The Religious Right and Contemporary American Politics

I would opine that you really need to get on the way-back machine to Reagans election (especially the 2nd one) to see major voter turnout from a religious base that actually has been diminishing following Pat Buchanan into a moral minority of lesser and lesser impact.

0 Replies

Well, you basically already said it, McG - and much more concisely, too <grins>

Always good to find at least one something to agree on even with you! Mr. Green

There could well be exceptions to the above national picture on state level, by the way. The above percentages hold true for the national exit polls. But in individual states the devoutly religious may well have had an increased impact. Some data suggests they did so in the South, for example, be it mostly in states that were safe for Bush anyway. However, whatever greater impact they might have had in some (Southern) states, apparently must have been cancelled out by a decreased impact in other states.

0 Replies

nimh,

Quote:

In short: McGentrix is considerably more right than BBB was. If with the "religious right" we mean those who attend religious service at least once a week and vote for Bush then McG is right: their numbers remained pretty much the same in 2000 and in 2004. In 2000, they made up 25% of all voters; in 2004, 26%. Same goes for the smaller group of those who attend religious service more often still and vote Republican, as we have seen: their share also grew by just one percent, from 9% to 10% of all voters. In absolutes, their numbers will have increased - but by hardly any more than the number of other (less religious) voters did. Turnout increased among both groups in similar fashion.

Does that mean the "religious right" didn't yield Bush the elections? Well, since Bush won by just a 3% margin, any group of over 3% of the electorate can of course be said to have yielded Bush the elections. But whatever role the religious right played in terms of numbers in 2004, it was no different, and no larger a role than it was in 2000.

One could question, and I do, whether the measure of those who attend church once a week is a good enough measure of "devout." However that's not as important as the number of those who were convinced by the organizers from the FAR. Obviously they're not winning elections by their numbers alone. They have organized in such a way to mobilize non FAR voters. That's my point, after all. I'll try to read the article above and fill you in as soon as I can. Tonight, I have to work on something else.

I don't think it's a simple matter of numbers. It has to do with organized methods of influence. Who is paying the bill for such organizers and who is putting in all the hard work. Your emphasis on who is "right" and who is "wrong" is, I think, premature. Let's look at all the data and then make up our minds. It is, after all as easy to lie with numbers as it is to lie with words. Let's consider all the data.

0 Replies

Also nimh,

Debating which group won the election for Bush is beside the point. Obviously any group can be identified as the deciding group. But just as obviously, any group with decreased numbers could also have lost the election for Bush. How could one determine such a thing? I'm not trying to understand if the FAR won the election for Bush or any particular candidate for Congress. I'm talking about their influence beyond their own voter base.

Karl Rove and Paul Weyrich and others know this. Why don't we?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

One could question, and I do, whether the measure of those who attend church once a week is a good enough measure of "devout." However that's not as important as the number of those who were convinced by the organizers from the FAR. Obviously they're not winning elections by their numbers alone. They have organized in such a way to mobilize non FAR voters. That's my point, after all. [..]

I don't think it's a simple matter of numbers. It has to do with organized methods of influence. Who is paying the bill for such organizers and who is putting in all the hard work. Your emphasis on who is "right" and who is "wrong" is, I think, premature. Let's look at all the data and then make up our minds.

No, my emphasis on who was "right" and who was "wrong" here wasn't premature, since it referred to a very specific question - not the broader argument you bring up here.

I like to keep specific, concrete questions separately from the whole, holistic general argument of it all, myself, because it allows one to doublecheck each specific argument or assumption and either prove or negate it, so that henceforth, one's general theorizing can at least be based on assertions that are tested rather than merely asserted or speculated upon.

Ergo, I have no problems with exploring what influence the religious right may have organisationally or discourse-wise. It might well have a bigger impact or less big a one on either such planes - my post didn't concern itself with that. It referred spefically to this post of yours here:

Lola wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
If I recall, the numbers of the "religious right" that voted in 2000 and in 2004 remained pretty much the same. I wonder where this sudden idea that they would "reward him with their votes in record numbers." comes from.

McG,

Your claim contradicts the number BBB has posted (thanks BBB, excellent posts). Don't recall, show us where we can read these stats for ourselves.

BBB posted this article, I'm repeating the next to the last paragraph. Show us, McG, don't just tell.

Quote:
While election-day exit polling relied on vague terms like "moral values" to produce inconclusive evidence about conservative Christian voters (do only fundamentalists have moral values?), they did reveal that the rate of voters who attended church once a week leapt by 2 points from 2000 and that 64 percent of them voted for Bush. [..]

