Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Armey on Dobson

Something that might surprise a number of my DFL friends who seem to think that the GOP is in thrall to a monolithic, theocratic "Religious Right" - it's not monolithic, and the movement originally started as a revolt against big government "nanny state" behavior. RTWT.


( 20 comments — Leave a comment )
Oct. 13th, 2006 06:35 pm (UTC)
That's great! If only everyone (on all sides) felt the same.
Oct. 13th, 2006 07:17 pm (UTC)
It strikes me that a lot of people (not just DFLers) don't understand that the Religious Right isn't really this humungous army of Bible-beating robots taking its orders from Dobson, Falwell, et al., it's a bunch of people who think the Feds are screwed up and need to change. As Armey points out, a lot of them are more libertarian in that regard than they are conservative, but most folks see the "religious" part and go "Oh. Conservative."
Oct. 13th, 2006 07:27 pm (UTC)
Aaron Sorkin is doing a really good job with the Christian character in "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip", especially in other characters' interactions with her. Other Christians as well as the main nonreligious characters are consistently trying to shove her into this box, but she keeps surprising them.
Oct. 13th, 2006 07:30 pm (UTC)
Nice to see he's capable of learning something. His conservative characters on The West Wing were the worst kind of two-dimensional cardboard caricatures.
Oct. 13th, 2006 07:37 pm (UTC)
Not Ainsley Hayes! She was awesome! Too bad she left TWW to do that horrible CSI Miami.
Oct. 13th, 2006 07:48 pm (UTC)
In general, though, I agree with John Podhoretz' comment on that show:

"I don't know about you, but frankly, I don't need any lessons on theology, destiny, public service, job creation, pay equity, or conservative ideology from a crack addict."
Oct. 13th, 2006 08:50 pm (UTC)
What's John's position on El Rushbo?
Oct. 13th, 2006 10:31 pm (UTC)
Dude. It's not that kind of relationship.
Oct. 13th, 2006 10:38 pm (UTC)
That's not what I heard. I read it on Wikipedia, so it must be true!
Oct. 14th, 2006 03:40 am (UTC)
Gawker != wikipedia.
Oct. 13th, 2006 07:10 pm (UTC)
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a right of center Republican. And a Christian who has a specific faith that is not beholding to a denomination.
It is my perception and belief based upon observation that an acceptable Democrat has a much narrower spectrum of acceptable opinions. You of course must be prochoice, anti- War on "Terra" and secular. I doubt that someone in favor of school vouchers or home schooling would be accepted inside the tent of the Dems. It is my experience that there is a good deal of conversation on the Rep side. I could see a conservative Republican vote for Guiliani (pro-choice among other issues) for example. But of course YM (and perceptions) MV.
Oct. 13th, 2006 07:29 pm (UTC)
I think that part of what drives that conformity on the Democrat side of the aisle is that power is rather concentrated over there - the unions and the Greens have a lot of the money and people that candidates need to run a successful election, so if you want their support you have to toe the line they draw. Here in the GOP there isn't that kind of solidarity behind blocs like that; it's more feudal in the sense that individual politicians tend to build their own groups of followers. You can really see the difference at the party precinct and BPOU caucuses, what with the DFL "walking subcaucus" thing.
Oct. 13th, 2006 07:35 pm (UTC)
You of course must be prochoice,

Sure. Pro-choice, not "pro-abortion", which is what the MCCL and all the others like to say. That's a platform plank.

anti- War on "Terra"

Not at all. There are many folks more liberal than myself who want nothing more than to kick the shit out of those that funded and planned the attacks on the US. It's wasting time in Iraq and getting rid of habeus corpus that bugs me.

and secular.

Just because you want religion to affect foreign policy doesn't mean you can't be religious. There are quite a few liberal churches out there.

I doubt that someone in favor of school vouchers or home schooling would be accepted inside the tent of the Dems.

Home schooling can be great! Vouchers? There's where you're right, public money should not go to private schools, especially religious ones.

