Social Conservatives Want More of Their Own to Speak at the G.O.P. Convention

NY Times ^ | July 12, 2004 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

[Wallace T.]

The issue at hand is the access, or lack thereof, that social conservatives (or other conservatives, for that matter) will receive at the upcoming Republican convention. FWIW, it may well be a sound decision not to give them prominence, if you wish to reach the so-called moderates (who would have been considered liberals 25 years ago and flaming radicals 50 years ago). However, this action can be interpreted as having the RINOs back in the saddle. Were Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, et. al., to wax enthusiastic about multiculturalism, immigration, gun control, environmentalism, etc., their speeches would alienate the GOP's base of gun owners, Christian and other cultural conservatives, and businessmen. (I understand that nothing of the sort will happen, and their speeched thoroughly vetted.)

One mistake conservatives of all stripes make is that the moral laxity and intellectual bankruptcy found in people like Alec Baldwin or Whoopi Goldberg is confined to a few small cliques of Hollywood actors or college professors. Perhaps that was the case many years ago. However, decades of permissive child rearing, public schools immersed in secular humanism, lying liberal news media, and amoral entertainment have brought the values of North Beach, Hollywood, Harvard, and Greenwich Village to the humblest hamlets on the High Plains or in Appalachia.

Thus, you can have supposed conservatives like Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit make over the top statements comparing the Christian Right in America to the Taliban in Afghanistan, in defiance of history, theology, or logic. I am far from an uncritical fan of conservative Christians in politics, as my previous posts indicate. However, their actions to attempt to influence public policy do not essentially differ from other advocacy groups. False characterizations of Christian conservatives are neither fair nor reasonable.

[ninenot]

...and the unfortunate tailspin continues with the Supremes' ruling that the Texas law against sodomy was un-Constitutional.

Thus, Comstock proves the maxim: bad law makes bad results.

[ninenot]

Margaret Sanger, the early 20th Century birth control crusade, was an advocate of eugenics. She believed that nonwhites, along with whites from southern Europe, were genetically inferior to whites of northern European extraction.

And her spawn, Planned Parenthood, continues in her tradition by placing most of its facilities near or within inner-cities.

[LincolnLover]

I would really, really like to see some budding national conservative GOPers who'll likely be more visible come 2008 (for one reason or another) get some speaking time, people like Bill Owens or Pat Toomey or Haley Barbour (more like a reintroduction for Haley).

If a relatively fresh-faced conservative begins to emerge now, he/she can really catch fire come 2008. Man, do I long for someone to truly get excited about once again! I love Chris Cox, but truth be told the man needs a serious personality infusion stat!

PS-What do you folks think of Craig Benson? Yea, nay, or somewhere in between?

[tacticalogic]

False characterizations of Christian conservatives are neither fair nor reasonable.

Granted. Neither is glossing over of excusing the minority who would attempt to advance a religious agenda via unconstitutional means if given the opportunity. The existence of Alec Baldwin and his ilk do not excuse them, nor justify giving them a national platform courtesy of the RNC in the name of "fairness", IMHO.

[Wallace T.]

You are correct when you state that the RNC does not have to give conservatives, Christian or not, equal time. In the world of practical politics, the Republican Party leadership knows that conservatives of any stripe are not going to defect to the Kerry-Edwards ticket. They must, however, avoid alienating them by letting the RINO speakers antagonize their party's conservative base at the convention.

When it comes to a wide range of issues, people are going to advance religious and metaphysical viewpoints through political action. If, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Rudy Giuliani were to advocate abortion on demand or state-sanctioned same sex unions, they are expressing their metaphysical views as surely as would, say, Henry Hyde or Tom McClintock in advocating an end to abortion and prohibition of same sex unions. Both groups of men have a "religious agenda"; but those of Hyde and McClintock are in conformance with Biblical teachings and those of Schwarzenegger and Giuliani are not. (I am aware that the latter two men are of Catholic background. However, their stances on social issues are in opposition to their church's teachings on such matters. They appear to be motivated by their beliefs in secular humanism and moral relativism.)

