The Country Club Republicans, whose God is money, are getting fed up with the Evangelical Talibans in their party. First they got embarrassed when Frist and DeLay sucked up to the Evangelicals over Terri Schiavo, and made the Republican Party look like a bunch of intrusive meddlers into the nation's private family affairs.
The Country Club Republicans don't mind using the Evangelical Talibans as their "useful idiots" when it comes to election time, like the Dems don't mind using their own useful idiots, the African-American voting bloc, for election purposes either. But now that the Country Club Republicans find the Evangelical Talibans driving almost the entire agenda of their party, they're starting to gag.
No wonder some reason-based Republicans went behind the backs of faith-based Frist and DeLay to strike a deal with the Dems to nuke the nuclear option that was going to nuke the filibuster. And one day after Frist lost control of his caucus, fifty Republican House members defied Bush's promised veto over stem cell research, his latest sop to the Evangelical Talibans. (After all, stem cell research can help millions of suffering Americans. For example, diabetes afflicts 18m Americans, because of the crappy food they eat at McDonalds. Many are children. Diabetes cost us $132 billion in 2002, one of of every 10 bucks spent on healthcare. 213,000 people will die of it this year. Stem cell research might supply a cure. Try telling the nation Jesus doesn't want to cure diabetes. When religion tries to stop science, science always wins.)
The Country Club Republicans are gagging on another sop to the Evangelical Talibans, the undiplomatic bully John Bolton. His ride to the UN is getting bumpy. Meanwhile, Bush is still pushing for social security "reform" (translation: he wants to destroy it), which nobody is dumb enough to buy.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Convex
nice imagery! All sadly too true....
2 - Steve S
Your posts here are certainly 'colorful' in their imagery. I happen to enjoy your posts immensely, because you hit timely topics with a refreshing perspective.
I've been saying for awhile that the Republicans let the evangelical fox run around in the hen house for awhile and now can't catch him anymore, and they're losing all their chickens.
I hope your prediction for the future comes true.
3 - George P. Wood
Three comments:
1. Comparing evangelicals to the Taliban weakens the force of your argument. It would be like a conservative calling all leftists "pinko commies." Neither piece of name-calling is intellectually creditable.
2. Given the rate of electoral victories that Republicans have been piling up (presidential, senatorial, congressional, gubernatorial), and given that even Democrats are attempting to triangulate the "values vote," it seems that evangelicals--the best exemplar of values voters--are more mainstream than your Taliban imagery would suggest. You might wish for Republicans to lose, but history isn't on your side. Nor are demographics. Red states are going to continue picking up congressional districts well into the foreseeable future.
3. I'd be careful about calling African American voters the "useful idiots" of the Democratic party. It borders on racism. And, once those voters realize that secular Democrats are just using them, they may shift their votes to the Republicans, where their intelligence will not be insulted. If that begins to happen in even minute amounts, chances of Democrats gaining power become even slimmer.
4 - Eric Olsen
AA, or is it Country Club Talibans and Evangelical Elite?
5 - Steve S
Adam, you know as well as I do that there are many facets to evangelicism that are oppressive to those who do not adhere to the faith. Trying to rewrite historical documents, creationism in the public school system, attempts to intrude on a woman's decisions regarding her own body are just some of the ways they seek to impose their values upon others. So while they might not be as oppressive as the Taliban, no firing squads, oppression is still oppression and there are millions of Americans who would agree with your comparison.
6 - adam
George:
1. Hey, I'm saying the Dem leaders treat the African-American vote as their "useful idiots" (because they don't give much in return for their vote); I'm NOT saying African-Americans are. In fact, I think African-Americans might think about starting a third party; they'd rule if they had the swing vote between the Republicans and the Dems. They could keep both parties honest.
2. Listen, since Conservatives have turned Liberal into a dirty word, I see nothing wrong in attaching Taliban to Evangelical -- especially to separate the Evangelicals who want to oppress us with their gay-hating oppression from those Evangelicals who don't.
7 - Randem
Excellent points, Adam, and all the easier to read when peppered with your colorful humor.
However, I'm driven to comment not because of your blog post, but because of your comments on the villification of the word "liberal". I agree wholeheartedly, and I think the time has come for the "rest" (I dare not say left, because even the middle is attacked by the today's right) of us to fight back.
