"The main division in reality among the mass of voters in the party is not between the War and Small Government folks, it's between Fundivangelist Social Cons and the not particularly religious."
I dunno. I'm not particularly religious, but I'm also socially conservative. One does not have to be religious to believe that abortion is both the taking of innocent life and thinly veiled eugenics, that marriage -is- supposed to be about providing a stable platform for children, etc. etc.
Unfortunately, I seem to be in a minority. Fact is, there's an incredible and irrational and extreme hatred for "fundamentalists" among the non-religious lately. I truly don't understand it. Every time I want to hear the word "theocracy" I want to heave... I mean, for God's sake, if the social cons got absolutely every last thing they wanted - abortion illegal, prayer in schools, cleaned up network TV, etc. etc. - it would at worst be a return to the laws of the 50's regarding these matters. Was the U.S. a "theocracy" in the 50's? I really wish the people who live in unending fear of an impending theocracy would get a grip.
Qwinn
They fear nothing of the kind, and I'm not inclined to think these people are crazy. It's an imposture--they pretend this fear in order to express deed-seated disdain and resentment to their ultimate political demise. It's simple. They don't like the conservative religious. It's a childish thing, to reject an alliance out of simple dislike, but people don't invent terms like "Fundiangelist" for any other reason.
True in spades. Returning to freedom of religion as framed in the Bill of Rights hardly means theocracy. The problem is that most of the fundapaths confuse theocracy with a nationwide perception of right and wrong, good and evil.
"""I dunno. I'm not particularly religious, but I'm also socially conservative. One does not have to be religious to believe that abortion is both the taking of innocent life and thinly veiled eugenics, that marriage -is- supposed to be about providing a stable platform for children, etc. etc. """
I agree. I'm a not very observant Jew, but a strong believeing one, and I agree with you about abortion, in fact, I think that anyone, libertarian, conservative, or otherwise, who is concerned about individual freedom, should always give the unborn the benefit of the doubt. If they are not sure when it becomes human, assume that it happens sometime before birth, and is therefore entitled to live.
I swear, the next time any whining feminist tells me that the right wing wants to get into her bedroom, I'm going to ask her why anyone would want to get into her bedroom.
But, I agree with Steyn. If the liberty abroad, and the liberty at home conservatives cannot find common ground, the Reagan/Gingerich revolution is over, and won't get re-started for a long time.