This is straightforward enough, Lola. McGentrix asserted that "the numbers of the 'religious right' that voted in 2000 and in 2004 remained pretty much the same" - and that the idea that they would "reward [Bush] with their votes in record numbers" thus seemed ill-founded. You replied that his "claim contradict[ed] the number BBB has posted" and, thanking BBB for her excellent posts, you quoted her purely on those election data.

Well, those data I could check - and basically, McGentrix was right. Of course you are welcome to "look at all the data" with us and point out what specific numbers might again disprove his point, if you want. You've got the links now. Just trying to get the specifics sorted here. You wouldn't want to go on claims that turn out to be unfounded, after all.

Here I am running into something of a meta-level problem. I mean, this happens a lot. Someone poses a general argument (say, the religious right is winning new influence), and as one of his/her supporting arguments, refers to the election data. Now the general argument is to some extent a question of opinion or perception, but those data one can check, as I did here. But when I then proceed to negate (or prove) the supporting argument in question, I often find the response to be: oh, well, but that wasnt what it was about anyway, its a much more general thing, you haven't at all mentioned (random other proposed supporting argument A, B or C). I mean, in this case you repeatedly told McG, "show us"; but when I then do "show" you, you revert to saying all of it is irrelevant anyway. It's quite frustrating, because this way it's quite hard to actually make any progress in researching the argument.

Thing is, to pull the general argument from a context of belief/perception, those supporting arguments do need to be tested and the result of that do need to be acknowledged and taken into account in whatever follow-up assertions are made. In the end, then, the pieces of proof will fall together - or fall apart. Call it a measure of academic rigor.

Now, the piece of proof concerning the supposed increased impact of churchgoing Bush voters on these elections just fell through. Thats OK - you or others might (have) come up with wholly other pieces of proof. But what I am wary of is the tendency to unquestioningly accept such numbers and use them as evidence when they still appear to prove your point, and the moment someone shows you how they actually say something quite different, dismiss them as irrelevant - premature, we dont have all the data, it doesnt say much, the measures are not right, any of such arguments. This tendency does tend to reinforce the impression that we are dealing with a question of belief here (which, as you'll agree, usually involves a selective willingness to integrate the results of fact-finding dependent on whether they square with the belief or not).

Anyway, no bother. If the participants to this thread refrain, henceforth, from making claims about some increased impact of regular churchgoers in the 2004 elections as part of their argument (or provide specifics to disprove my debunkation after all), then you are still free to argue your general point in any number of other ways - and find supporting arguments for those.

0 Replies

Meanwhile, you might like this article / find it interesting - its long, so I put it into a separate thread:

Conservatives adopt the identity politics they once scorned

0 Replies

Quote:

No, my emphasis on who was "right" and who was "wrong" here wasn't premature, since it referred to a very specific question - not the broader argument you bring up here.

nimh,

I couldn't agree with you more on this statement and on everything you said after that. I didn't have the intention you assume from the quote you site, although I can see how you would interpret it that way. I was just trying to say to McG, " Don't recall, show us where we can read these stats for ourselves."

Let me just clarify what I'm attempting to study here, so we can go from there. I want to study the effect of the effort of the FAR to influence the American political process. My very point is that the FAR doesn't have the numbers to win an election alone. And it is this fact I'm emphasizing. What influence they are having beside their numbers is what I would like to define and understand.

Sorry if I was misleading in that.

Everything you've written above I agree with. But I would like to expand our field of enquiry. Sorry if I sounded rude or defensive.

I would like this thread to be as scholarly and as inclusive of all data as is possible.

Actually your statistics prove my point. The FAR does not have the numbers to win an election. They may have the numbers to lose an election. (This actually is a point they've made themselves several times.) So what are they doing beyond voting that is being influencial, if anything? I think what they're doing is significant. Let's see if we can decide if that's true and if so how.

And thanks for your participation.

0 Replies

Let me make a point here.

Of the various discernible voting groups (african americans, latinos, women, etc) one is exceptional, and that is the socially conservative christian community.

Unlike any of the other voting 'blocks', they are extremely well organized and have been for at least two decades. Among women voters, for example, no comparable level of organization exists and nothing comes close.

Further, they are now a critical element within the Republican machine and have gained a degree of influence which no other group (aside from corporate) can boast.

Third, they have a well-established set of policy initiatives and goals in which they passionately believe. One couldn't make that claim about Latinos, for example.

Fourth, they constitute one of the most activist discernible groups.