Why don't we center in on a term they endear themselves to, and strike back? Say, for instance, those of us who are NOT in the radical fundamentalist evangelical Taliban make a point of villifying the flat-earth loving name "conservatist"?
8 - Eric Berlin
I don't think Bolton has much to do with a religious right-libertarian split in the GOP. He's favored by the most hawkish members of both parties, and mostly scares everyone else.
9 - Matthew T. Sussman
All too often I read posts that criticize and lampoon politicans without offering a viable solution. If I wanted to find out "politicans are total lamers" I would go down to Blockbuster and rent an Oliver Stone movie.
10 - George P. Wood
Adam:
Thank you for the clarification.
But what does it say about the integrity of the secular left that they are willing to use African American voters in such a way? And if African American voters formed a third party, that would devastate Democratic electoral power, wouldn't it?
Also, in my first point, I argued that calling all people on the Left "pinko commies" is as intellectually shabby as calling evangelicals Taliban. Evidently, you think the former justifies the latter. You may live in the land of adolescent tu quoque, but civilized political debate surely requires an adult rhetoric.
And if calling evangelicals "Taliban" is okay by you, what words of criticism do you reserve for the real Taliban? I have a problem with some voices on the far left who call center-right voters "facists." If they use that kind of language for center-right voters, what language is left for real Nazis?
And, finally, your use of the word "oppress" for both Taliban and evangelicals is, in my opinion, a nasty piece of equivocation. (And the same applies to Steve S's comment.) What conservatives try to do through legislative means can hardly be compared with what the Taliban tried to accomplish at the point of a gun--except, evidently, in your rather sloppy reasoning.
George
11 - Matthew T. Sussman
How is John Edwards a viable candidate? The only reason he ran for president was because he saw the polls and was losing in the race for his senatorial spot, took a chance and said "aw, heck, I'll go on the Daily Show and announce my candidacy because then I'll be popular" and it worked. I haven't heard one idea he's had and now he works at a law school.
12 - Steve S
What evangelicals try to do through legislative means is to continue the demonization and misrepresentation of gay people to the point where our gay youth suicide rate is 5 times the national average and our self-esteem is so low that many of us engage in self destructive behavior that impacts all of society. What evangelicals want to do is shut down all our organizations that address the bullying of gay youth, they want to shut down all medical establishments that help a person deal with their orientation in an intolerant world (unless that medical help involves conversion). What evangelicals want to do, is create/maintain a government that provides them with benefits, rights and privileges while they try to rewrite the U.S. Constitution to exclude the innocent children of gay families from having the same societal structural support. Evangelicals are against any type of recognition of our relationships, creating situations where people cannot visit their dying loved ones in hospitals or have their estates ripped apart by greedy relatives who utilize the law to dissolve relationships built over decades.
With their evangelicising and demonizing of gay people, they have created an intolerant environment where people lash out and attack gay people, born out of fear of the sermon, and as I blogged here in the last few weeks, due to this conservative movement in this country, the FBI reports that hate crimes against gay people are rising to record levels.
Evangelicals might not carry pistols now, but they preach to those who carry baseball bats, and they preach the demonization of our families. Having to live under their constant assault, I know a great many of us do consider them to be the equivalent of Nazi's and the Taliban.
They certainly have strayed from the teachings of Jesus, to say the least.
13 - George P. Wood
Steve:
"What evangelicals try to do through legislative means is to continue the demonization and misrepresentation of gay people...."
That's a pretty interesting statement, for it implies that evangelicals are only seeking to maintain the current status quo. I will make explicit what is implicit in your statement. At no point in American history prior to the past few years have gay relationships been considered on equal footing with heterosexual marriage, either religiously, socially, or legally. And this has been because of a general social consensus regarding the impropriety of gay marriage. What is interesting about that social consensus is that it has been broad-based: encompassing evangelicals and Catholics, Republicans and Democrats, and members of all classes. What is even more amazing about this social consensus is how potent it still is. Remember, even Democratic senators voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. Other than Massachusetts, no state that I know of has passed into law through ordinary legislative means a bill authorizing gay marriage. In other words, direct all the venom and spleen against evangelicals that you want to, but opposition to gay marriage comes from far more sources than just evangelicals.
