Posted on 11/15/2002 6:22:37 AM PST by hchutch
A recent column titled "South Park Republicans" challenged conservative stereotypes by suggesting that a many Republican voters are more inclined to watch Comedy Central than the Christian Broadcasting Network. The piece struck a chord. Actually, it struck several. You can read the reaction for yourself by doing a Google search for "South Park Republicans." Responses range from enthusiastic support to outright ridicule.
A few clarifications are in order. First, not all viewers of "South Park" are Republicans. Certainly, not all of Barbara Streisand's listeners are steadfast Democrats. And the concept of South Park Republicans is not new. Back in 2000, an article was published detailing The Inherent Conservatism of "South Park". The term "South Park Republicans" was first coined by Andrew Sullivan.
Some readers rightly noted that there is not necessarily a dichotomy between South Park Republicans and the Christian right. According to the official South Park website, "members of the Christian right have condemned the show for being bad for practically anyone who wants to go to heaven." However, many Christian conservatives agree with their more secular brethren on the issues of smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations, and personal responsibility. Indeed, many conservative Christians responded favorably to the article. One reader began her supportive email, "As a twenty-something, conservative, Christian who appreciates the humor of South Park…"
Many readers tried to debunk the existence of South Park Republicans based on a simple equation: Republican minus religion equals libertarian (they insist on a lowercase "L"). The logic is reminiscent of those demanding that "Jews for Jesus" call themselves plain old Christians. (Too many "J" words, evidently.) More importantly, not all South Park Republicans are libertarians. There is no single "South Park Republican" platform. They have different views on drugs, guns, abortion and Social Security. In addition, South Park Republicans are not uppercase Libertarians for one simple reason. They vote for Republicans. In fact, voting Republican is one of the group's two defining characteristics.
The other defining characteristic is a visible disconnect from the stereotypical Republican, an affluent, religious, white, male, moralist. In contrast, South Park Republicans can be any age, any color and any religion. Unlike archetypal Christian conservatives, they do not find much of modern pop culture offensive. In fact, they love it. They enjoy the non-Christian mysticism of Star Wars, the acrobatic violence of Jackie Chan, and the comedic vulgarity of Chris Tucker. The Christian right observes pop culture. South Park Republicans live pop culture, invoking movie quotes in casual conversation far more often than the Lord's name.
In this respect, South Park Republicans are a far cry from Rod Dreher's "granola conservatives." Dreher, who writes for the conservative National Review, admits that he has "a disdain for, or at least a healthy suspicion of, mass culture." South Park Republicans do not disdain mass culture because they are mass culture. Sure, some SPR's eat free-range chicken and organic vegetables like Dreher, but as a group, they are more likely to eat at Taco Bell. To the extent there is an overlap at all, granola conservatives represent a small fraction of South Park Republicans.
Different South Park Republicans often describe themselves as conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals, pragmatists, constitutionalists, or "just your average Joe." However, when election day comes around, they all generally vote for Republican candidates. But their vote must be earned. They are idealists, perhaps even pragmatists, but not party loyalists. In fact, the creators of the South Park TV show brutally satirized the current president in their short-lived series, "That's My Bush."
What's Under the Tent?
South Park Republicans each vote Republican for their own reasons. Some agree with every plank in the party's platform, in spite of having a nose ring and purple mohawk. However, most view Republicans as the lesser of two evils. Due to the quirks of our electoral system, candidates require a plurality to win, not a majority. If Libertarians wrested away half of the Republican votes in every major election, Democrats would hold nearly every seat in Congress. South Park Republicans want to avoid that, even if it means voting for Republicans when third party candidates may better reflect their views.
Democrats are keenly aware of electoral calculus. Long ago, they assembled an unlikely coalition to exploit it. For decades, Democrats have held their multifaceted party together with tape and glue. Today, former Klansman and current Senator Robert Byrd is in the same party as African-American Georgia Rep. Billy McKinney, who blamed his daughter's congressional defeat on a Jewish plot, though he did not mention Jewish Democrats by name, such as former Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman. Democrats hold together environmentalists protesting big oil in the same party as the union auto workers who depend on cheap oil and even the trial lawyers that skim 30% from whichever side wins. The Democrats have room for almost everybody in their big tent.
When you lift the flap to peek inside, who will you see in the Republican tent? After looking at the ad hoc membership of the left, it becomes easy to accept the South Park crowd as a viable Republican caucus, numerically dwarfing other factions such as, say, the Log Cabin Republicans. Of course, with congressional control and a sitting president, there must be far more people - and far greater diversity - in the Republican party than Hollywood might have you believe. Hilary Clinton got it half right: The right wing is truly vast, encompassing a vibrant and diverse base holding many different priorities. However, there is no conspiracy; the party is not monolithic.