Fifth, because of these factors above, they have become a source of power and influence far greater than simple polling totals suggest. Consider how powerful the National Socialists in Germany became though constituting a very small numerical proportion of the population.

The third party threat from Buchanan no longer realistically exists. Women don't constitute such a threat, nor do african americans nor Latinos. The third party threat from the christian social conservatives is, in contrast, very real.

The point is influence, not numbers.

0 Replies

Would this outpouring of an unexpected conservative vote relate to the "silent majority" that kept Nixon in office?

(Fellow Conservatives, sorry for the unfortunate comparison...)

The left were out in the streets, protesting the war...it looked like the whole world was against the incumbent. And, wasn't his win a bit of a surprise? It seemed then, and it does now, that the quiet, regular homefolk who don't do a lot of street marching and such--didn't like the way things looked on the left.

I don't buy the "sinister backroom plotting of Christians" scenario. (Not that it didn't happen, but that it could be that effective.)

0 Replies

The quiet, regular above-average income earners, yes, they apparently in majority didnt ... The quiet, regular homefolk earning up to $50,000 liked the left fine, apparently, by the same standard ... after all, they in majority voted for Kerry.

(Always wondered about the Republicans' succesful annexation of the "regular folk" label ...)

<nods at Lola's gracious reply and pledges to keep more to the topic of the thread>

OK, one more sidenote still, re: Blatham - the National Socialists unfortunately constituted a bit more than "a very small numerical proportion of the population" ... In the elections before the last free ones, they received some 42% of the vote, I believe (and they lost only a bit of that again in the very last ones).

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

The subject of this thread is the effect of the FAR on American politics.

In this case, it may be a good idea if each of us stated what [s]he thinks this effect is. From reading the first nine pages of this thread, I get the impression that everyone is trying to post evidence, without telling the others what they think they're posting evidence of. <nods to blatham, who did explicitly state his opinion.> Anyway, here is what I consider to be the most prominent effects of the religious right on American politics.

(1) Some of their spokespeople have come into influential positions in government. The most prominent example seems to be Tom DeLay, who is on record as stating that his mission in the Senate is to promote "a biblical world view", and that the Columbine High School massacre was caused in part by public schools teaching evolution.

(2) For some of the issues it cares strongly about, the religious right has been successful at making them part of the public debate, and it has forged coalitions with other social groups at pushing legislation on them. The best example is its campaign against homosexual marriage, which has broad support among both moderate Republicans and Democrats. Other issues, where support isn't quite as broad, include their support for constitutional originalist at the Supreme Court, abstinence-only programs against AIDS, and limits to sexual education at public schools. They have been fairly unsuccessful, though not completely so, on issues where they don't have broad support, such as limits to the teaching of evolution.

(3) For the most part, I believe the political mainstream has had a much stronger influence on the religious right than vice versa. My favorite test case for this is the Washington Times. It's founder and owner, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, is a cult leader and a Christian extremist if there ever was one. By his own account, he founded the Washington Times "to fulfill God's desperate desire to save this world. Since that time [1982, T.], I have devoted myself to raising up The Washington Times, hoping that this blessed land of America would fulfill its world-wide mission to build a Heavenly nation."

But his publication, judging by its website, is neither especially cultish or even especiallly religious at all. It has its oddities and blind spots just like any paper has, but basically it's just another normal, conservative newspaper. This isn't happening because Moon is such a fair-minded publisher. It's because he knows that nobody will read his paper if he makes his agenda its agenda, and that he can't affect public opinion if nobody reads his paper. From observing the tradeoff Moon chose between editorial zeal and reader attention, I conclude that the center of American politics is holding up quite nicely, and that the effect of right-wing zealots is probably overstated by their opponents.

Okay, I have stated my opinion, and why I believe it's correct. I expect lots of people to jump on me for it, and that's okay with me, but I would appreciate it if you stated your opinion first before you start the jumping.

Thanks!

-- T.

0 Replies

Thomas,

The following is a statement about what I believe the effect of the FAR on American politics.

1. During the eighties, leaders of the FAR (Ralph Reed, Weyrich, Rove, Falwell, Robertson, LeHaye, Dobson and others) developed a plan to take control of the Republican Party for the purpose of establishing a theocratic government in the U.S.