You write, "our self-esteem is so low that many of us engage in self destructive behavior that impacts all of society." My self esteem does not rest on what others think of me; I'm not sure why the self esteem of members of the gay community rests on how others view them. Indeed, a self esteem that rests on others' opinions of you is hardly "self" esteem. Also, does low self esteem lead all gay youth to act in self-destructive ways, or only some. Doesn't personal choice and responsibility enter the picture at some point.
As for violence against members of the gay community, that must stop. Period. It is wrong. Period. And, as you correctly point out, it is unchristlike. Period.
As for you insistence on comparing evangelicals with the Taliban and Nazis. It is beneath contempt. Period.
14 - richard williams
wow. pretty much all name calling, i wonder if there is any real information to be gained from reading this?
i'll go to the customer reviews at amazon, since this review says zero about the contents or arguments contained in the book. i's wish that reviews actually talked about the item being reviewed rather than the reviewers rant about how he feels about the people involved.
15 - Temple Stark
Regardless of the merit of the post - it is not meant to be a review of the book.
16 - Steve S
George, you would do well to remember that not everyone on this planet shares your perspective.
Religion reaches across all facets of humanity, the Democrats, the Republicans, all races, genders and orientations too.
The demonization and misrepresentation of gay people, which you acknowledge exists rather than deny, takes place from the pulpit of many faiths. It's a free country, they can do that, as much as I, a baptized gay Christian might disagree with it, it is what it is. It is the evangelicals though, who seek to take it out of the pulpit and put it into law for all of society, it's they who are the impetus. The sheep will always follow the shepard.
17 - George P. Wood
Steve:
Thanks for your reply! I apologize if I have written anything that contributes to the demonization and misrepresentation of gay people. I guess what I so strongly reacted to is what I perceived to be your demonization and misrepresentation of evangelicals. As an evangelical, who attends church with gays, lesbians, and transgender folk, I would never think of hurting anyone.
By the same token, absent some compelling argument to the contrary, I believe that neither faith nor reason compels me to accept the propriety of gay marriage. And, if opinion polls are to be believed, neither do a majority of Americans, whatever their religious faith or political persuasion might be. To argue that evangelicals are solely responsible for opposition to gay marriage is a factual error.
And to argue that evangelicals tout court are responsible for violence against gays and lesbians is underdetermined by the evidence. The last time I checked, the killers of Matthew Shepard were not members of good standing in any church. Indeed, I have extensive experience in evangelical churches, and I have never heard anyone promote, condone, or sanction violence against gays and lesbians. Do evangelical preachers call homosexual behavior a sin? Yes. But they call lots of behavior sins, and I haven't seen any violence against adulterers, cohabitators, gamblers, or any other category of "sinful" behavior.
And if merely calling a behavior sinful ineluctably leads to violence, then given the rhetoric some members of the gay community direct against evangelicals, you'd expect to see an outburst of hate crimes against church members. But you don't. Why? Because calling someone a sinner doesn't necessarily lead to committing violence against that person. In other words, what you call "the fear of the sermon" in an earlier post does not explain the prevalence of hate crimes against gays and lesbians. Scratch the surface of those crimes, and I'll bet that you find young single males with criminal histories and little or no religious commitment committing the vast majority of them. That, if I remember correctly, is the profile of Matthew Shepard's killers.
As a fellow Christian, I want to thank you for reminding me that not all share my opinion. And if I have given offense through my manner of expression, I apologize.
George
18 - Dave Nalle
An amusing article, if nothing else. The GOP is a lot more diverse these days than country clubbers vs. talibanesque fundies. You're forgetting the large and growing grassroots, working and middle class Republicans who are just fed up with taxes upon taxes and mostly want to be left alone to make enough money to join a country club somewhere down the line.
As for John Bolton, despite his many shortcomings, he doesn't appear to be primarily religiously motivated. He may be supported by people from the religious right, but he's not one of them, and there's no indication that he's alienating any but the most moderate of the traditional Republicans.
Good bitter, sneering tone, though.
Dave
19 - Steve S
I believe that neither faith nor reason compels me to accept the propriety of gay marriage.