You made a statement that that there is a "minority who would attempt to advance a religious agenda via unconstitutional means if given the opportunity." Christian conservatives use the same techniques every other interest group uses: lobbying and petitioning Congress, persuading citizens through the use of books, radio and TV broadcasts, Internet sites, and the pulpit. All of these means are specifically protected in the Constitution.

If there are wannabe Cromwells, Spanish Inquisitors, or Gustavus Adolphuses among Christian conservatives, you should identify them. Where are the Alec Baldwins of the Right?

[tacticalogic]

Christian conservatives use the same techniques every other interest group uses: lobbying and petitioning Congress, persuading citizens through the use of books, radio and TV broadcasts, Internet sites, and the pulpit. All of these means are specifically protected in the Constitution.

Would you support a national ban on pornography under the Commerce Clause?

[Dragonspirit]

If you're serious and not just blowing off some steam, than all I can say is John Kerry thanks you for your support.

You're like the California GOP. You just can't stand to win for some self-defeating reason. You're the type of Republican who inflicted Gray Davis on us because a guarenteed win like Riordan wasn't good enough. You insisted on the unelectable Simon, and the inevitable happened. THEN, when the recall happened, and we again had an automatic win with Arnold your type voted for a vote siphoner like McClintock (thankfully we won in spite of it this time).

And what makes me mad, is you are smart enough to know better. You are a Republican, and you know right from wrong. You know it is better to get 80% of what you want, than 20% but you vote emotionally because the party is not customized for you. You know, it's not customized for me either. I don't get everything I want, but I'm not about to punish America for not doing so. Ultimately, responsibility dictates that you vote the way that would ensure MORE of your agenda occurs (even if it falls short of 100%).

Vote responsibly. Vote pragmatically. Vote for GWB.

[Wallace T.]

With respect to your question, I stated in post #102, "Nor was the 'interstate commerce' clause in the Constitution intended to be anything other than establishing a free market among the states, eliminating interstate tariffs." I hold to the doctrine of adhering to original intent of the framers; thus, I would oppose such a ban.

Do you believe that the Constitution encompasses a "right to privacy" that supersedes state legislation on abortion?

[Wallace T.]

You have yet to answer the question I posed in post #126, "If there are wannabe Cromwells, Spanish Inquisitors, or Gustavus Adolphuses among Christian conservatives, you should identify them. Where are the Alec Baldwins of the Right?"

[neverdem]

"What do you folks think of Craig Benson?"

I never heard of him. I'm familiar with Bill Owens, but someone mentioned that he was recently divorced, and therefore, wouldn't appeal to the religious right in the primaries.

[billbears]

Give it up Hank. Life's too short. Here in NC, to be a 'good' conservative, we're asked to support the Republican with the lowest conservative rating from our state according to the latest New American rating (PDF file). A 33 tying him with a Democrat that just quit under fear of indictment for fraud. Meanwhile, Republicans scoring in the 50s (still a low number) in our state are considered 'too conservative' to run by some.

Social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are quietly being edged out of the party. Gets in the way of staying in power if one actually has to stand for something

[tacticalogic]

You have yet to answer the question I posed in post #126, "If there are wannabe Cromwells, Spanish Inquisitors, or Gustavus Adolphuses among Christian conservatives, you should identify them. Where are the Alec Baldwins of the Right?"

Whereever you find them. Who are these conservative Christians who reject the original intent of the Constitution that you speak of? I suggest that where you find one you will find the other. I'll not damage my own argument by resorting to name calling, any more than you have.

[Wallace T.]

If we expelled from public office all those Republicans who call themselves conservatives who do not adhere to the doctrine of original intent relative to the Constitution, all that would be left of the national GOP would be Ron Paul and (maybe) Clarence Thomas. Even Reagan backed down on his promise to abolish the Department of Education, an un-Constitutional agency if ever there existed one. No less a conservative hero than Justice Bork has stated that the Tenth Amendment was a dead letter.

Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, et. al., do not appear to subscribe to the doctrine of original intent. Neither do President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Speaker of the House Hastert, etc. If Falwell, etc., are Cromwells waiting in the wings, why would you not characterize President Bush, etc., in the same light, since they all reject the doctrine of original intent?

