpatriotic and sympathetic to the enemy.
Lack of remorse or guilt Never apologize, never explain became the catch phrase of the 2000's. That, and "I'm sorry that you feel that way"
Emotionally shallow Bill O'reilly's use of anger to intimidate guests on his show.
Callous/lack of empathy Like using a machine to sign the letters sent to the parents of dead soldiers ala Rumsfeld. Rep. John W Perry of Louisiana, the author of HB 60 which would make it more difficult for GLBT people to adopt kids stated publicly that he feels no empathy whatever for the kids who would be left without parents. The multitude of social conservatives seriously debating in favor of torture. Proposition 8 in California.
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions. Blaming Obama for the economic meltdown that started under Bush. The inability to state that the War in Iraq was a mistake or even wrong. Keeping Guantanamo Bay open, right up until you left office.
Those are all Factor 1 traits under the DSM-IV's listing for a diagnosis of dissociative personality disorder, commonly referred to as psychopathy. One needs at least three of those traits to be accurate to qualify, as well as at least three from the Factor 2 traits, listed here below.
Poor behavioral control "Fuck you, Mr Leahy", shooting your best friend in the face, Ari Fleischer saying Americans needed to watch what they say, Ann Coulter's numerous compulsive yelling matches. The O'Reilly Factor.
Lack of realistic, long-term goals Can anyone even tell me what victory would be in Iraq? What exactly constitutes winning?
Impulsivity such as invading Iraq and ignoring Al Quadea in Tora Bora. Sean Hannity volunteering to be waterboarded and then backing off once he realizes what he has just offered to do.
Early behavior problems Cocaine and booze, anyone?
So you see, it is more than reasonable to assert that the current vision of social conservatism promoted by the mainstream Republican Party, as embodied by George Bush, Mike Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh, is psychopathic.
Speaking in purely definitional terms here, modern social conservatives have the same traits as serial killers. Were we to assess the GOP platform as it currently exists, it would qualify as a legitimate mental disorder for which it would have to be confined to an institution for the protection of the public at large.
The GOP is crazy, literally insane. I think this is becoming more obvious to Americans with every passing day. they are losing votes because they frankly scare the shit out of the average Joe.
ahhhh, fun w/ venn diagrams... i luv it!
A few days ago, it was second derivatives. This time, Venn Diagrams. Nate, when can we expect a post that uses trigonometry?
I think Huckabee knows very well that the Republicans have to move left, so he plans to run as a social conservative who is economically liberal, with a running mate who is the opposite (probably Romney). That would maximise the profit, while "the base" has no other choice...
But most likely, the three Republican wings ("base", populist, libertarian) have destroyed each other's candidates before that could happen.
I think that there are quite a few conservative voters who oppose progressive policies but are nonetheless conversant with concepts like basic rights, tolerance, fiscal responsibility, pragmatism, and community. But if they seek nuanced or humane or practical views from their leaders, the GOP right denounces them as "moderates" who are at best to be tolerated as hangers-on.
By defining such ideas as anathema to conservatism, the radicals in the Republican party leave themselves with a core who think that "I got mine so screw you" is fiscal conservatism, that a theocratic bent is social conservatism, and that support for torture and disregard for Constitutional rights is security conservatism. That does the nation a disservice and shoots the party in the foot.
Nutty Butter -
Can we please stop speculating on the "politics of Jesus Christ"?!You don't get to tell other people what to speculate on.
I know it's tough being made to look like a hypocrite, but when you are a hypocrite, someone might make you look like on.
Esepcially from an end of the political spectrum that panders to and has a strong base of support from people who denied he even existed.Both ends of the political spectrum have supporters who are Christian and supporters who aren't Christian.
I love how the group who has the biggest share of people who deny he even existed, believe he existed but was not the son of God and didn't do anywhere near 99% of the things the Bible says he did, or otherwise just twists and distorts the things he said (or didn't say), are the very ones who have the shrewd insight and intellectual acumen as to where he stood, left-to-right, on economic or social issues.Non-sequitur. Just because a group contains people who aren't Christian doesn't mean that the group couldn't also contain people who have insight into Christian Gospels?
The United States is an explicitly secular nation. Has been from the start, which is why the Constitution fails to mention any particular god or even make a reference to the divine even generally, and contains prohibitions against a religious test for public office or an official endorsement of any religion's precepts.
The Constitution is the US government. That's the model the government was intended to follow. And the Constitution is secular.
Your religion's jurisdictional bounds end with the borders of your body. The country's jurisdiction ends at the borders of country. You are free to believe whatever you want; however, you may not impose your beliefs on any other person.