Their method developed over a period of a few years, but ultimately it included methods such as:

A. To put up candidates who ran without declaring their true intentions. They started on a local level with local school boards. For instance, a candidate for a local school board would run based on a general, innocuous platform (I want schools to be accountable for quality of education, I have more experience than the incumbent because I've been an attorney or an accountant or a professional for so and so years. This came complete with a photo of the candidate and his family all smiling and apparently happy, clean cut and wholesome. They, on purpose, did not mention that they wanted to influence the choice of public school textbooks. Or that they wanted those textbooks to include "creationism" as a legitimate form of science.

B. To take over the Republican convention by winning election for party delegates, again without identifying their ultimate intentions. It was easy to be chosen as a delegate because this position is a lot of work and most sane people have better things to do with their time. So when an energetic person wants the job, it's easy to get it.

C. The FAR has raised huge amounts of money, using their churches as fund raising arms.

D. The New Right has spawned innumerable political action organizations for the purpose of making it easy for their readership to contact their lawmakers about objections to legislation opposed to the FAR political agenda. Some of these include:

The Family Research Council -- Tony Perkins
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC

Focus on the Family -- James Dobson
at family.org
http://www.family.org/

Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp

Operation Rescue
http://www.operationrescue.org/

Operation Save America
http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/

Christian Defense Coalition
http://www.renewamerica.us/index.htm

rightmarch.com
http://www.rightmarch.com/

The Christian Coalition
http://www.cc.org/

Americans for Tax Reform
http://www.atr.org/

American Family Association
http://www.afa.net/activism/

freerepublic.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse

gopusa Forum http://gopusa.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.pl

Quote:

Review

The Triumphs of the New Right
By Frances FitzGerald
Richard Viguerie
(click for larger image)
The New Right: We're Ready to Lead
by Richard A. Viguerie, introduction by Jerry Falwell

The Sweetheart of the Silent Majority: The Biography of Phyllis Schlafly
by Carol Felsenthal

Just after the 1980 election the ABC show called "Nightline" put the satellite technology of television to work to create an extraordinary electronic encounter between Senator George McGovern, Senator Frank Church, Senator Birch Bayh, Jerry Falwell, and Paul Weyrich. The three just-defeated senators had never met their opponents before, and the two sides knew so little about each other that both were disarmed. Instead of the usual political fencing match the debate was a raw, emotional confrontation.

One of the strange things about the debate was the apparent imbalance of the two sides. Three leaders of the Democratic party with long careers in public office were pitted against a fundamentalist minister and an almost unknown political organizer. Yet as organizers for the New Right, Weyrich and Falwell represented a coalition that had raised more money for the 1980 election than the entire Democratic party nationally.

After that election, the New Right organizers could claim that they had helped to elect over two dozen senators and a great many more congressmen, who generally could be counted on to oppose the Supreme Court decisions on busing, school prayer, and abortion, as well as to support Reagan's economic and defense policies. "Nightline" did not invite any of the new senators to meet McGovern, Church, and Bayh, for good reason: the New Right was not created by politicians but by organizers.

I can't direct you to the entire article because it's in the archives of the NYRB and is available by subscription only. When I have the chance, I'll read it and post some key points from it.

2. Through grass roots organizing, the FAR or the New Right eventually took over the Texas Republican party a decade ago and elected George Bush governor. They have since taken over the entire state and propelled Bush (one of their own) to the presidency and another to leadership of the House of Representatives (Tom DeLay).

For an example of the extremism involved, here's a sample from the Texas Republican Platform of 2000. (Later platforms were refined and their naked intentions were better disguised.)

Quote:

2000 Texas GOP Platform:
The Party calls for the United States monetary system to be returned to the gold standard. Since the Federal Reserve System is a private corporation, has no reserves, and is not subject to taxation or audit, we call on Congress to abolish this institution and reassume its authority, enumerated by Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, for the coinage of money.

Short Translation:
The United States should return to the gold standard and abolish the Federal Reserve.

2000 Texas GOP Platform:
Congress should be urged to exercise its authority under Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution, and should withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Short translation:
The Supreme Court should not be allowed to decide the constitutionality of laws regarding abortion, religion, or anything else related to the Bill of Rights. In these areas, Congress should be allowed to pass any laws it wishes.

2000 Texas GOP Platform:
Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States and the concept of the separation of Church and State and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State.

Short translation:
We should completely do away with separation of church and state.

2000 Texas GOP Platform:
The party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy....We publicly rebuke judges Chief Justice Murphy and John Anderson, who ruled that the 100 year-old Texas sodomy law is unconstitutional, and ask that all members of the Republican Party of Texas oppose their re-election.

Translation:
Gay sex should be a criminal offense.

2000 GOP Platform:
The Party affirms its support for a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse making clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection applies to unborn children.