That is fine. You do not have to accept the propriety of gay marriage. The majority of Americans don't have to accept it into their daily lives either. However they cannot vote away my civil liberties and equal access to the benefits, rights and privileges of civil marriage. You as an individual, don't have to accept gay marriage, you have no right to set up a federal government that follows your religious views, even if you are in the majority. In a democracy, the rights and liberties of the minority are supposed to be protected from the prejudices of the majority. Giving me equality from the government requires no endorsement from you.
To argue that evangelicals are solely responsible for opposition to gay marriage is a factual error.
There are many people of faith, in the moderate to liberal field who oppose gay marriage but are against rewriting historical documents permanently denying our families the structural support that other families take for granted. Maybe all evangelicals don't support the Amendment, but of those that do, most all are evangelicals.
I haven't seen any violence against adulterers, cohabitators, gamblers, or any other category of "sinful" behavior.
Because for generations, they weren't portrayed as predators.
Scratch the surface of those crimes, and I'll bet that you find young single males with criminal histories and little or no religious commitment committing the vast majority of them. That, if I remember correctly, is the profile of Matthew Shepard's killers.
When you study most homophobic violent people, what you find is sexual confusion. Sexual confusion and an inability to deal with an intolerant world. Evangelicals are a primary source of intolerance, and it trickles out into the world.
You aren't offensive, but I do think you cannot see the effects of evangelicism entirely. I will end up being the offensive one, because I will always call it as I see it. I will not lie.
There are many good Christians out there. The greatest man of character I have ever known was my childhood priest. I am not anti-religion and I do not want individuals to have to coincide their faith with acceptance of me, if they do not want to. That is the bitter pill I must swallow. But I am an equal in society, and civil society must treat me as such, and that is the bitter pill evangelicals must swallow.
20 - Temple Stark
Adulterers get killed all the time for their exploits - just not by "the government."
21 - David Flanagan
I think your post is an interesting one, mainly because it highlights the vast gulf that lies between most Americans and the hard left. First of all, you and other liberals should figure out whether or not the Bush Administration and the Republican Party are all in lock-step driving the country towards fascism or we are just on the verge of tearing ourselves apart because of our vast intra-party differences.
Your theory seems to be that the GOP is on the brink of the abyss, simply because a staunch Republican decided to write a book expressing her disagreements with her party. Arguments which, by the way, are well made and which have been widely debated for years within the GOP, I might add.
Let me also make note of the fact that when a member of the DNC, Zell Miller, wrote a book expressing disagreements with HIS party, Democratic leaders in Washington and party supporters began a blistering attack upon him, saying that he was not REALLY a Democrat. Have you heard of any such attacks upon Ms. Todd Whitman? I haven't, though I have heard her as a guest on many conservative radio shows, where she was treated with the utmost respect despite major disagreements with some of her arguments.
Secondly, what the hard left continually ignores is the fact that conservatives in general and Republicans in particular have long been a big tent party. We have so many intra-party debates going on, I don't even know where to begin. There are traditional Reagan Conservatives, Neocons, Theocons, moderates, Log Cabin Republicans, etc., etc.
Really, I think what you are expressing in your post here is the dream of every bitter liberal, that somehow that party that has managed to win almost every election since 1994 would somehow tear itself apart. For sure, Democrats have been unable to engineer the kinds of victories that the DNC is so desperate to see, and right now, your new chairman, Howard Dean, is just trying to appeal to the Democratic base, while our chair, Ken Mehlmann, is actively pursuing votes among the DNC's traditional base.
Yes, Republicans have their issues, their flaws, and have made their mistakes. One of those mistakes was trusting Harry Reid to keep his word regarding the use of the filibuster.
But then, that battle is not over.
David
22 - Eric Berlin
What about the whole RINO movement, dude. That pretty much refutes most of what you just stated.
23 - Dave Nalle
What RINO movement? It's a term nouveau-republican extremists like to throw at old-style Republicans to piss them off. Anyone who uses it is ignorant of the core beliefs of the party and labels themselves as the ones out of step with everyone else.
Dave
24 - David Flanagan
How so Eric?
David
25 - Eric Berlin
You'd like to think so Dave, but the truth is that the RINO-hunters are in charge and living large. They almost knocked Specter out of the GOP primaries with a more conservative candidate who would have likely lost in the Pennsylvania Senate Race last year. They've targeted a number of "non-believers" out there, etc.
I sense a Love It or Leave It attitude in GOP-land that will only be healed by someone like John McCain.