In this sense, I think the Hatch Act should be extended to prohibit proselytization of any kind by any government employee or elected official or any organization receiving federal funds. We do not tax churches, and that's the only fiscal compensation churches should ever receive from DC.
My rights are not subject to your preacher's rhetoric.
I'll say what I want, when I want, and how I want, harold, and you can just keep your fat trap shut.
You've already shown yourself to be a buffoon and anything you say is thereby irrelevant.
I find you lacking in substance and style and a very unimpressive imbecile. Please refrain from saying anything to me or directing anything in my direction unless you find an ounce of intellectual thought somewhere along the way.
And that Statler fellow isn't too far behind. He's so wrapped up in his own inflated ego that he's trying to convince himself and the rest of us that no fewer than one-third of Americans are psychopaths on a level with serial killers.
The invective and filth spewed on here are dangerous. Just dangerous.
Nut Butter-
You should just be quiet and stop giving a perfectly yummy cookie a bad name.
Nut,
Prove to me that you are not insane. I have laid out a detailed logical argument with a valid structure for my assertion that the GOP platform itself, were it a person, would be diagnosed as psychopathic. Every one of my assertions is based on the actions of the GOP's conservative wing in the past few years, the DSM-IV, and current medical literature.
What do you have to counter that? Exasperation? That's not enough. I demand evidence of your claim that my argument is incorrect, not more hot air.
I actually don't think Huckabee is far off the mark. One should be using a dynamic analysis and not static analysis.
The problem with static analysis, is that it fails to account for "time consistency." If the GOP changed its views in order to find the center of the political spectrum, they will lose credibility, and their strategy will ultimately fail. Thus, I think Huckabee is right when he says that abandoning social conservatives will cause the Republicans to go with the Whigs. Moreover, his values oriented message is much more persuasive than using logic alone. Moreover, values are consistent over time and allows flexibility by allowing the political party to changes its views on specific policy positions without losing credibility.
The problem with the GOP is that over the last twenty years we've had an above average Democrat president sandwiched between two below average to poor Republican presidents. A historical Obama presidency will bring down the GOP to permanent minority status. At this moment in history, all the GOP can do is hope that Obama fails miserably, and communicate a time consistent values oriented message. Abandoning the social conservatives would lead to disaster for the GOP.
But on to the post. My personal experience ( warning! anecdotal evidence ahead ) has been that the majority of social conservatives/evangelicals I meet tend to be economically liberal. It is just that many are one issue voters (abortion). This is why Republican politicians will never do anything to ban or even lessen the frequency of abortion.
I think it is just the bigots that are both socially and economically conservative. I personally refer to them as the ones that think they will catch "gay" if in the presence of a GLBT person.
Nut,
A threat does not constitute a counter argument. In only reinforces the image of you as crazy. If anything, it proves that Republicans are psychopaths.
And it's also the reason why you keep losing elections. Faced with two candidates, one whom the electorate doesn't know that much about and one that acts like a serial killer, the electorate will usually pick the mystery man over the crazy person. Cf. Sarah Palin v Barack Obama.
As your party dwindles, contemplate how adopting a less rabid approach may improve your ability to convince people that you should be given the responsibility of not running the ship of state into an iceberg because you were drunk.
@Nate: typo: "are ~25 percent of voters the that still..."
should be "are the ~25 percent of voters that still..."
Also see the typo noted above by DemSign.
The Republicans have themselves in a bit of a spot. If they maintain their current position, they will reduce themselves to a theocratic party. Econ. conservatives will be peeled off by the Libertarian Party. Socially liberal voters will leave for the Democratic Party. Depending on how long Democratic Party leadership can hold together an even larger and more ideologically diverse party, we might end up with a three- or even four-party system.
This post describes the scenarios pretty well.
Nut,
Oh, I don't care. If you like, I can even arrange to meet you face to face somewhere in town.
Geoff,
The GOP's main argument justifying its existence lately has been the need for a second political party, to avoid a one-party state. I agree that multiple parties are good-I'd rather like to see the US have several political parties, including regional parties as well as national ones that have good odds of winning elections. I just don't see why one of those parties has to be the GOP. There are several other parties we could have to replace them that would be less destructive.
Of course, the danger is that the party replacing the GOP would be the same people with a new party name, and thus it would in substance be no different, save that it could duck responsibility for the wrongs of it's ideological parent by claiming that the new party has no history, and therefore nothing you can point to as a past wrong.
I can't help but wonder what the people who don't feel represented by either party platform think when they look at the situation. My personal beliefs are adequately represented by at least one wing of the Democrats, however I know many who cannot claim the same, not can they claim a home in the increasingly restrictive atmosphere of the Republican Party.