The really liberal folks are the ones that get the press, just like the really conservative ones.
Oct. 13th, 2006 07:46 pm (UTC)
All that being said, you're a libertarian, not a DFL party member. Maybe I'm overly affected by what I've seen in the 5th District and online, but it sure seems to me that Bill is right and there's not a lot of room in the DFL for people who don't make the unions happy - and with the AFSCME/Education Minnesota being most of the clout in the union movement these days, you have to be fiscally and socially liberal to do that. Which means you don't see a lot of pro-life/pro-business DFL types from the metro area, and darn few from the 1st, 2nd, 7th & 8th Districts.
Oct. 13th, 2006 10:58 pm (UTC)
I really don't like the way the term liberal is used. Joe Leiberman is a classic liberal that was rejected by the dems for one reason. I think Wellstone (God rest his soul) would be too. By the standards the left sets today, JFK would be a rightwing ideologue.
Oct. 14th, 2006 03:42 am (UTC)
Going back to the JFK days points up the major change in the Democratic party. Back then there was a consensus on how Communism should be confronted - the New Left had not yet acquired any power in the party and in fact would not until the late 1960s. So comparing the Democrats of the Kennedy/Johnson administrations to the Democrats of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid makes no sense - neither of them would have been electable in 1960 or 1964.
Oct. 14th, 2006 04:09 pm (UTC)
In general I'd have to agree with this, but remember, Pelosi is from San Francisco - the birthplace of the the "modern liberal". In 1960 and 1964 a lot of the people voting for her now would have been the hippies that were in the streets protesting then. While their beliefs haven't changed much, they are older and better organized. They can make their opinions felt in the halls of government.
Oct. 14th, 2006 04:52 pm (UTC)
*shakes head* You're a few years off. The Port Huron Statement wasn't adopted by the SDS until 1962, and the New Left didn't grow into a significant organized political force for another five years, until Eugene McCarthy began gearing up for the 1968 presidential elections on an explicitly antiwar platform. 1967-68 was when you started seeing things like the Free Speech (sic) Movement at Berkeley, riots on college campuses, and the like. Know your enemies. A lot of the hippies weren't even involved in the political side of the 1960s - they were paying more attention to the "Tune in, turn on, drop out" message of Timothy Leary and Ken Kesey than to the SDS. We see the two as identical from this point in history, but there was a lot of difference between the Weathermen and the Merry Pranksters.
Oct. 14th, 2006 07:12 pm (UTC)
Point taken.

Being a child of the '80's I chuckle myself at those who tend to lump in the death od Disco with the rise of grunge. From decades away we tend to lose a little perspective on immediacy of the years as they go by.
My general message however stands, as you affirm. "Tune in, Turn on, Drop Out" has joined with "Hell no! We won't go!", become "Bash Bush". The far left is getting very good at reaching out with a mssage that was radical in the late 60's and early 70's and now 30 years later trying to make it mainstream.

"God is dead." - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead." - God
Oct. 14th, 2006 09:45 pm (UTC)
Okay...I guess I didn't express myself clearly enough. The cultural changes expressed by the hippies don't always overlap with the political changes sought by the New Left (who tended to be a bunch of ascetic Leninist types, actually) and I would in fact argue that a lot of the hippies who stayed committed to the countercultural lifestyle are dead or mentally incapacitated now. (Drugs and STDs will do that.) A lot of those who didn't stay with it (because they were just following a trend) became the yuppies of the 70s and 80s, P.J. O'Rourke for example.

I don't think the New Left is getting any better at selling their message. One of Rush Limbaugh's consistent points is that the Democrats very seldom campaign on what they really believe, because they know the majority of Americans don't want their socialist drakh. This is part of the dilemma of the post-Clinton Democrats: they want the power to enact socialism but in order to get that power, they don't dare admit that that's what they want.
Meanwhile, the nutroots purge anyone that deviates from the True Faith of the Cut and Run.
( 20 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

April 2019
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner