Team Hammer's Musings: The Conservative Takeover?

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

The Conservative Takeover?

Mark has a post about how the "religious right" (or "wacko Christians" or whatever secular liberals call me these days) are doing some terrible stuff, like hijacking conservatism. He even notes that the Uber-blogger Glenn Reynolds is in on it.

Apparenly, this nonsense was intiated by everyone's favorite gay-dissenting catholic-british-Kerry supporter-who is somehow still called conservative Andrew Sullivan.

Evangelical Outpost has a sharp retort. Good read for libertarians and conservatives alike.

Hat tip: A Physicist's Perspective

7 Comments:

If you put every person along a left/right ideology line, cut the line in the middle and then create two equally sized parties, you'll end up with 50% of the people between the medians of each party. It's always useful to keep that in mind.

But there is something else going on, here. Bush Sr.'s presidency wasn't driven conservative Christians, nor was Clinton's by socialists. The religious right is much more powerful than it has been in quite a while. I doubt anyone really wants to argue that point, do they? You might think it is good, but you don't really think it isn't true, do you?

This post links to mine where I don't actually bring in Sullivan, but I did quote him in a earlier post where I described him as someone "who still considers himself a conservative for some reason I don't quite understand."

In reality, 'liberal' and 'conservative' really are poorly defined words. Right now the libertarian wing and the religious wing of the Republican party are fighting over the definition of 'conservative'.

This article states three things, roughly:
1. Andrew Sullivan isn't really conservative.
2. Sullivan is responsible for rift between the libertarian and religious wings of the party.
3. The religious right hasn't hijacked conservatism, the religious right is conservatism.

I quasi agree with 1, but think that applies to many so-called conservatives.

The second point is just silly. The philosophical differences between the two sides have been obvious for many, many years to anyone looking. Liberals have been watching this go on forever just waiting for it to explode, but Republicans are way better about stepping back in line when they need to than Democrats. Democrats tend to be more rebellious and independent, I think. It's that whole 'respect authority' thing.

The third point, is interesting. In a very real way it proves Sullivan and company are correct. On the other hand, the victors get to write the history, so the concept that social, religious conservatism is conservatism may prove to be correct -- but it hasn't always been that way.

I just noticed Jesse Jackson jumped into the debate and is sitting with Terri and the parents, begging for the Bushes to do more. I wonder how that will play out. Does this prove the religious right are correct because 'even' Jackson agrees, or does this prove that the religious right have abandoned true conservatism? Or both?

By Xactiphyn, at 3/29/2005 02:54:00 PM
The author of the article certainly displayed a point of view, which is fine, but should be noted. That said, the “conservative coin” has two sides: social and economic. Most Christians (myself excluded) fall on both sides, while many libertarian-conservatives (like me) are economic and not social cons. The latter typically vote Republican as opposed to withholding their vote. It’s important to note that the Republicans would remain a minority party if it banished us libertarian minded folks.

By Robert, at 3/29/2005 09:35:00 PM
I agree when the primaries are benig run, Eric - but do you really think that GWB was catering exclusively to the religious right during the campaign of 2004? I have a hard time seeing it. Some, especially on the left, argue that he 'pushed' issues like gay marriage and abortion, but they were only mentions in most of his speeches. Of course, when the press asks about those issues, should he lie, or say what he will try to do?

Mark, I don't think the religious element of the Republican party has more power because they have done anything special - I think they have more than usual because GWB is an unashamed Christian. That said, I do not think they are in the ascendancy. Do you think the religious right wants immigration amnesty? Increased funding for the National Endowment of the Arts? NCLB?

On Jackson - that's my next post, but it will be sort of short. I saw that today as well. I think it bodes well for the Republican party, actually, and for many of the values I hold.

Robert, I think libertarian principles should be the governing principles of political thought when moral issues are not ascendant. Does that make sense? I think most Republicans would agree - except with the military spending, perhaps. If the Republican party abandons libertarians outright, I'll be joining the party you migrate to!

I didn't mean that EO posted the RIGHT answer - I just thought it was a good one!

By Hammertime, at 3/29/2005 11:13:00 PM
How is a law written down less subjective than religion written down?

I have to disagree with your labeling of religion as 'subjective'. What makes it so? If it is a religion whoch leaves the ultimate decision of right and wrong in the hands of the individual, then I agree. However, most established religions have a set of moral laws that they would define as objective.

By Hammertime, at 3/30/2005 04:34:00 PM
Eric,
I don't disagree with your two comments above this one - but the qustion still stands: How is a law written down more objective than a religious moral code written down? What is the objective source of your objective laws?

By Hammertime, at 3/31/2005 04:40:00 PM
Question, not qustion, of course. Preview, Hammer, Preview!

By Hammertime, at 3/31/2005 04:40:00 PM
Eric,
Can you point me to a good site on Locke that shows the logic and observable evidence led to his ideas? I mean, I can Google John Locke, but I don't want to sift through 30,000 hits. I assume you have something more readily available. Thanks!

By Hammertime, at 4/01/2005 01:23:00 PM