Perhaps something organically new will come about. A few centrists such as Mike Bloomberg and Warren Buffet have the money to start something original that would not be a mere facelift of the same old religious cult we call the GOP. One wonders what motivation they would require to get things moving.
Whatever, lojasmo. You're just another douche.
@ArcadeFire,
I find your question hilarious and ironic. Hate is in excess supply on this site - in the comments section, anyway - from the left.
The far left is more concerned with the complete incineration, incarceration, or complete exile of anyone remotely associated with Republicanism or conservatism than actually leading this country and doing what's right for people.
I see this daily with talk over "death spiral" and the mocking and name calling - "RushthugliKKKants" anyone? - and see little to show for it. I hear all the good talk but nobody to walk the walk. I hear about how "radical" and "irrelevant" the right is, but I don't see the left doing anything worth a damn.
So that begs the question. If I'm so repugnant, so irrelevant, so "psychopathic", so outdated, etc., why does it matter if I "hate"?
You (liberals) are in power. I'm waiting for you to take charge and worry more about governing and less about incinerating your opponent.
Nut,
The problem is that we're nor the ones doing the incinerating. The GOP is incinerating itself. When Michael Steele got into that little row with Limbaugh, there weren't any Democrats involved in that mess. Now was there when Cheney said he wanted Powell to leave the party.
You play the innocent victim, only you're the one with the knife at your own wrist. You project your frustration out at us, but your real enemy is yourself.
This is quite typical for psychopaths. While they feel no guilt for the harm they cause to others, the acute embarrassment of being seen as serial killers causes them to wish harm upon themselves, a sort of magnification of scorn heaped upon them by the public at large.
Now, if you'd like it to stop, you have to stop. When pounding one's head against a wall, the solution to the bleeding head wound is not to keep going in hopes that the wall will lose. The solution is to stop.
I suggest you try it. Would you like an aspirin?
No more replies after that, just:
Search. Find. Murder.
Wow, moving from just being a jerk to creepy stalker death threats. Nice.
I'm just putting that faggot Statler in his place. He should know to keep his mouth shut. I warned him. I'll leave him alone, but he just needs to go away. Nobody is interested in his shrill tone.
The Neocons, Socons, and Fiscal cons. Who will win the soul of the GOP?
Probably the neocons, since ones like Bush are all pulling the strings. Fiscal as well too a lesser extent. Socons have always been used and will continue to be.
I don't think Huckabee said that social conservatives are always economic conservatives. I think he meant that most of the time that's true and he's right. I'm sure there's a poll out there on it somewhere.
Isn't there a way 538 can block nut jobs like Nut Butter? I'm not for censorship, but threats shouldn't be tolerated.
This Nut Butter should be reported to authorities. His ISP should at least terminate his connection.
His presence really undermines the quality of this blog.
I'm going to report this guy to Blogger.
If Huckabee is correct, and there are no social conservatives who are economic liberals.. then Mike Huckabee has successfuly disproven the existence of Jesus Christ.classic line
This comment thread reminds me of the website in this episode of West Wing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRHygbB1dp4
First ignore the troll
Outside that it looks like there are some actual constructive people on this thread which is refreshing.
The defense/security issues are a large part of what is driving the current situation.
A couple things first. The social conservatives are a pretty easy lot. All you have to do is talk about abortion and family issues at a fairly high level. Bush for all his faults did deliver quite well for the social conservatives.
Obama barely talked about abortion at all on the campaign trail and he is actually against gay marriage and in favor of civil unions which is where McCain was on the issue. There was some coverage on how Obama is rolling back some anti-abortion policies but it didn't get much traction. However in the social conservative circles it did and that issue can galvanize them to act.
Moving on to the economic conservatives. A tip of the hat to Obama on this one. Its pretty impossible to beat a tax break to 90% of the population. We will see how it shakes out with possible energy taxes and higher health care costs for many but in the elction and for know Obama and the Ds have this issue locked up.
Finally we have security/defense. This was and is McCains strong suit and he was beating Obama handling on this. Of course the whole economic collapse overshadowed the issue and as Nate and others hinted at many security type voters (including me) switched their main issue to the economy and as stated above Obama had McCain beat on policy even before McCain showed his weakness on the issue. Personally I appreciate Obamas more measured diplomatic tone. His push into Afghanistan is interesting. Early indications indicate a potentail Iraq II if we aren't careful. Whats our objective and whats the endgame. So far the details are weak at best.
Ok thats enough writing for me. Lets keep the intellectual level high and IGNORE the TROLL
If Huckabee is correct, and there are no social conservatives who are economic liberals.. then Mike Huckabee has successfuly disproven the existence of Jesus Christ.Cute line, but Jesus wasn't an economic liberal.
I'm an atheist. I was raised going to church every Sunday in a small town in Texas. Early on I came to the opinion that Jesus Christ was an amazing historical figure who preached love, acceptance, understanding and taking care of each other but have always had a problem with the existence of god (or God, if you prefer). The more education I got, the more I doubted the existence of any Universal Creator/God. On a side note, did you know that Abraham Lincoln was never a member of any church? I don't doubt that Jesus of Nazareth existed (and I really doubt many other atheists do either). I just think so much of the "Born to a Virgin, Walked on Water, Raised Lazarus, Loaves and Fishes, Came Back to Life, etc..." is hyperbole and exaggeration written in a pre-scientific world by the likes of Paul and his ilk. I am more familiar with modern American culture than 2000 year old Middle Eastern/Jewish culture but it seems like Jesus thought more like a modern Social(ist) Democrat as many Western Europeans with their cradle to grave social programs to take care and support their citizenry which are ironically the most secular governments and societies. What has really gotten me more vocal is that blind religious beliefs were behind 9/11 and the danger of turning a blind eye to anybody's religious beliefs could be dangerous to everybody's existence and having the Air Force Academy shoving Christianity down cadet's throats or soldiers in Afghanistan trying to convert Muslims is very un-democratic. But back to Nate's analysis, it seems like the Republicans coalition of Social and/or Fiscal Conservatives and Hawks (originally anti-Communist going back to 1950 +/- 5 years now more Islamofascist obsessed) that coalesced in the Reagan Era has lost a lot of the glue that held it together. I could see where another attack on the US by a terrorist group of any sort would get a lot of Republican votes but it seems like so many people felt so burned by Bush on so many levels it might not be such a knee-jerk reaction especially if Obama can help get any progress on the Af-Pak front and or build a coalition with like minded countries. It should also be apparent that the Trickle-Down theory of economics, rarely referred to as such but still supported by so many hard core Republicans, is totally bogus. We have fewer jobs in the US now than when Bush took office and we are losing middle class jobs as we add service/minimum wage jobs. The social conservatives as far as equal rights for gays just have their fingers in the dyke (pardon the pun nature of this metaphor it is not intended just a very appropriate metaphor for the doomed nature of human rights in a more or less free democratic society). It's not a matter of if but when on Civil Unions, legal rights for partners, benefits just as has been the case on freeing of slaves, women's right to vote, Jim Crow laws and so forth. I also thought Marky Mark's description of the current Republican quandary is spot on. I have lived in the South, Texas, and the West, Colorado and know several long term Conservatives and a few Libertarians that have been appalled by the Limbaugh/Cheney/Palin mentality. Some would never be able to support Ron Paul and some could not stand to vote for Huckabee. I would add that the phenomenon of large percentages of working class people being attracted to the Republican Party a-la Reagan Era for whatever reason they were in the past seems less likely to happen in the post-Bush era especially if Obama has even a marginally successful presidency.
Doug, great post, but paragraph breaks maybe? hehe
I have applied the troll remover to the new MR and NB. However, I stand by my earlier argument that this sort of ehavior on their part is what is leading to the GOP's destruction. Trying to intimidate the electorate into voting for you the way a schoolyard bully tries to get milk money out of some other child doesn't translate very well into the adult world. "Vote for me or I'll get you" isn't a very effective campaign slogan.
Which is why I find it ironic that so many social conservatives play the victim in all of this. This isn't being incinerated by one's enemies; this is self-immolation. You've covered yourselves in gasoline and are now asking each other for the matches. That's not a conspiracy, it's religious cult.
Well, its time to leave the ashram. Arlen Specter did, and while his head is still messed up from all those decades of brainwashing, he's sobered up just enough to realize that people who insist on slavish devotion to party dogma and worship of the party's leaders have probably slipped something nasty into the kool aid, and it may be time to sneak away before they announce its time to hitch a ride on the comet.
I'm not addressing the odious troll (his/her reply will be ignored), but all of you in saying that one doesn't have to believe that Jesus was God or a biological Son of God (or more of a "Son of God" than any other man), or that Jesus said or believed he was, in order to have opinions about what Jesus is quoted in the Gospels as having said. The idea that only believers in the divinity of Jesus have a right to discuss Jesus' contribution to history and thought is offensive and bigoted. Not only would atheists, agnostics, or Jews be offended, but so would Muslims, who revere Jesus as a prophet and Messiah for the Jews, but utterly reject the notion that there is any god but God (Allah). I believe I understand correctly that some Hindus consider Jesus to have been an avatar (incarnation) of Vishnu, and Jesus is widely believed in India to have spent the part of his life not mentioned in the Gospels in India. I know both Christian and non-Christian Indians who believe that.
Now, having said that (unnecessarily, but because I felt like), what we can surmise about Jesus' thoughts on socio-economic matters, assuming the Gospels report them accurately, is that he was devoted to the poor, believed that it would be hard for the wealthy to enter heaven, and felt very strongly that profit (the money changers) must be separated from religion (the Temple). He also conceded that it was right to pay taxes to secular authorities - "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" could be seen as advice to pay taxes and also tithe.
Of course, like everything else in the Gospels, these things are subject to all kinds of interpretations. Jesus spoke in parables so often.
I love the poetic justice of the fact that the Republicans stole the election to get Bush & co into office and the result of Bush & co's administration was to destroy the party.
Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
it amazes me that any body who cares about national security and defeating the terrorists would support and republican.
they screwed it up big time.
have you heard how ms rice discripes the white house in the early days of the war on terror. confused, scared and without a clues. she did that in support of them.
Well, I'm not a christian. I have used biblical passages in the past to show the inconsistencies of those who insist on treating the bible as a political party platform. I now wonder if its smart to do so, since it just adds legitimacy to the bible which I don't think it actually has or deserves.
I see this reflected in people that send their kids to church even when they don't believe in chirstianity, saying that the church will at least teach them basic morality. However, the churches in America have so little to do with real morality. It's a sham morality, an ethical code based not on watching your own behavior and controlling yourself, based instead on trying to drag everyone else down to a notch below you so you can claim superiority. "I may be fucked up, and that's okay because I'm a sinner... but that guy, whoo, he's even more fucked up than I am, and I need to point this out to him so I can show everyone how much better of a christian I am."
And what morals do they teach you at church anyway? That you should hate gays, independently minded women, people of other races 9ever notice how racially homogeneous churches are? All the Blacks go to one, the whites to another, the Asians to another-spiritual segregation!), how rich people are blessed and poor people are sinners, how America is so perfect that it can never be improved upon, and to suggest otherwise implies that you are in league with Satan? What else does it teach... that there's this guy in Rome who can never say or do anything wrong, or maybe that everything that he says and does is wrong? That your particular church has the lock on the Truth, and that any other philosophy is at best inferior, and worst demonic? That children should be beaten, and no matter how horrible you are to other people, as long as you confess to either priest, pastor, or whatever, you'll never be held accountable for that? That saying a magic sentence like "I accept Jesus as my personal savior", even if you do terrible things to everyone around you all the time all day every day makes you instantly better to the person that self-sacrifices for everyone else and refuses to discuss his motivations for doing so publicly?
The meek shall inherit the earth. What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having? You've trashed it with cheap plastic saints and polluted the air and water, driven the global temperatures so hot some days it feels like Hell, you've killed your fellow species off with a total disregard for life and glutted yourselves to the point where you die not from unseen diseases but from unhealthy lifestyles. What kind of world are you offering me to inherit, and why the hell would I want that?
Why don't you try to make this place more like heaven? God doesn't need a church with gilded statues to live in. Build hospitals instead, and schools and soup kitchens. Stop talking about how you are so much closer to God and start acting like an example of that God, by feeding the hungry and curing the sick.
Your stupid rituals won't save your soul. If you treat people with respect and compassion, you might save somebody's life. And since the soul of God lies inside every human breast, and can be seen in the eyes of the poorest and most neglected, you are in communion when you share bread and wine with the hungry and thirsty, not when you are talking some nonsense about eating Jesus's dead body.
God is something you act out, it's a dramatic role in a very grand play. All this world is a stage in a very literal sense, and when you take on the role of protector, of provider, of healer and comforter, then you have brought God into the world with the same skill a good actor brings their role to life. Treat other living things with respect and kindness. Make love to one another. And above all else, stop hurting yourselves and everybody else in the name of your wooden and marble God statues and crosses, claiming that somehow this is moral behavior.
The word of God is written in your heart. Go read that instead of the Bible.
I am consistently amazed at the regularity with which posters to this site will feed the trolls.
Let's cut to the chase, though. It doesn't matter where there is overlap.
Social conservatives are in the process of being heavily rejected and greatly marginalized (see: recent wins on gay-marriage, stem cell research, etc.)
Economic conservatives are in the process of being scorned and modified (see: redirection of the financial system, tax code, etc.)
And, security conservatives are in the process of being updated with a new way of thinking (see: Obama tone to the Middle East and a new take on Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as inroads with Pakistan).
So it doesn't matter what brand of conservatism you're talking about, it's either being rejected or greatly modified! The way it was under the Nixon-Reagan-Bush era is now officially dead and buried!
I'm a Christian. Baptized and confirmed, a believer to this day. I'm also a liberal, and I don't see much in the Gospels that supports a conservative (Ayn Rand-Goldwater-Laffer-ish) approach to economics.
Illogic from a Republican? Who'd a thunk it?
Huckabee's a wannabee who lives in yesteryear.
Recent stats show that young people in America, a group within which 5% used to say they "didn't believe in god," now say - by a margin closer to 30% - that they "don't believe in god."
Mr. Huckabee's Delusion is that his Delusion is no longer deluding as well as it did.
Ironically, the Religious Right's (RR) beliefs that "Stupid" is the way, that "ignorance" is the goal and that 65 million men women and children without heath care - or inadequate heath care - is a "gift" from god to save our children from "godless communism" - while denying a woman the right to control her own body and "saving" the world world from the damnation of "gay marriage" are noble examples of fostering gods work - have so pissed off anyone with the intelligence to chew bubble gum and tie their own shoe laces that the RR has SUCCEEDED in destroying America, it's economy and reputation AND destroying the mindless support it had from it's young. It has eaten it's children and will die out - old, white, gray and alone. What a deserved fate.
@Statler
To be fair, there are numerous churches in America that do not demonize gays, women, or blacks, are racially integrated, and are not the least bit into right-wing nuttery.
I recently argued why I believe the Republican Party will survive (with or without screw-ups by the Dems in power):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/4/727311/-Why-the-Republican-Party-will-surviveStill, I have to admit it's a little astonishing to see Mike Huckabee reference the Whigs directly. He's the first major Republican I've heard to so much as hint at the idea that the party might be on its last legs.
But I have a hard time believing it. There's no single issue threatening to blow them apart the way slavery did to the Whigs. The problems people are discussing seem to revolve around basic ideology and demographics.
Besides, they only lost one big election recently, it wasn't by a landslide, and it involved an exceptionally talented and popular Democratic politician pitted against an old guy. If the Republicans fail to pick up seats in 2010, then I will admit they're in trouble. It seems a bit premature to suggest such a thing now.
Thought-provoking post by Nate. I consider myself an "economic conservative" (Concord Coalition member) and have assumed that the GOP had actually recently separated that and the "social conservative" bubbles. That, at least, is part of the drain on the R party: post-Bush II, no data-driven economic conservative believes that the GOP is economically conservative. While ~20% of America is quick to state otherwise this requires the usual wildly partisan suspension of disbelief. For the rest of us, that dog won't hunt.
It's great to hear someone bring up the distinction between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism. I didn't expect it to be a Republican, though. My impression, and I am not young anymore, is that social liberals are, very often if not mainly, fiscal conservatives. Just for starters, it is much cheaper (read "fiscally conservative") to not monitor and punish behaviors that only a minority find offensive, such as marijuana use and diverse sorts of sexuality. So just on that point alone, social conservatives are definitively not fiscal conservatives, since they will spend any amount of money to inflict their mores on others. Spendthrifts.
The social conservatives weren't happy with Bush, but that's in part because they're mostly fighting a hopeless war in terms of actual real-life outcomes. Barring a huge cultural shift that's not going to be brought about by winning an election or two, they're not going to get trashy TV off the air, they're not going to be able to force gays back into the closet, etc. And in some cases where elections might have the consequences the religious conservatives seek, well....the people they elected to outlaw abortion knew that it'd be their death knell if they ever actually suceeded, to say nothing of birth control.
The genius of the GOP is that they were able to tap into a fairly natural longing on the part of many working-class religious people for a time when there were fewer awkward things to explain to their children about the ways of the world. But they did so in the service of a different agenda; namely, one of deregulation and a shifting of tax burdens and social risk away from their wealthy patrons. They were very successful at advancing the ball in that arena.
But while low taxes are popular in general, the "country club" agenda isn't going to win many elections without some extra support from someone. Which is where the religious folks come in.
Nate writes: "Obama also, however, won a majority of voters making $200,000 or more, who as a group can be presumed to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal."
Why this presumption? I don't see any reason, or evidence, to assume it. Indeed, considering that Obama's only proposed tax hike during the campaign was on people who make more that the stated amount, one might assume that a majority of those people are fiscally liberal since a majority of them for him anyway.
