AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Congress shall have power to deport to France all spiritual mentors and advisers to presidential candidates.

Jacques Berlinerblau
Jacques Berlinerblau is program director and associate professor of Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He is the author of "The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously" and the forthcoming "Thumpin' It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today's Presidential Politics." The God Vote is a critical look at the religious rhetoric, activity and theology behind the 2008 presidential campaign.

Time for the 28th Amendment
Although I had initially conjured up the idea only to reject it as undemocratic, perhaps it is high time that we as a nation, believers and nonbelievers alike, consider the establishment of the 28th Amendment. Its majestic words would read as follows:

Section 1. The right of presidential aspirants to discuss religion, invoke sacred texts, or mention God on the campaign trail is hereby repealed

Section 2. Whenever a religious figure endorses any candidate for the presidency that candidate must reject aforesaid endorsement.

Section 3. The Congress shall have power to have the offending religious figure immediately deported to France

My proposal is only partly prompted by the widely discussed remarks of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Rather, I am hankering for constitutional change mostly on account of the infelicities of Senator McCain's recent Evangelical champions.

While the comments of John Hagee and Rod Parsley have received less attention than those of Wright, they pose--and here I come to the first talking point for my amendment--a substantial threat to America's tradition of inter-religious tranquility.

Reverend Wright's unfortunate observations did damage mostly to Senator Obama's presidential hopes. But those of McCain's endorsers risk disturbing the national peace. The musings of Pastor Hagee evoke the specter of Old World Catholic/Protestant antagonisms that the Framers steadfastly sought to escape. Rod Parsley's criticisms of Islam raise possibilities of hostility towards religious minorities that Americans have, for the most part, historically avoided

I wonder if a few supporters of McCain and Obama might be coming around to my position. For the truth of the matter is that Faith and Values politicking has actually imperiled their candidates' prospects. Reverend Wright's heavy rotation on YouTube assures that the Senator from Illinois must now exert twice as much effort to secure the middle-class white votes he desperately needs to capture his party's nomination and a general election.

His colleague from Arizona now has a potential problem with Catholics--the largest religious denomination in the United States. He never had one before. For this he has Pastor Hagee to thank.

This brings me to a final point: the unofficial insistence that all candidates for high office pay lip service to God and faith is depriving us of many skilled leaders. Simply put, there are many qualified politicians out there who do not want to inject religion into their campaigns. Some are nonbelievers, but the majority, I would venture, are believers who feel profoundly uncomfortable emoting about religion in public, or dragooning God into the service of their national campaigns.

My proposal is, of course, a tad facetious. Yet I think we should seriously consider that the relentless infusion of religion into the 2008 campaign poses dangers to the religious liberties that the Founders sought to secure, if not the integrity of our political process.

dyslexia wrote:

Well, of course it's always an error to respond to my posts foxfyre. It's just as much of an error when okie does as well. I suggest you return to your previous position of never responding to anything I post and suggest that okie do the same. I, of course, will continue to respond to both you and okie because i am mentally defective, intentionally dishonest, utterly stupid and have a general propensity to hate/hurt others as much as possible. After all, I am a liberal.

I'll repeat just in case you missed it:

Well past experience makes me wary.

But his (Dys) is another illustration of the point I was making. I didn't say anything about 'liberal ideas' in my post, but that is apparently what he thought I was talking about. The ones I was addressing can't seem to recognize what the subject is.

I have come to believe that it is simply ingrained in some people's DNA and they can't help it. As one political pundit has suggested: "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

liberalism' and 'liberal ideas' are separate things

Now, if you folks are really interested in re-thinking, re-evaluating, re-imagining the nature and role of 'conservatism' in american politics and life, then you'll inevitably have to address the issue of religion and its role in the state and in governance. Here's a very bright start...

Quote:

Congress shall have power to deport to France all spiritual mentors and advisers to presidential candidates.

Jacques Berlinerblau
Jacques Berlinerblau is program director and associate professor of Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He is the author of "The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously" and the forthcoming "Thumpin' It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today's Presidential Politics." The God Vote is a critical look at the religious rhetoric, activity and theology behind the 2008 presidential campaign.

Time for the 28th Amendment
Although I had initially conjured up the idea only to reject it as undemocratic, perhaps it is high time that we as a nation, believers and nonbelievers alike, consider the establishment of the 28th Amendment. Its majestic words would read as follows:

Section 1. The right of presidential aspirants to discuss religion, invoke sacred texts, or mention God on the campaign trail is hereby repealed

Section 2. Whenever a religious figure endorses any candidate for the presidency that candidate must reject aforesaid endorsement.

Section 3. The Congress shall have power to have the offending religious figure immediately deported to France

My proposal is only partly prompted by the widely discussed remarks of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Rather, I am hankering for constitutional change mostly on account of the infelicities of Senator McCain's recent Evangelical champions.

While the comments of John Hagee and Rod Parsley have received less attention than those of Wright, they pose--and here I come to the first talking point for my amendment--a substantial threat to America's tradition of inter-religious tranquility.

Reverend Wright's unfortunate observations did damage mostly to Senator Obama's presidential hopes. But those of McCain's endorsers risk disturbing the national peace. The musings of Pastor Hagee evoke the specter of Old World Catholic/Protestant antagonisms that the Framers steadfastly sought to escape. Rod Parsley's criticisms of Islam raise possibilities of hostility towards religious minorities that Americans have, for the most part, historically avoided

I wonder if a few supporters of McCain and Obama might be coming around to my position. For the truth of the matter is that Faith and Values politicking has actually imperiled their candidates' prospects. Reverend Wright's heavy rotation on YouTube assures that the Senator from Illinois must now exert twice as much effort to secure the middle-class white votes he desperately needs to capture his party's nomination and a general election.

