Give Up On the Republican Party?
03/07/2016
About ten years ago Rod Dreher interviewed me by email for his book Crunchy Cons. On the subject of politics, I said something I'd said before and have said since: that the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the difference between an enemy and an unreliable ally. The Republican party has never been a great friend of what for lack of a better term I'll call social conservatives, while the Democratic party is an enemy, out and out.
But recent developments involving same-sex marriage and religious freedom have me wondering whether both parties are now, in practice, enemies. The Republicans aren't openly hostile the way the Democrats are, but they seem to be quietly siding with the Democrats. This piece by Maggie Gallagher ponders the question at length. What's most alarming to me is her description of several incidents of which I had been unaware, in which Republicans including Mitt Romney and John McCain actively intervened to stop legislation intended to protect the freedom of Christian businesses to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings etc.
We've always known that economic questions took precedence over social ones in the Republican Party, and that "economic questions" often meant in practice dominance by business interests. Corporate America is now firmly behind the movement to marginalize objection to same-sex marriage and related matters, and Republicans are falling into line. Yes, the presidential candidates continue to say that they will support protections for religious freedom, but how much can they do, and can they even be trusted?
It doesn't help, of course, that there are approximately zero prominent voices in the non-conservative media who are willing and able to articulate the difference between refusing all service to someone (because one "disagrees with their lifestyle", an obviously trivializing way and inaccurate way of describing it), and refusing to perform a specific service that involves a conflict with one's faith. As far as I know none of the cases of this sort that have been in the news over the past couple of years have been of the first kind. It is a crucial distinction, which the Democrats refuse to see, and the Republicans increasingly don't seem able to see.
A friend at church yesterday said that if Trump were elected, it would destroy the Republican Party. I suggested that the fact that he could possibly be nominated indicated that the Republican Party had already been destroyed.
I know that's not what you are talking about, though. I'm fairly sure that it's a rare elected Republican that hasn't been co-opted in some way and that it's going to become even rarer. With large portions of the church lining up to support gay marriage, etc., it will be come more and more expedient for politicians to support it too.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/07/2016 at 03:24 PM
There's a point where ordinary co-opting etc. becomes a wholesale collapse, and the Republicans may be near that point. Some people think the destruction of the party could be literal--i.e. not just that it becomes ineffective as an opposition force but actually fades out of existence. That could happen if enough people give up on it. Seen this?
Posted by: Mac | 03/07/2016 at 07:23 PM
Well, now I have. And there is a website where people are signing up and saying they will never vote for Trump.
I vote in the morning. I guess I will have to vote for Cruz because he seems to be the only person who could beat Trump at this point. Blech.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/07/2016 at 07:59 PM
BTW, I got a robo-call from Jerry Falwell tonight. I presume he was telling me to vote for Donald Trump, but I didn't let him get that far.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/07/2016 at 08:01 PM
I was about to say "So depressing," but that doesn't really express the complexity of my feelings about the whole situation. I have always known that politics will not solve anything, but I did like that I could vote. Lately it seems as though the whole system works together so that there is not a real choice, or a way to make a truly responsible decision. But abstaining feels apathetic... God help us!
Posted by: GretchenJoanna | 03/07/2016 at 10:00 PM
I've been coming to grips with the possibility of not voting for president, at least, in the fall. The prospect doesn't make me feel apathetic, because I truly cannot decide whether Hillary or Trump would be worse for the country. But it does bother me as signifying a complete loss of hope about the direction of the American government.
Posted by: Mac | 03/07/2016 at 10:55 PM
NeverTrump.com is the site/petition you're talking about, right, Janet? I'm considering signing but have not yet.
Posted by: Mac | 03/07/2016 at 10:57 PM
test
Posted by: Mac | 03/08/2016 at 08:51 AM
Yes, that is the site, but it's not growing as much as I would have expected. I'm off two minds about signing.
I also wanted to mention that on my Kindle Fire bookmark list your blog has been assigned the Starbucks logo. Is there something you aren't telling us? I know you didn't give up coffee for Lent, but this is a bit too much.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/08/2016 at 09:15 AM
My iPhone does that with blogs sometimes, too--mixes up the bookmark graphics. Interesting that it's also a problem on an Amazon device.
Re Jerry Falwell (Jr) and the Trump endorsement: the evangelicals who are embracing Trump really baffle me. Like this prominent Baptist. It's good to hear other Baptists challenging him.
Posted by: Mac | 03/08/2016 at 09:42 AM
“I can tell you from experience, if Donald Trump is elected president of the United States, we who are evangelical Christians are going to have a true friend in the White House,”
What experience can he possibly be talking about? Does he really believe that?
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/08/2016 at 09:50 AM
The only "experience" he could be referring to would be an experience of being told that by Trump. Which would suggest that the answer to "does he really believe that?" is yes.
Posted by: Mac | 03/08/2016 at 11:25 AM
Well, you know, I have already given up on all political parties, so I don't have to give up on the Republicans anymore. ;-)
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/08/2016 at 01:39 PM
The managing editor of Christianity Today has a short piece in the NY Times about Trump and evangelicals -- "Trump Is Compatible with Many Evangelicals’ Leadership Style" -- which might explain some evangelicals' support of him:
Posted by: Marianne | 03/08/2016 at 01:44 PM
Did you all read: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/endorsements/fl-editorial-gop-nonendorsement-20160304-story.html
Perhaps Mac will teach me how to make it a word with the link imbedded. :)
Posted by: Stu | 03/08/2016 at 02:26 PM
It's not hard to do but it's hard to give an example because you have to use the characters that tell the software it's a link, so the software keeps trying to turn it into a link rather than displaying the characters. But anyway--I more or less agree with that editorial, except for the idea that Kasich is better than any of the others.
Posted by: Mac | 03/08/2016 at 03:00 PM
Something along the lines of what the CT editor says crossed my mind as I was reading the story about Jeffres. Specifically, when I looked at the picture of him. Well, his apparent anti-Catholicism helped, too.
Re giving up on political parties: yeah, but there are different levels of giving up. I never did have any illusions that politics would solve our fundamental cultural problems, so there wasn't even any giving up in that sense. But giving up in the sense of not even voting against somebody--that's a big step further. Not that I would quit voting altogether. It's just the presidency that looks much worse than usual this time around.
Posted by: Mac | 03/08/2016 at 03:09 PM
Yes, it is--disquieting to think about not voting.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/08/2016 at 03:22 PM
I suppose that Kasich is a popular and somewhat respected governor makes him different? Trump has never been anything except a businessman. Rubio has apparently done nothing at all except become a Senator. I can't even pretend to understand the whole Ted Cruz thing since apparently everybody hates him, but he is winning some states.
I don't vote for or against Senators, but I do concern myself over who might be governor of my state. I look at Congress as a "lost cause". Think what you might about the president, but worse case scenario is they are in office for eight years. Senators meanwhile can be lifetime appointments!!
Posted by: Stu | 03/08/2016 at 03:36 PM
Well, I think Cruz is winning now because he is the only one who can beat Trump, unless he just decides to be nice and throw all his delegates to Rubio. He is not that far behind Trump-384/300, and if he gets delegates from other candidates, he can beat Trump.
We'll see what happens tonight.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/08/2016 at 03:51 PM
That said, I like him about six popcorn kernels more than I like Trump.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/08/2016 at 03:51 PM
Kasich might be ok but he's basically another "moderate " Republican and most of the party doesn't want that. So he really doesn't have a shot. As for Cruz, I think the "everybody " who hates him is in Washington. So that's a plus in many eyes.
Posted by: Mac | 03/08/2016 at 05:36 PM
Well, I have to admit that my dislike is all my own. It may not be entirely rational, but it doesn't have anything to do with the left-wing spin on everything Cruz does.
I think this --the comment, not the article--gives a pretty good idea of the kind of how Cruz's image has been manipulated.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/08/2016 at 06:59 PM
I also dislike Cruz, and I’m pretty sure it’s not due to left-wing spin. A while ago here, we talked a bit about his speech at a conference of Christians from the Middle East a year or so ago that caused great concern among those attending and those who organized the conference. Then there was his seemingly sincere offer of an amendment to Rubio’s immigration reform bill that talked of bringing illegal immigrants “out of the shadows” but which he now says was all a clever ruse, and he didn’t mean it at all. I find both instances very troubling.
Posted by: Marianne | 03/08/2016 at 08:55 PM
I hate to be superficial--maybe it's not superficial--but for me the biggest problem with Cruz is that he just comes across as a somewhat smug and none too trustworthy guy. Smarmy. Possibly a jerk. I hadn't heard that about the Rubio amendment.
But as for the charge of "dominionism"--the general drift of that is standard rhetoric from the left. McCarthyism has been a standard tool of many on the left for a long time now. As a commenter on that Facebook post says, "Just to believe in constitutional government today is to be radical right-winger theocratic zealot..". If you add "to be a Christian", that description is literally true.
It may not be there now, but when I read that piece from the CT editor earlier today, the first comment was from someone objecting to the very mention of religion in connection with politics. This is what "separation of church and state" has come to mean in many people's minds.
It's still there: "Arguing Trump's fitness under religious scrutiny, demands accepting the validity of religion in politics. We decry theocracy in America. It is not ever democratic. Religion is personal and cannot assume political power unless all other religions and all non believers are recognized as being invalid, unfit, and a threat to the state. America was founded by people who fled that tyranny."
Posted by: Mac | 03/08/2016 at 09:31 PM
If you're interested, William Saletan wrote a long piece at Slate about Cruz and his amendment to the immigration reform bill.
Posted by: Marianne | 03/08/2016 at 09:42 PM
Maclin--your first paragraph--yes, that's it for me. There's more, but I just don't want to get into it.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 03/09/2016 at 08:04 AM