In fact, the party is evolving rapidly. The newest and youngest members do not look, act, or think like the old guard. Generation X grew up with computers and cable TV. They entered the workforce at the same time as the Internet and embrace technology. They access the information and entertainment they want when they want it. They are individualists, with little patience for censorship or prejudice. Generation Y grew up even later, after political correctness had already firmly taken root. They now rebel against the very institutions, such as racial quotas, that were put in place by the progressives who fought the conservatism of the '60s.
Yet voters continue to see the same gray-haired faces representing the Republican party, in the same suits, with familiar priorities. But that will not last. Political parties are dynamic and they evolve. The South Park Republicans represent a large and growing caucus, espousing many of the party's core ideals, though rejecting the intolerance and censorship of certain religious elements.
South Park Republicans are very real and candidates should listen. Within two days of publication, the previous column generated email from many self-described South Park Republicans. They included a middle aged mother who finds the TV show tasteless, an economics professor, a blue collar worker, an old Truman Democrat, a naval veteran, a home-schooled teen, several Log Cabin Republicans, a tax lawyer, and a 31 year old, Jewish, mink-coat wearing, politically incorrect woman.
The Republican party cannot hold its current majority without this increasingly powerful caucus. The party can continue to adapt and prevail, or splinter and lose. The great thing about big tents is that they are portable. The Republicans of the future do not have to set up the big tent on the same exact political turf of yesteryear.
Thanks. Your worldview, then, is by definition no less "irrational" than the theistic worldview. You are a believer. Faith = faith.
So is belief a subjective conclusion. It is a choice. As I was attempting to say, not very well apparently, proving God is futile as proof destroys that which was proven, at least as far as it being God in the generally accepted definition. So, if you are to believe you must do so in the absence of proof.
Many intelligent people are reluctant to even try to believe because they don't want to be, or to seem to be, foolish; to be thought to believe something that is nothing more than a superstition or myth. That is understandable. I went through that myself.
I was raised in the church, have a brother that is a preacher, attended college and became an atheist, then an agnostic and finally, years later, a believer. From an intellectual point of view, if that is your desire, agnosticism is the most honest. It is also, in my experience, the least satisfying.
It seems to me that a decision about the existence of God is about the most important decision a person can make. It is the basis for how you live your life, how you treat others, how you feel about others, and, most importantly, your attitude about life in general. Along that line, being an agnostic is to punt the issue rather than to make a decision. I am not saying that you cannot live a moral and productive life with good personal relationships in the absence of belief. I am just saying it is harder, but it is one of those "you had to have been there" deals that I can't explain.
That leaves two choices - to believe there is not a God or to believe there is. Since neither can be proven (You can't prove a negative, there is not a God, and to prove a God destroys that which you were trying to prove.), you must subjectively decide which you would rather believe, which in your mind would bring about the most personal satisfaction. I decided a belief in God had the most potential so I set about trying to gain knowledge that would help me believe.
To make a years long story short, there is a lot in everyday life that enhances my belief but much of it is emotional. Yet, they are not the traditional emotions but rather feelings I had not previously felt nor are they easy to describe. Much of it is intuitive but they are feelings none the less. As I delved deeper into scripture I saw nuances and subtleties that were not obvious in the beginning. Having been a psychology and philosphy buff most of my life, I began to see that many of the answers to our everyday relationship problems and many of the ethereal theories of the "great thinkers" were always evident in plain and simple scriptures. I had not seen them earlier because I had discounted scripture as just a list of does and don'ts with a little Hellfire and brimstone thrown in as an enforcer.
Bottomline, I encourage you to not discount belief in God because it is counter-intelligual. (Intellectuals often outsmart themselves.) The pursuit, and it is continual, can be quite intellectually invigorating.
You just reminded me why I got tired of philosophy.
BTW, where's the SOUTH PARK BUMP LIST and how do I get on it?
HLL: Yes, Matt and Trey have said repeatedly that they are Republicans, but for some weird reason the losertarians always claim them as their own.
Since then, they have both portrayed themselves as Republicans.
C'mon, Comedy Central. Whatcha waiting for?
Where were you when we were voting for a Republican Governor out here in California? OH, I see, bitchin' and moanin' about our candidate from another state for that past seven months, were ya. Where were all those "broken glass republican" buddies of yours?
< CARTMAN VOICE> Oooooo, whatsamatter, Johnny...got a little sand in your vagina? < /CARTMAN VOICE>
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
We're all on borrowed time.
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.