Weekly Standard: Surrender to Big Government

Weekly Standard Online ^ | 11/8/05 | Ross Douthat & Reihan Salam

[RFT1]

What many do not understand is that the GOP would be at their post Watergate lows in terms of number of elected officals if it wasnt for voters with a populist bent. The open borders and "free" trade crowd have yet to come up with an intelligent arguement to justify their positions.

The GOP leadership is pro business at all and any cost, no matter what the social impact(and more often than not, the social impact will help the liberals long term).

[RFT1]

To me, the Christian right and Christian traditionalism have been two different things, though the Christian right is slowly morphing into traditionalism. The Christian right was, and still is, mostly Evangelical Protestant, and its leadership is still for libertarian economic policies, while Christian traditionalists, where I see most of the intellectual firepower now, intellects based largely on Catholic tradition and teachings, have economic views, while not Socialist in the least, have views that would make economic libertarians turn pale because it would shatter their world view.

[Sam the Sham]

Your analysis is interesting. Very interesting. I don't know how much if any Hilaire Belloc Phyllis Schalfly reads but I think she would profit from it.

I don't see the Christian Right as libertarian. A point I make over and over again to the point of tedium is that the Christian conservative is the child and grandchild of New Deal Democrats and the great grandchild of a William Jennings Bryan Populist. He comes from the only region in the English speaking world that has ever experienced catastrophic defeat. He comes from a region where not too many generations ago the diseases of malnutrition (rickets, pellegra) were commonplace. He comes from a region that has benefitted enormously from federal transfers of wealth (the interstate highway program, the TVA, etc.). Remember that Ralph Reed tried and failed to get the Christian Coalition to endorse NAFTA.

[Sam the Sham]

Globalism is destructive of conservatism.

If people are going to be expected to move from job, to job, to job, they will demand national health insurance.

[sinkspur]

If people are going to be expected to move from job, to job, to job, they will demand national health insurance.

I fully expect we will have a government-sponsored, if not government-run, health insurance plan in ten years, no matter who the president is or who controls Congress.

The boomers will demand it.

[fallujah-nuker]

That was actually Sam the Sham who wrote that, I merely quoted him but I agree that the GOP seems bent on alienating anyone whose main income is wages. Open borders is the RINOcracy waging class warfare against American wage earners.

[Nowhere Man]

To me, the Christian right and Christian traditionalism have been two different things, though the Christian right is slowly morphing into traditionalism. The Christian right was, and still is, mostly Evangelical Protestant, and its leadership is still for libertarian economic policies, while Christian traditionalists, where I see most of the intellectual firepower now, intellects based largely on Catholic tradition and teachings, have economic views, while not Socialist in the least, have views that would make economic libertarians turn pale because it would shatter their world view.

That seems to be true of some from the Christian Right who come from some Protestant denominations where they do believe that a person's status in life is a part of predestination or as a result of the decisions they made in life. Usually your old time Presbyterians take that viewpoint. I read one of David Graham Phillip's books, "Susan Lenox, Her Rise and Fall" where the main character was born out of wedlock and her mom died during her birth and the mostly Presbyterian town doomed her to a lower status because of her birth through no fault of their own. The book takes place in the 1890's. I've done some research on Phillips and although he leaned slightly Marxist, I tend to give him a pass because we do have 80 to 100 years of proven history and track record that he did not, at that time, Marxism was still an untried philosophy. Although I do disagree with a lot of his politics, he does show the abuses the common person had then and I fear we could be headed that way again. Phillips lived from 1867 to 1911. Anyhoo, some old time Protestant religions did see things that way, if something bad happens, you must have done something bad in your life. In some weird way, it is sort of like many Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism where you have karma but in those cases, it comes from previous lives as well as this one. I think Sam has pointed out, not ALL protestant denomination saw things that way and along with Catholics and Jews, they did see the need to work on ways to improve the lives of the common people because in God's eyes, it is the right thing to do.

I'm baptized Lutheran but there are lots of the Catholic faith I do seem to "jive" with as I read about things like Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum on the rights and duties that capital and labor have for each other to run business in a Godly way.

[Nowhere Man]

I fully expect we will have a government-sponsored, if not government-run, health insurance plan in ten years, no matter who the president is or who controls Congress.

The boomers will demand it.

I think some form of single payer or socialized medicine is inevitable. What form it takes, I'm not sure or if it will be for good or bad, I'm not sure, but all I can say it is a matter of time. I'd say around 2010, not much longer after that. I'll put my money on 2012 barring any major events.

[RFT1]

Many Lutherans, especially Missouri Synod Lutherans share many of the Catholic church social teachings, certainly not Calvinist based as seems with most Protestant denominations in the US. What we all must see is Christ is not some super hippie, he is not restricted to the bible alone nor is he just the gaurdian of morals, but Christ is king.

One line from the bible sticks out when it comes to those who defend open borders and unrestricted trade, "The first will be last and the last will be first."

[Sam the Sham]

Well, I don't see it being a function of old time Presbyterianism. I see it as a function of Prosperity Gospel.

Prosperity Gospel teaches that God rewards the righteous with a life without suffering. So if suffering comes your way, well, you must have done something to deserve it. When an impoverished region suddenly has a massive change in its fortunes it is tempted to believe that this is a reward for their virtue. So Prosperity Gospel was Sunbelt Christianity. God is rewarding Bible Belt America.

Prosperity Gospel was intrinsically bound up with the televangelist scandals of the early 80's. It was a corrupt and corrupting doctrine that enabled hucksters to think that getting rich was proof that God approved of whatever they did. I do see that the Christian Right, chastened by that humiliation, has moved sharply against BS artists like Benny Hinn and Robert Tilton and the whole "name it and claim it" racket. Prosperity Gospel begets smug self-satisfaction among the rich which is incredibly Pharisaical.

[Nowhere Man]

Well, I don't see it being a function of old time Presbyterianism. I see it as a function of Prosperity Gospel.

I want to add that I'm not slamming any religion here but I'm just adding to the viewpoint of the time the book takes place which was a common one and not any religion had a monopoly on it. I could write more but got work tomorrow and got to hit the sack in a few minutes. B-)

[Sam the Sham]

I didn't think you were slamming Presbyterians, per se.

I just wanted to say that that smugly judgemental attitude comes more from Prosperity Gospel now than Calvinism.

I should be hitting the hay soon, myself. It was nice talking with you.

[Torie]

That is correct, and it won't be just the boomers. It has to do with the economics of health care, and the end game of non price rationing. Pity the Torie plan on drugs is not adopted. That might slow it down a bit.

[lawnguy]

Those people were Democrats when the Republican Party was seen as "the establishment," and they became Republicans when the Democrat Party was seen as "the establishment." Contrary to what the author of this article has stated, having the GOP stand up and promote big-government initiatives like mandatory medical insurance isn't going to get them strong support among that shrinking cohort of voters.

I think they became Republicans for a whole lot of reasons, mostly cultural. The authors of this very long piece raise some good points, and I think this is what Dubya had in mind with the whole Compassionate Conservative idea. I personally found the label offensive, but I understand what he was attempting: He wanted to bring some conservative principles to the government, but not compromise economic security among the working class, whose loyalty to the conservative cause was owed more to cultural and social issues.

Try to discuss economic policy with the average American, and they will tune you out in 5 seconds flat. You have to appeal to people at a personal level.

We have an aging population, and a permanent underclass. Society will have needs that have to be met. We can all work to minimize those needs, but we have to be honest about the fact many folks will depend on us.

I welcome discussions like this here, and always look forward to them.

[steve-b]

As to your apparent dislike of Libertarians, their party platform is actually closer to the intent of the Founding Fathers.

The amusing thing is that, to the extent that Sham has any point at all, is that he is predicting the death of social conservatism as a viable political force. People who can't take it as given that they're going to be able to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table simply don't have the luxury of getting themselves all worked up over the spectre of atheist gays looking at pictures of nekkid wimmin.

[steve-b]

I think they became Republicans for a whole lot of reasons, mostly cultural.

Let's be brutally honest. LBJ said that he was writing off the South for a generation by signing civil rights legislation, and he knew political reality like the back of his hand.

That issue has transmogrified from a legitimate effort to insure that black Americans had the rights of citizens into an illegitimate effort to support a racial bean-counting bureaucracy, but the political effect of alienating white Southerners from the Democrats is the same (the only difference is that their opposition became morally respectable as the policies became morally dubious).

[steve-b]

As usual you manage to spread through three posts.

Er, you might want to familiarize yourself with the FR software. The way it works is that when you respond to post 29, and respond to post 33, and respond to post 40, you create three posts on the thread.

Of course, one might (for example) quote a bunch of text from post 17 and put it in a response to post 54, but that would just be silly.

[Nowhere Man]

I didn't think you were slamming Presbyterians, per se.

I just wanted to say that that smugly judgemental attitude comes more from Prosperity Gospel now than Calvinism.

I should be hitting the hay soon, myself. It was nice talking with you.

Yeah, I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't slamming anyone for any who would read my posts. I think you're right that in today's world, a huge source of disdain for the working class and so on comes from the Prosperity Gospel crowd or to put it more in common language, "the I've Got Mine Club." one thing to add, at least thr Reverend Ike, the money worshipping 1970's era reverend was honest about it. B-) B-P

[Sam the Sham]

Child, without social conservatives the GOP would be the party of 1964. A handful of country club types grousing about Democratic domination of the national agenda. Your ilk is stupid and loudmouthed but you have no real demographic base. You are therefore wise to never interfere with our domination of the GOP because we would squash you like bugs if you ever tried.

[steve-b]

Er, this has what, precisely, to do with your ignorance of how the FR software works?