Nor do I see any inherent reason to think social views vary tremendously with income.
Or maybe not--but aren't such assertions a little reckless without any data at all?
Cute line, but Jesus wasn't an economic liberal.Jesus taught to get rich and screw the poor? Which is pretty much the definition of economic conservatives.
I am pretty sure that Jesus would not approve of trickle down economics(ie knocking people down and slamming your boot on their back).
it amazes me that any body who cares about national security and defeating the terrorists would support and republican. "Security Republicans" really isn't a good name for that group. "Xenophobes" would be more accurate. From their point-of-view, the War on Terror is a success, because we've killed more of The Other than The Other has killed of us. Questions like, "Do Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan have stable governments that don't pose a long-term threat?" are incomprehensible to them. The Other is always a long-term threat.
This is the real crisis that the Republican Party faces. The Republicans picked up the Xenophobes in the 1960's (Nixon's "Southern Strategy"), but now they've become a liability. Like Nate said, the Republicans need to reach out to the Hispanic and African-American communities. But they can't do any of that until they can figure out a way to silence the Xenophobes.
W. made a valiant attempt at reaching out to the Hispanic community with immigration reform a couple of years ago, but he didn't have the political capital to go against the talk radio crowd.
It's amazing how many conservatives forget about it when they get their first Social Security check.
Look, the GOP's problem is not its appeal to social conservatives, economic conservatives, or even security conservatives. The problem is that those groups have lost large numbers of people. Look at the polls, in the 2008 election the main issue was the economy. Everything else was secondary. The people who were social conservatives and security conservatives decided to vote with their wallet, which Americans have always tended to do (see the 1932, 1980, and 1992 elections).
What the Republican party needs to do is just stand pat. If they move more conservative, they will alienate moderates forever. If they move towards the center, they will lose their core coalition of economic and social conservatives.
It seems like this post contains a lot of guessing. Surely there's someone, somewhere, who's done actual polling to determine what proportion of Republican voters are (or consider themselves) economic, social, or neo conservatives, and what the overlap between the three groups are?
"Obama...is actually against gay marriage and in favor of civil unions"
My conservative friends don't believe it, my liberal friends don't believe it, and I don't believe it.
He said that, sure, but I don't think he believes it.
Does anybody here believe it?
@Duke
"It's amazing how many conservatives forget about it when they get their first Social Security check."
Nonsense. It's perfectly consistent to oppose a program of societal costs and benefits, and then accept the benefits after being compelled to pay the cost. Same with illegal immigration and hiring, etc.
I tend to believe if you dropped social conservatism from the Republican parties play book you'd see one third of the social conservatives stop voting and the other two thirds split relatively evenly between the Republicans and Democrats. Basically, not a winning strategy for the Rs'.
The problem they have is they do well as the crowd making fart noises from the Senate cheap seats but once you put them in charge of the government, they just keep making fart noises. You can be a fan of fiscal conservatism, you can be a fan of fiscal liberalism, but almost nobody is a fan of fiscal incompetence and that more than their view on abortion (which was well know prior to the administration of "W") is what has driven the middle away from them.
"'Obama...is actually against gay marriage and in favor of civil unions'
Does anybody here believe it?"
I don't believe Obama is a homophobe, but policy-wise he's trying to be all things to all people on gay-related issues to avoid offending anyone. He knows that when he does have to commit it will offend either the gay community or the social conservatives, and is hoping that no one will force him to pick sides before he's ready to come out (pun intended) on whichever side he's really on.
Brian,
I don't believe Obama is a homophobe anymore than I believe that Buchannan was a racist.
I do believe that the Presidency deserves a man with a spinal column, however.
The exemplary Presidents are not the weak-kneed, 'please everybody' Presidents. Jellyfish like Buchannan, Harding, and Fillmore are consistently ranked at the bottom of lists of best and worst Presidents. This is not a jobe for people that cower in front of the polls.
Now, Obama is new in his position. Legacy is probably not at the front of his agenda right now, anymore than a 20 is interested in talking to you about an IRA plan. The Presidnecy ages you quick, though. In time, he will have to contemplate how he will be remembered. While his getting elected was indeed a huge challenge and he met it with great skill, and no doubt people will be impressed that he finally smashed the color barrier. However, if he falters or is a weak President, this will nonetheless negatively impact his legacy. Merely winning the election and surviving for 100 days is not enough.
Moral courage is what gets you to the top of that list. Washington is usually the fist because of the Revolutionary War, but he is usually followed by Lincoln and FDR. Both men did extremely provocative things-and no matter how adamantly secessionists will insist that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was-and it definitely is in the minds of historians. Lincoln didn't get to the top because of the Homestead Act. He got there because of the Emancipation Proclamation. He is remembered not as 'Lincoln the Land Granter', but as 'Lincoln the Liberator'.