Translation:
All abortion of all kinds should be permanently outlawed by constitutional amendment.

Platform:
No homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be limited to supervised periods.

Translation:
Gays should be treated like child molesters and should not be allowed to visit children unsupervised.

Platform:
The Party believes that scientific topics, such as the question of universe and life origins and environmental theories, should not be constrained to one opinion or viewpoint. We support the teaching equally of scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories--as Texas now requires (but has yet to enforce) in public school science course standards. We urge revising all environmental education standards to require this also. We support individual teachers' right to teach creation science in Texas public schools.

Translation:
The Biblical story of creation should be taught in science classes.

Platform:
The Party supports an orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security tax.

Translation:
Social Security should be abolished.

Platform:
We urge that the IRS be abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution be repealed. A constitutional tax, collected and controlled by the States, must generate sufficient revenue for the legitimate tasks of the national government.

Translation:
The federal income tax should be abolished.

Platform:
The Party believes the minimum wage law should be repealed.

Translation:
The federal minimum wage should be abolished.

Platform:
We further support the abolition of federal agencies involved in activities not delegated to the federal government under the original intent of the Constitution including, but not limited to, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the position of Surgeon General, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce and Labor.

translation:
The EPA, HUD, HHS, the Department of Education, and several other federal agencies should be eliminated. Since these departments supervise all federal welfare programs for the poor and sick, they are presumably advocating the complete abolishment of the federal welfare state.

Platform:
The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations.

Translation:
Get the United States out of the UN.

Platform:
The Party urges Congress to support HJR 77, the Panama and America Security Act, which declare the Carter-Torrijos Treaty null and void. We support re-establishing United States control over the Canal in order to retain our military bases in Panama, to preserve our right to transit through the Canal, and to prevent the establishment of Chinese missile bases in Panama.

Translation:
Take back the Panama Canal.

(This plank remains in the 2002 platform. Since Panama presumably would object to this, they appear to be endorsing military action to retake the canal zone.)

Platform:
Any person filing as a Republican candidate for a public or Party office shall be provided a current copy of the Party platform at the time of filing. The candidate shall be asked to read and initial each page of the platform and sign a statement affirming he/she has read the entire platform.

Translation:
We are dead serious about this.

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002380.html

Does this sound like a small victory to you? Not to me. Nor does it sound like "the effect of right-wing zealots is probably overstated by their opponents."

P.S. Your favorite example is no example at all of the New Right. Rev. Moon is considered by the FAR to be a cult leader, a heretic and an embarrassment.

Here are quotations from the article to which you posted a link:

Quote:

Among the more than 300 people who attended all or part of the March ceremony was Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), who now says he simply was honoring a constituent receiving a peace award and did not know Moon would be there. "We fell victim to it; we were duped," Dayton spokeswoman Chris Lisi said yesterday.

Other lawmakers who attended or were listed as hosts felt the same, she said. "Everyone I talked to was furious," she said. With Minnesotans demanding to know whether Dayton is a follower of Moon, Lisi said, the senator persuaded the St. Paul Pioneer Press to write an article allowing him to reply.

The event's organizers flew in nearly 100 honorees from all 50 states to receive state and national peace awards. The only "international crown of peace awards" went to Moon and his wife.

Some Republicans who attended the event, including Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (Md.), said they did so mainly to salute the Washington Times, a conservative-leaning newspaper owned by Moon's organization. "I had no idea what would happen" regarding Moon's coronation and speech, Bartlett said yesterday.

Quote:

Use of the Dirksen building requires a senator's approval. Dayton said he gave no such permission, and Stallings said the question of who did so is "shrouded in mystery."

0 Replies

More choice bits [from the 2000 Texas Platform]:

Quote:

Aside from the obligatory nods to states rights, opposition to the surrender of US troop sovereignty under UN or NATO, elimination of the ATF, a reference to the ERA amendment, voter registration restrictions, English-only legislation, and an exhortation of "LET'S ROLL!" in the WoT.

Quote:

"The Party opposes any foreign military base on American soil. We urge Congress to prohibit all foreign military bases from the United States"(!?)

"students should be led in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Texas pledge, the national anthem and patriotic songs on a daily basis"...

"We support a [education] program based upon biblical principles upon which our nation and state law system were founded."

"The Republican Party of Texas reaffirms the United States of America is a Christian nation, which was founded on fundamental Judeo-Christian principles based on the Holy Bible"...

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002380.html

And my favorite, not mentioned here is the elimination of Child Development courses taught in public schools. It seems unbelievable, but it's true.