[tacticalogic]

If Falwell, etc., are Cromwells waiting in the wings, why would you not characterize President Bush, etc., in the same light, since they all reject the doctrine of original intent?

Because I differentiate between the ends and the means. Louis Farrakan is anti-abortion, pro-RKBA, anti-feminisism, and anti-gay, but I don't classify him as a Conservative. Right ends (mostly). Wrong means.

Arguments based on logical fallacy aren't particularly good means either. Do you have any evidence that GWB rejects the doctrine of original intent outright?

IMHO, preserving the integrity of the Constitution is a primary concern, and it is not subject to situational ethics. If preserving the Constitution in a particular case advances a liberal social agenda, then so be it. If that's untenable then it's time we get involved in fixing it by the proper means. In the long run I believe it will result in a more conservative society with less reliance on government. I question the credentials of any "social conservative" who doesn't think it matters.

[Wallace T.]

Louis Farrakhan is a Muslim who is an avowed enemy of the existing social and governmental order in America. His political philosophy resembles far more that of the Muslim theocrats in nations like Saudi Arabia than any comparable figure among evangelical Christians. Islam and Christianity have very different views of the roles of church and state.

As for the issue of President Bush or for that matter the vast majority of Republican politicians not adhering to the doctrine of original intent, the proof thereof is evident in the legislation they support. Nowhere does the Constitution permit Social Security, Medicare, OSHA, the National Parks Service, the FBI, the National Endowment for the Arts, and a myriad of other Federal laws and regulations. Were the Feds to adhere strictly to what the Constitution permits, most Federal functions and properties would revert to the states and the people.

The Constitution, as originally intended, would predominantly assist the conservative and libertarian positions inasmuch as the massive Federal intervention in the economy and society would cease, becoming limited to monetary policy.

[tacticalogic]

Louis Farrakhan is a Muslim who is an avowed enemy of the existing social and governmental order in America. His political philosophy resembles far more that of the Muslim theocrats in nations like Saudi Arabia than any comparable figure among evangelical Christians. Islam and Christianity have very different views of the roles of church and state.

Granted. And this can be seen clearly in the rhetoric and justifications he uses. Every argument is made from the basis of his interpretation of religious scriptures, and everything he does is intent on advancing the objectives laid out in those scriptures, without any sense that there is or can be a secular authority that must be taken into account.

As for the issue of President Bush or for that matter the vast majority of Republican politicians not adhering to the doctrine of original intent, the proof thereof is evident in the legislation they support. Nowhere does the Constitution permit Social Security, Medicare, OSHA, the National Parks Service, the FBI, the National Endowment for the Arts, and a myriad of other Federal laws and regulations. Were the Feds to adhere strictly to what the Constitution permits, most Federal functions and properties would revert to the states and the people.

And who, among these representatives of the "social conservatives" will voice that concern at the convention? Will they quote the Constitution, or the scriptures? Will they argue for the laws of men, or the laws of God? Are these people Republicans because they believe in the republic, or because Alec Baldwin is a Democrat?

The Constitution, as originally intended, would predominantly assist the conservative and libertarian positions inasmuch as the massive Federal intervention in the economy and society would cease, becoming limited to monetary policy.

Yes it would. And I think a fair number of these "social conservatives" will run screaming in the other direction as soon as they hear the word "libertarian".

[GeronL]

I was kidding.

I never supported Perot either,

[BunnySlippers]

I'm sick of the religious right placing a stranglehold on the party. When they don't get their way they threaten. Gary Bauer and his followers can vote for Kerry if they don't like it.

[neverdem]

I'm sick of the religious right placing a stranglehold on the party.

How is the frustration of the religious right "placing a stranglehold on the party"? And why do you think this frustration is limited to those who are religious? For conservatives and libertarians, there's little to celebrate about power hungry, populist, RINO pols.

Think of a frog in a pot of water that starting to get a little warm. I'll vote for Bush, but that's because Kerry would be a disaster. However, I'll donate a modest amount to those who honor their oath to uphold the Constitution.