FDR is ttops because of the New Deal- heavily controversial both then and now, and yet so stunningly effective. Though typed as a traitor to his class and someone who dined nightly on grilled millionaire, he saved alot of people's lives and risked the howling condemnation from the Right, stating that he welcomed their hatred and that he was not afraid. That's why he won 4 elections when everybody else won only 2 at best.
Obama may have a golden heart, much as Carter did. I believe that he does, and that he really wants to do the right thing here. Without any follow through, that won't get him very far.
Equal Marriage will be Obama's Emancipation Proclamation, it will be his version of Truman's desegregation of the military, of JFK's sending the Federal Marshalls down to help little schoolchildren fight the Governor of Alabama. No, it won't be warmly greeted by a large portion of the electorate. The courage it takes to do that will, however. This is his version of JBJ's Civil Rights Act and Wilson's Women's Suffrage-neither man wanted to do either one, because they were afraid of how vulnerable ti would make them politically-and yet when they did it, their power increased immeasurably. The ghost of Susan B Anthony just wouldn't die, and MLK just wouldn't leave poor LBJ alone- yo9u shouldn't expect us to leave poor Obama alone, either.
Nor should we. I am determined to make Obama the single greatest President of all time, whether he wants to be or not. I believe that my pushing him to do things of great moral character and courage such as combating Global Warming, supporting GLBT Civil Rights, reinvigorating Unions, destroying the last bits of gender and racial inequality in this country, and by saving the economy, President Obama can be raised to a level that would make Washington dizzy.
I want Obama to succeed phenomenally, in ways no other President ever has. Whether he likes it, or not. And I want him to officiate at my wedding
The Huckabee ven diagram is WAY off. I live in an ethnically mixed neighborhood that is probably 40% African American. These folks are virtually 100% Democratic. They also tend to be church goers, are socially rather conservative, with very little enthusiasm for Gay Marriage (for example).
花蓮,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花莲租车,租车,租車,花莲,租車公司,行易花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮,一日遊,一日遊,溯溪,賞鯨,泛舟,花莲租车,租车,花莲,花莲旅游,花莲租车,租车,花莲,花莲旅游,租车,花莲,花莲旅游,租车,花莲租车,花莲,花莲旅游,花蓮,花東,租車,花蓮,花蓮,旅遊,花東,租車,花蓮,花蓮,租車,花東,花蓮,旅遊,花東,租車,花蓮,旅遊租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮旅行社,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊地圖,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花東旅遊景點,租車,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊行程,花東旅遊地圖,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮租車網,花蓮,租車,花東 旅遊,花蓮 租車,花蓮,旅遊,租車公司,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮地圖,包車,花蓮,旅遊租車,花蓮 租車,租車,花蓮租車資訊網,花蓮旅遊,租車,花東,花東地圖,租車公司,租車網,花蓮租車旅遊,租車,花蓮,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊租車,花東旅遊,租車網,花蓮海洋公園,租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車公司,租車花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅行社,花東旅遊,花蓮包車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車服務,花蓮租車公司,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車,租車網,花蓮租車公司,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車,租車服務,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車網,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮包車,花蓮溯溪,花蓮泛舟,花蓮溯溪,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車公司,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮泛舟,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮溯溪,花蓮泛舟,花蓮泛舟,花蓮溯溪,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮,花東,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,花東,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,花東旅遊萬事通,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮太魯閣,花蓮包車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮 租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,租車,花蓮旅遊推薦,花蓮旅遊包車,花蓮租車,花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮地圖,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊資訊網,花蓮旅遊景點,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,花東旅遊景點,花東旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,旅遊達人,旅遊達人blog,花蓮租車旅遊資訊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮,花東旅遊,地圖,租車,賞鯨泛舟溯溪,租車,[ 芝麻店家 ] 花蓮租車旅遊資訊網,花蓮租車-花蓮旅遊租車資訊網 ,旅遊網,旅遊景點,花蓮行程,花蓮,花東,旅遊租車,旅遊,花蓮,租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車旅遊,行易旅遊民宿資訊網,民宿,推薦花蓮民宿,花蓮民宿推薦,花蓮民宿,花蓮民宿資訊網,花蓮民宿網,花蓮民宿資訊網,花蓮,旅遊,花蓮,一日遊,花蓮好玩的地方,花蓮,,一日遊,花東,租車,旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊-花東旅遊萬事通
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment