Posted on 06/30/2007 7:56:53 PM PDT by logician2u
I have no desire to "control" the Republican party. I'm through with politics, other than doing what I can to teach a new generation some of the fundamentals of liberty so they will be less inclined to look for government solutions for each and every social ill and disparity in tangible wealth.
When and if the Republican party comes back to its senses, I may reconsider.
We don't have a choice; the media will do what they please until such time as the people supplying the sound bites put their collective feet down. That would be politicians, personalities, business people, even, on occasion, FReepers. (As much as I despise most of the talking heads on television, at least interviews such as this allow a person to expound on a subject without having to reduce it to what will fit in a 15-second clip. Of course, some folks will complain "it's too long to read.")
I totally disagree. The "Faith-based thing" was, from the very start, GW Bush's nationalizing a similar plan he had implemented in Texas: to bring religious organizations under the government's welfare umbrella. It was sold as a way of delivering social services that traditionally were paid for and performed by groups such as the Salvation Army, Jewish Welfare and Catholic Charities -- but now at taxpayer expense.
The worst aspect of the program is not the liberals' worry about violating "separation of church and state" by funding "religious organizations." I personally don't care whether a social worker tries to proselytize or not. Some welfare recipients (heck, some welfare workers) could stand a little dose of piety.
What's worrisome is the potential corruption of legitimate, useful social service agencies with the promise of federal funds. Instead of bell-ringers out in front of department store during the Christmas season, we'll have highly-paid lobbyists pushing full-time for bigger appropriations to HHS.
That could be, but I sorta doubt it. From his biography, he looks more like a Spiro T. Agnew type (he was his press secretary). Since he was never elected to any office, it's probably wasting our time trying to pigeonhole him. He's a lawyer. That's enough for me.
You'd have to have lived through the '60s to appreciate the concern Americans had for everything happening in Latin America. Castro was sending out emissaries like Che Guevara to spread his version of communism all over Central and South America.
Goldwater's optimism, as expressed in his acceptance speech, energized the Republican base. His forecast came a bit short, at least where Latin America was concerned. However, Castro never got anywhere with his exporting communism, either. All in all, we'd have to agree that the Western Hemisphere is in better shape now than it was in 1964.
There was no "religious right" in 1964, unless you want to count Episcopalians. Contrary to the way some politicians wear their religion on their sleeves these days, being a Christian (or a Jew, or a Catholic) was a personal thing in the 1960s. You didn't find newsies following candidates into church with their cameras - and for sure you didn't see politicians carrying 10-pound bibles for effect.
Barry Goldwater didn't really change that much. What changed were Republican attitudes, and the federalization of more and more government functions that were once the exclusive province of the various states. Goldwater was, above all, an adherent to the idea that local governments are in a better position to make laws (where they are necessary) regulating human conduct than Washington. That, interestingly, was also in consonance with the Republican Party platform of those times. (A big issue in the 1960 presidential election, aside from the "missile gap" that turned out to be bogus, was JFK's call for federal aid to education. Nixon, in that election, opposed it as taking control away from local school boards. Nixon, for once, was right!)
Let's say the stakes have been raised.
Once upon a time, the nascent religious right was upset about what kind of books their children were required to read in public schools. Everything from Huckleberry Finn to The Catcher in the Rye and many in between were the topics of newsletters, church group meetings and lectures at service clubs and PTA meetings. Mad magazine even made the list if I recall correctly. (And this was in a time when government schools actually had standards for dress and behavior. Can you imagine the uproar if girls were required to wear skirts today?)
It seems to me that the right and the left are engaged in a contest to see how many laws they can pass at the highest level of government to control people they don't like. The list would be extensive, but how's this for a start: homosexuals, smokers, immigrants, trial lawyers, farmers, salesmen, business executives, mortgage bankers, and (you guessed it!) members of religious orders. (I left out husbands of brain-dead women, but Mr. Gold already mentioned that.)
One thing you have in common with liberals is your hatred of religious people.
Come on. You don't know me. I haven't a hateful bone in my body.
You mean, when the war's over we can start yammering again? Thanks, please let me know.
You can't be series.
We are all concerned about this, but for different reasons.
Did you listen to Drudge tonight?
Sometimes national security trumps our freedoms
Sometimes the excuse of national security has been employed to implement draconian measures, such as the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and the so-called Patriot Act, and the suspension of habeas corpus for persons identified as terrorists.
You seem to be an educated person. Do you agree with Franklin on the question of security?
I'm glad you used a substitute word so we can read your comment.
He was about to say religious conservatives are the GOP's "stormtroopers"!
You think it's the atheists in the GOP who perform that function?
Hey, every party has to have an activist cadre if they plan on winning elections.
Do you deny that religious conservatives are among the most actively involved in precinct organizations and county central committees in many states?
I would agree fully with your assessment.
I count the religious right of the sixties as the very strong anti-communist electorate, and largely on the basis that Communism was Godless ( I had a liberal friend in college who scornfully lampooned the point of view as “Kill a commie for Christ”), that supported the Viet Nam war,etc., as opposed to the Episcopalians who were sending people to Cuba to cut sugar cane, etc. A bloc of voters that was led around by Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed has never existed IMO, if that’s what you mean by “religious right.”
...is like lamenting a hangnail on a limb that has been torn off and thrown across the street...
i do love that analogy, or metaphor. kudos to you... and with or without your permission, am going to use it and claim it as my own...
teeman
is rachmaninov russian for “racist man”?
i think it is.
where is moderator on this one?/ sarcasm
teeman
If, you are still alive.
The fact that Communism's state church was atheism does not make anti-communists members of the religious right. True, there was a lot of agitprop used during the Cold War years warning that if the Reds took over they'd close the churches and kill priests, rabbis and pastors. But was that much different from the fear-mongering we are hearing these days that if the Muslims took over, our woumen would be wearing burquas?
I used the Episcopalians as my example to see if you'd bite, and you did. Barry Goldwater, as it happens, was one. Surprised?
I guess according to Vic Gold, anyone who opposes abortion and “gay rights” (including gay marriage) want to impose a theocracy in this country.
In 1964 abortion was banned in nearly every state and there were a great many laws against homosexual activity, including raids on places where gays met. In fact I doubt that very many on the religious Right would want to go back to anti-homosexual laws that were as tough as they were in 1964. Yet despite the fact that the USA in 1964 was a de facto “theocracy” (by Vic Gold’s reasoning), Barry Goldwater ran against Communism abroad and big goverment at home and he never once addressed the “theocratic” restrictions against abortion and homosexuality.
The fact of the matter is that Barry Goldwater (and probably Vic Gold) were simply influenced to change their minds on such issues by the libertine times in which we live. It is foolish to try to argue that there was any real consistacy between Goldwater of 1964 (who opposed the civil rights act because of his concern for federalism and freedom of association) and the Goldwater of 1994 (who supported civil rights laws for gays).
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.