Quote:

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002388.html

Substitute the word fascist for communist and the word Republican for Democrat and Democrat for Republican and you have it.

0 Replies

Quote:

OK, one more sidenote still, re: Blatham - the National Socialists unfortunately constituted a bit more than "a very small numerical proportion of the population" ... In the elections before the last free ones, they received some 42% of the vote, I believe (and they lost only a bit of that again in the very last ones).

nimh

You've missed the entire point of my post. Likely my fault. I wasn't defining 'national socialists' as those who voted for them, but rather as the individuals who constituted the well-oiled organizational machine, the brown-shirt and SS militias, and the central coterie of leaders under Hitler.

These people constituted a very small segment of the population, but exerted an influence on the direction of German politics that we're all aware of.

0 Replies

Here is a link to Media Transparency
The Money Behind the Media

It's a beginning look at some of the money spent and by whom.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=175

And:

Quote:

$4.3 million to the Institute on Religion and Democracy
$7.8 million to the Institute on Religion and Public Life
$1.8 million to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation
$10.6 million to the Ethics and Public Policy Center
$32 million to the American Enterprise Institute

Church & Scaife

Secular Conservative Philanthropies waging unethical campaign to take over United Methodist Church

by Andrew J. Weaver and Nicole Seibert
for Mediatransparency.org

POSTED AUGUST 2, 2004 --

The United Methodist and other mainline Protestant churches are the targets of a continuing, orchestrated attack by determined right-wing ideologues who use CIA-style propaganda methods to sow dissention and distrust, all in pursuit of a radical political agenda.

The leader of this attack is an organization called the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), a pseudo-religious think-tank that carries out the goals of its secular funders that are opposed to the churches' historic social witness.

The IRD works in concert with other self-styled "renewal" groups like Good News and the Confessing Movement. IRD answers only to its own self-perpetuating board of directors, most of whom are embedded in the secular political right (Howell, 1995).

In the January/February 2004 issue of Zion's Herald, we published a special report on the activities of the IRD. We documented how it is primarily funded by right-wing secular foundations.

more here:
here:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/stories/irdi.html

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

You've missed the entire point of my post. Likely my fault. I wasn't defining 'national socialists' as those who voted for them, but rather as the individuals who constituted the well-oiled organizational machine, the brown-shirt and SS militias, and the central coterie of leaders under Hitler.

These people constituted a very small segment of the population, but exerted an influence on the direction of German politics that we're all aware of.

Yes, I did say it was a sidenote I was making, not a response to your central argument. But still, this does bring up a relevant point, I believe. The National Socialists and their militias (not so small in number) did succeed in acquiring and exercising a decisive influence on the direction Germany was to take not just by their "well-oiled organizational machine". For all the machine they might have built, they wouldnt have succeeded if they hadnt in fact managed to persuade such an huge minority of Germans to give them the benefit of the doubt or outright start believing in them. And I don't believe that a well-oiled machine in itself is enough to ensure such a success - which may explain part of our disagreement about the potential harm the religious right is about to cause.

The Nazis succeeded because they managed to play off themes and prejudices that resounded with a near-majority of Germans, and they managed to do so because of the situation the specific drastic turnabouts of the time (economic crisis etc) had created. I do not see a similar potential for the religious right to exploit in America at this time - there is currently no 43% that can be pulled into Jerry Falwell's dark side, and if the existential insecurity created by 9/11 did not create it, then I don't see anything else creating it soon after all.

0 Replies

This speaks for itself.

Quote:

Negotiators Add Abortion Clause to Spending Bill
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and CARL HULSE

Published: November 20, 2004

ASHINGTON, Saturday, Nov. 20 - House and Senate negotiators have tucked a potentially far-reaching anti-abortion provision into a $388 billion must-pass spending bill, complicating plans for Congress to wrap up its business and adjourn for the year.

The provision may be an early indication of the growing political muscle of social conservatives who provided crucial support for Republican candidates, including President Bush, in the election.

House officials said Saturday morning that the final details of the spending measure were worked out before midnight and that the bill was filed for the House vote on Saturday.

The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/20/politics/20spend.html?oref=login&th

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

1. During the eighties, leaders of the FAR (Ralph Reed, Weyrich, Rove, Falwell, Robertson, LeHaye, Dobson and others) developed a plan to take control of the Republican Party for the purpose of establishing a theocratic government in the U.S.

I can see that it's hard to find evidence this, given the nature of the thesis. Still, the rest of your argument wasn't strong enough to override my instinctive bias against conspiracy theories.

Lola wrote:

A. To put up candidates who ran without declaring their true intentions. They started on a local level with local school boards.

I can see how hiding one's true intentions can work for one term of office. After all, "It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time." But in the long run, this strikes me as an ineffective strategy, for candidates will become office-holders and office holders will be judged by their record. "You may even fool some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Not sure which Democrat said this quote. The same phenomenon puts a limit to the mileage you can get out of point B.

Lola wrote:

C. The FAR has raised huge amounts of money, using their churches as fund raising arms.

Fair point, but I'm not sure just what you mean by "using" here. Given the grass roots nature of these churches, I don't see how they might be "used" by someone without their consent.

Lola wrote:

D. The New Right has spawned innumerable political action organizations for the purpose of making it easy for their readership to contact their lawmakers about objections to legislation opposed to the FAR political agenda.

Another fair point, though nothing about this tactic is peculiar to the New Right. As a member of Amnesty International, I get quite frequent calls to writing to ambassadors, lawmakers, etc., and I see it as a legitimate tactic of any social movement.

Lola wrote:

2. Through grass roots organizing, the FAR or the New Right eventually took over the Texas Republican party a decade ago and elected George Bush governor. They have since taken over the entire state and propelled Bush (one of their own) to the presidency and another to leadership of the House of Representatives (Tom DeLay).

I kind of agree. But while I would group Tom DeLay among the Jerry Falwell-type "new right", I don't think George Bush belongs in this category. Not that I defend George Bush in general -- I think he is a really bad president -- but to include him, you need to broaden your definition to a scope where it becomes useless.

Lola wrote:

For an example of the extremism involved, here's a sample from the Texas Republican Platform of 2000.

Example noted.

Lola wrote:

(Later platforms were refined and their naked intentions were better disguised.)

Unlike you, I am trying not to assume that document versions which fit my preconceptions are authentic and versions that don't, "disguise their naked intentions". This narrows the extent of their victory in my perception.

Thomas wrote:

Does this sound like a small victory to you? Not to me. Nor does it sound like "the effect of right-wing zealots is probably overstated by their opponents."

It's just one state and just two years, and most of the radicalism is in a part of the platform that doesn't bind the people implementing them. (Republicans in the Federal government are bound by the national GOP platform.) All that said, it's a larger victory than I expected they could land.

Lola wrote:

P.S. Your favorite example is no example at all of the New Right. Rev. Moon is considered by the FAR to be a cult leader, a heretic and an embarrassment.

Point taken.

0 Replies

Well, then Thomas, we've made some progress. Check in here from time to time. We'll see how it goes.

Quote:

I can see how hiding one's true intentions can work for one term of office. After all, "It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time." But in the long run, this strikes me as an ineffective strategy, for candidates will become office-holders and office holders will be judged by their record. "You may even fool some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Not sure which Democrat said this quote. The same phenomenon puts a limit to the mileage you can get out of point B.

I can see how this would seem logical to you, Thomas. Some of the local school boards did manage to get rid of the imposters in the next election after they were elected. However, most did not. The voters remain ignorant about the day to day functioning of the school boards and the Republican Party Delegates to the Convention. American voters are easy to dupe. There are many who just want to believe......... it's so easy. And maybe you haven't heard about the gerrymandering that went on in Texas and Colorado last year? Tom DeLay actually succeeded in his effort to insure the re-election and maintainance of Texas Republican FAR elected officials.

BTW, did you know that Bush won Dallas county by only a one percent margin? 49% Kerry, 51% Bush. The 49% are the folks in South Dallas and the liberals in East Dallas. But the precinct maps make it almost impossible for a Republican to win in Texas ever again.

Quote:

Quote:
Lola wrote:
C. The FAR has raised huge amounts of money, using their churches as fund raising arms.

Fair point, but I'm not sure just what you mean by "using" here. Given the grass roots nature of these churches, I don't see how they might be "used" by someone without their consent.

I mean "using" in the functional sense of the word. It's easy to use willing usees. As I said, it brings such a good feeling to those who want an easy, secure explanation to complicated questions and problems. Easy answers are like good dope. It's hard to give it up. But I agree, it's a legitimate political strategy.

Quote:

Lola wrote:

Quote:
D. The New Right has spawned innumerable political action organizations for the purpose of making it easy for their readership to contact their lawmakers about objections to legislation opposed to the FAR political agenda.

Another fair point, though nothing about this tactic is peculiar to the New Right. As a member of Amnesty International, I get quite frequent calls to writing to ambassadors, lawmakers, etc., and I see it as a legitimate tactic of any social movement.

I knew you were going to say this. I don't claim there's anything wrong with political action organizations. But the question is, "how has the FAR influenced the American political scene?" And this is one of the ways they have done it. I personally think the FAR is more advanced in this particular political tactic than are the Democrats. Hopefully the liberals will get as good at this as the FAR is already. Some of the liberal political action this election was good and continues to improve, even rising to the level of near excellence. I'm hopeful about this aspect of the Democratic machine.

Quote:

Lola wrote:

Quote:
2. Through grass roots organizing, the FAR or the New Right eventually took over the Texas Republican party a decade ago and elected George Bush governor. They have since taken over the entire state and propelled Bush (one of their own) to the presidency and another to leadership of the House of Representatives (Tom DeLay)
.

I kind of agree. But while I would group Tom DeLay among the Jerry Falwell-type "new right", I don't think George Bush belongs in this category. Not that I defend George Bush in general -- I think he is a really bad president -- but to include him, you need to broaden your definition to a scope where it becomes useless.

I'm not sure why you have trouble including GW in with DeLay. They've been together for a long time now. Rove and GW also go way back. I don't understand what you mean when you say, "to include him, you need to broaden your definition to a scope where it becomes useless." It's not necessary to broaden any definition to include Bush in with the fanatics. I don't understand why you have trouble including him. But I'll work on this........... see if I can get some information for you.

Dys? Are you out there? Weren't you telling me how Rove was working with GW when he (GW) ran for .........what was it........before governor. Help me please.

Quote:

Lola wrote:

Quote:
(Later platforms were refined and their naked intentions were better disguised.)

Unlike you, I am trying not to assume that document versions which fit my preconceptions are authentic and versions that don't, "disguise their naked intentions". This narrows the extent of their victory in my perception.

They aren't that much better.

Quote:

Lola wrote:

Quote:
Does this sound like a small victory to you? Not to me. Nor does it sound like "the effect of right-wing zealots is probably overstated by their opponents."

It's just one state and just two years, and most of the radicalism is in a part of the platform that doesn't bind the people implementing them. (Republicans in the Federal government are bound by the national GOP platform.) All that said, it's a larger victory than I expected they could land.

So then, Thomas, you're saying, given that these very militant fanatics have taken over the Texas Republican party and have written a platform advocating these extreme positions. And Tom DeLay has enough support in the party to become House majority leader, and as the fanatical influence spreads throughout the West and South and beyond, as the Congress is filled with more and more candidates who owe their political career to the FAR, you're still holding out that "nothing is amiss?" A few fascist fanatics here and there are harmless. Most of them don't really believe that stuff anyway, and the Republicans are just compromising with them on a few minor issues.

But you don't have to take my word for any of this. Just keep an open mind and hang around.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

So then, Thomas, you're saying, given that these very militant fanatics have taken over the Texas Republican party and have written a platform advocating these extreme positions. And Tom DeLay has enough support in the party to become House majority leader, and as the fanatical influence spreads throughout the West and South and beyond, as the Congress is filled with more and more candidates who owe their political career to the FAR, you're still holding out that "nothing is amiss?"

No. I am saying that their influence is limited as people will eventually vote on their record, and they don't like the lion's share of that record. Unfortunately, people like some of their record. For example, much of their anti-gay agenda will pass because a broad majority of Americans supports some of it. But overall, the New Right's success at pushing its agenda will be limited. For example, it would be interesting for me to see how much of their agenda they have implemented in Texas since George Bush became governor.

Lola wrote:

A few fascist fanatics here and there are harmless.

No. More like: My one grandfather was a real fascist fantatic, my other grandfather faught real fascist fanatics, in a time when Germany was ruled by real fascist fanatics. George Bush is a really, really, really bad president, Tom deLay is a dangerous ideologue, Karl Rove is a very effective smearmaster -- but neither of them is a fascist fanatic.

Moreover, I disagree with your conclusion that "We have to beat them at their game." I have seen -- not with my own eyes, but by eywitness accounts of acquaintances -- what the "beat them at their own game" meme did in Yugoslavia. In a similar fashion, I have seen what the "stay on the high road" meme did in eastern Europe. I've decided for myself that the "stay on the high road" meme works better. If it is effective enough to remove the creators of the Gulag, it's effective enough to remove the creators of Guantanamo Bay.

0 Replies

The Religious Right and Contemporary American Politics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know