Posted on 04/02/2015 9:14:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
Corporate leaders and chambers of commerce are at war with those evangelical Christians who have decided to reassert themselves in the Republican political process. This war is eerily reminiscent of an earlier time when there was friction between the business wing of the GOP and Christian activists.
Make no mistake -- the rise of variations of "religious freedom" bills in GOP-dominated legislatures around the nation is no coincidence. They are supported and backed by skilled political pros and religious leaders who are tired of being left out of the American political process. They are especially weary of being treated as an afterthought in the party they believe they helped build.
Whether one agrees that the preservation of religious freedom needs an extra boost at the state level across the country is all but irrelevant to the more dispassionate study of what this effort portends for the Republican presidential primaries of 2016, and for voter turnout levels for the GOP nominee that November.
Whether one considers religious liberty bills essential or inherently destructive and bigoted, there can be no denying that the Republicans are ever so closer to the days of tele-evangelist Pat Robertson versus the George H.W. Bush GOP "establishment." But before we dive into that ancient history, here's some even older stuff.
It has been all but forgotten that part of Ronald Reagan's success in his 1980 presidential victory was the silent but massive creation of an organized evangelical Christian voter turnout. Conservative Christians had chosen to abandon the also evangelical but less politically conservative Jimmy Carter by turning out in droves to vote for Reagan and to insert their staunch pro-life agenda onto the national political stage. And they were driven to go to the polls by the use of what were then considered ultramodern techniques, such as direct mail and targeted telephone banks, all backed by big conservative money and the top strategists of the day.
By 1988, things got sticky, with a core group of leaders of that same "Christian Coalition" refusing to back Reagan's vice president, George H.W. Bush, in his own presidential run. This was mainly because of his less-than-ardent pro-life positions from times long past.
Instead these religious warriors backed their leader, Pat Robertson. Throughout Robertson's unsuccessful campaign for the '88 Republican nomination, these Christian activists became increasingly intent on having a voice in the Republican agenda.
Bush won the presidency in 1988, in part because he had the blessings of the beloved Reagan, but also because he ran against Mike Dukakis, a weak Democrat. Dukakis's hapless image on television prompted the GOP faithful to rise up from their chairs and flood the polling places.
What ensued was a running feud between establishment Republicans and what they called "the Robertson crowd." The conflict tore various state Republican Party organizations apart and likely contributed to Bush's defeat four years later. But ironically, it was a surge of that same evangelical vote that put George W. Bush in office in 2000 and 2004.
To say these voters were uninspired by GOP presidential nominee John McCain in 2008 would be an understatement. And their excitement for Mitt Romney in 2012 was lukewarm at best.
That brings us to today. Recent passage or efforts to pass religious freedom legislation in states such as Indiana, Arkansas and Georgia demonstrates that the evangelical Christian wing of the Republican Party is alive and on the rise. Their legislative efforts are being characterized as a blatant attack on gay and lesbian groups, and in particular their asserted right to marry. Proponents of these bills adamantly deny such motives.
Where the truth lies is almost impossible to discern. What is discernable is that after years of Barack Obama, whom they consider at best a secular humanist who is hostile to the Judeo-Christian ethic, this potent voter base is once again fired up.
The issue will be, first, whether the business-backed establishment GOP can somehow gain the trust and support of evangelicals, who were once an essential element of Republican presidential victories; and second, to what degree, if any, evangelicals' current legislative efforts might inadvertently bolster Democratic-leaning turnout in '16.
The GOP is being thrown back to the 1980s, whether it or the rest of America likes it or not.
I don’t trust Matt Towery, really.
As I recall, the GOP did pretty well back in the 1980s.
Anything to try to intimidate conservative Christians into silence.
Creepy article. So, because we had cars and refrigerators in the 1980s, we should sneer at them now as relics from an outmoded past? Some values really are eternal, Matt Towery. When you and your grandchildren are dead, those values will still be true. And you will still be dead.
Maybe Christians should just invade the democratic party.
“the party they believe they helped build.”
There is no ‘believe’, there is only ‘build’.
WE ARE FIRED UP BECAUSE WE ARE TED UP, AND FED UP WITH WHAT’S GOING ON !
/s
Hmmm, the 80s were the time of Reagan - a true president.
I don’t see anything wrong about that.
As for the GOP, it’s dead, deceased, pushing daisies.
And the stench increases as Jeb’s nomination becomes more sure.
Bring back the moral Majority!
Good. We got something done in the 80s.
Good one : )
He has just confirmed my long-held suspicions about him, and made me wonder anew about why he very suddenly quit politics.
Matt, dear, dear Matt (may I call you Matt?) - some truths are eternal, and not subject to politics. I hope you figure that out before your Particular Judgment.
The first issue will be whether the GOP can get its religious constituents to actively pursue their own destruction by forsaking their religion. The author clearly does not recognize the existential nature of the threat to religious liberty.
Creepy is a good description.
I was going to say weird.
Even without these religious freedom laws; we should have the right to discriminate against any deviant lifestyle. Don't people non-violently discriminate against pansexuallity, polyamory, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.? Non-violent discrimination against deviant lifestyles is a good thing!
Nobody is born being homosexual; it has never been scientifically proven. In fact, just the opposite is true – IT IS A CHOICE! We have not only lost this premise, now people believe the premise that bisexuality is OK. Soon, we will lose the premise on polysexuallity, polyamory, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.
Frankly, IMO, we started to lose the premise that discrimination against indecent behavior was good when Americans began to accept sexuality outside the bond of a monogamous heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman for life.
There is a time to be harsh and a time to be gracious. I have had (and still have) friends that are homosexual; and they know me as a man of peace. But they also know that I know why their lifestyle is wrong. It is true that graciousness will win over a person's mind more than harshness; but those persons MUST be receptive to it. Some have been receptive to the point that they have chosen not to be homosexuals.
It has been a slow, grinding societal/cultural decay. Society as a whole has accepted this change; but we don't. What needs to be done is to pronounce continuously that the sexual norm is sexuality under the bond of a monogamous heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman for life. Anything outside that is deviation from this norm.
It is very obvious why this should be, so it should be easy for people like us to explain why, in a gracious manner to those who may accept it. For those that would not, use it as a principle so any lurkers seeing the debate may see and possibly come to know why it is true. But when someone is beating you over the head, do you just let them do it, or do you fight back? Is that the time to say, "I love you, and I want to help you"? Or is it a time to say, "This is wrong!” and fight back?
When the Republican “Leadership” chooses the candidate these are the candidates we get.
John McCain is as Republican senator that is very comfortable with “crossing the isle” to get things done. In other words is willing to bow to the Left to win the accolades of the Leftist Press.
John MeCain has the leadership qualities of a windsock.
Romney maybe an excellent businessman but politically he is a Big Government Republican. He signed socialized medicine in to law in Massachusetts and later spoke out against socialized medicine nationally simply for political points in the Republican primary. And also for political points would never renounce the bill he signed in to law in Massachusetts.
The Conservatives in the Republican Party want a true conservative not these camo-conservatives that the establishment Republicans keep trying to slip by us.
When a true conservative (economic and social) candidate runs the conservative base comes out to volunteer in the campaigns and gets out and votes in record breaking numbers. I didn’t read that in this article. I wonder why.
Little Sisters of the Poor must be a much of "fervent Evangelical" protestants, using the writers logic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.