His colleague from Arizona now has a potential problem with Catholics--the largest religious denomination in the United States. He never had one before. For this he has Pastor Hagee to thank.

This brings me to a final point: the unofficial insistence that all candidates for high office pay lip service to God and faith is depriving us of many skilled leaders. Simply put, there are many qualified politicians out there who do not want to inject religion into their campaigns. Some are nonbelievers, but the majority, I would venture, are believers who feel profoundly uncomfortable emoting about religion in public, or dragooning God into the service of their national campaigns.

My proposal is, of course, a tad facetious. Yet I think we should seriously consider that the relentless infusion of religion into the 2008 campaign poses dangers to the religious liberties that the Founders sought to secure, if not the integrity of our political process.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2008/03/the_28th_amendment.html

foxfyre wrote:

liberalism' and 'liberal ideas' are separate things

that's some powerful spin.

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

...And here, despite giving lip service to semantics, they cannot (or will not) distinguish between Republican and modern Conservatives, nor are they willing to separate those two things in the discussion...

That's a load of crap. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can's simultaneously say that modern republicans are not conservatives, AND say that things like the war in Iraq is based on good conservative philosophy. Which is it?

T
K
O

See this is exactly what I was saying with what you describe as 'a load of crap'.

I didn't say anything about modern Republicans not being conservatives in the post you are addressing, nor did I say anything that could be interpreted that the war in Iraq being based on good conservative philosophy. I said something quite different from that. But through a 'liberal filter' you may be among those who cannot see or understand what is said, but you translate it into something totally different. That was the whole point of my post.

But thanks for providing an excellent example to confirm what I said.

It has been widely speculated that President Bush and the GOP fell into widespread disfavor and lost majority control of Congress when they abandoned basic conservative principles.

It is a given that most American liberals didn't like President Bush to begin with and didn't vote for Republicans for Congress either. Therefore, it can be concluded that the GOP lost power when it violated those issues most important to their base generally imbedded in an ideology known as modern Conservatism.

As a replacement for the "Bush aftermath" thread which is drawing to a close, perhaps this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.

They are like those on the Iraq thread who cannot (or will not) distinguish between reality and intent and/or cannot separate what is from what was.

...this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.

Hope you packed lunch, KO. This might take a while...

From this thread's original post; YOUR post...

Foxfyre wrote:

It has been widely speculated that President Bush and the GOP fell into widespread disfavor and lost majority control of Congress when they abandoned basic conservative principles.

It is a given that most American liberals didn't like President Bush to begin with and didn't vote for Republicans for Congress either. Therefore, it can be concluded that the GOP lost power when it violated those issues most important to their base generally imbedded in an ideology known as modern Conservatism.

As a replacement for the "Bush aftermath" thread which is drawing to a close, perhaps this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.

Above in red.


Your statement directly offers a distinction between the GOP's actions and what ideal conservative philosophy would dictate.

Foxfyre wrote:

They are like those on the Iraq thread who cannot (or will not) distinguish between reality and intent and/or cannot separate what is from what was.

Oh so liberals have it wrong? And you have it right? Well what are you? A Conservative? A Republican? Both?

You're talking yourself in circles.

What is it?

A) The GOP has made bad choices by abandoning the principles of conservatism. The actions of modern Republicans is not representitive of Conservative philosophy. There is nothing wrong with conservative policy making.

or

B) The GOP acts in line with conservative principles. There is no distinction btween the ideology and the actions of the elected leaders.

You can either defend conservatism, and agree the GOP has been doing it wrong, or you can defend the GOP.

What is flawed: The GOP or the conservative political philosophy.

Foxfyre wrote:

...this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.

That was the point right? Sounds like you weren't prepared to hear "what went wrong." You should learn when to pick your battles, and eat some humble pie.

Time to pick.
K
O

From this thread's original post; YOUR post...

Foxfyre wrote:

It has been widely speculated that President Bush and the GOP fell into widespread disfavor and lost majority control of Congress when they abandoned basic conservative principles.

It is a given that most American liberals didn't like President Bush to begin with and didn't vote for Republicans for Congress either. Therefore, it can be concluded that the GOP lost power when it violated those issues most important to their base generally imbedded in an ideology known as modern Conservatism.

As a replacement for the "Bush aftermath" thread which is drawing to a close, perhaps this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.

Above in red.


Your statement directly offers a distinction between the GOP's actions and what ideal conservative philosophy would dictate.

Foxfyre wrote:

They are like those on the Iraq thread who cannot (or will not) distinguish between reality and intent and/or cannot separate what is from what was.

Oh so liberals have it wrong? And you have it right? Well what are you? A Conservative? A Republican? Both?

You're talking yourself in circles.

What is it?

A) The GOP has made bad choices by abandoning the principles of conservatism. The actions of modern Republicans is not representitive of Conservative philosophy. There is nothing wrong with conservative policy making.

or

B) The GOP acts in line with conservative principles. There is no distinction btween the ideology and the actions of the elected leaders.

You can either defend conservatism, and agree the GOP has been doing it wrong, or you can defend the GOP.

What is flawed: The GOP or the conservative political philosophy.

Foxfyre wrote:

...this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.

That was the point right? Sounds like you weren't prepared to hear "what went wrong." You should learn when to pick your battles, and eat some humble pie.

Time to pick.
K
O

Modern Conservatism is a grandchild of classical liberalism. If you can't define classical liberalism, it would help if you would bone up. It bears little resemblance to modern liberalism.

Foxfyre wrote:

Modern Conservatism is a grandchild of classical liberalism. If you can't define classical liberalism, it would help if you would bone up. It bears little resemblance to modern liberalism.

That's .... ehem, interesting. At least.

Well, yes.

Obviously, even the term 'classical liberalism' is used differently. And/or 'grandchild'.