Danforth Says:

[Axegrinder]

John Danforth says it's time the GOP center took on the Christian right

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11137163/
ST. LOUIS - Jack Danforth wishes the Republican right would step down from its pulpit. Instead, he sees a constant flow of religion into national politics. And not just any religion, either, but the us-versus-them, my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God, velvet-fist variety of Christian evangelism.
As a mainline Episcopal priest, retired U.S. senator and diplomat, Danforth worships a humbler God and considers the right's certainty a sin.

Legislating against gay marriage, for instance? "It's just cussedness." As he sees it, many Republican leaders have lost their bearings and, if they don't change, will lose their grip on power. Not to mention make the United States a meaner place.

more....

[Booser]

ST. LOUIS - Instead, he sees a constant flow of religion into national politics. And not just any religion, either, but the us-versus-them, my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God, velvet-fist variety of Christian evangelism.


I'm sure that most non-evangelical Christians will agree with him. For one, the feel good religiosity that is not judgemental sits a whole lot better with people who aren't religious.
But is the quote above limited to evangelical Christianity? Seems like another major religion has the "My-God-is-bigger-than-you-God" thing going on, too.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-02-cartoonuproar_x.htm

I suppose my contention is this: what religion, other than unitarianism, doesn't do this? All belief systems make some kind of truth claim... and by making a truth claim they are aknowledging that the opposite is not true (i.e. "Our God is the one true God, so your god isn't").

[CNYSkinFan]

I'm sure that most non-evangelical Christians will agree with him. For one, the feel good religiosity that is not judgemental sits a whole lot better with people who aren't religious.
But is the quote above limited to evangelical Christianity? Seems like another major religion has the "My-God-is-bigger-than-you-God" thing going on, too.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-02-cartoonuproar_x.htm

I suppose my contention is this: what religion, other than unitarianism, doesn't do this? All belief systems make some kind of truth claim... and by making a truth claim they are aknowledging that the opposite is not true (i.e. "Our God is the one true God, so your god isn't").
Yeah but right now only one religion, or should I say one form of one religion, holds sway over evey major National office and has a hammerlock on a variety of social and public policy issues.

My wife is what I term a "True" evangelical and she has a great saying. She says the evangelicals of the James Dobson and other variety are practicing the thou shall nots part of the Bible and she prefers to focus on what Jesus says we should be doing with our life rather then focusing on what the preachers nowadays say we should not be doing.

[Spence]

Danforth is an Episcopalian minister, thus representative of the people who once ran the Republican party. [The Episcopal Church was once described as "the Republican party at prayer."] It's a known fact that Episcopalians and Southern White Baptists -- who used to hold great power in the Democratic party, but now run the GOP -- cannot reside in the same church or the same political party. Danforth is a dinosaur, one of these people who can't bear to ditch the GOP even though the GOP long ago ditched him. He hates what the party has become, but still thinks he has a chance to change it. He's kidding himself. Jim Jeffords figured that out. Danforth probably never will, so he'll go to his grave as this guy who used to be respected by both parties, but came to be regarded as something of a joke. I do feel pity for a man who means well and has a brain, but just can't see the obvious truth in front of him.

[Spence]

I suppose my contention is this: what religion, other than unitarianism, doesn't do this? All belief systems make some kind of truth claim... and by making a truth claim they are aknowledging that the opposite is not true (i.e. "Our God is the one true God, so your god isn't").What makes American right-wing Christian evangelism almost unique in the western world is that it not only makes a truth claim, but it also regards those who disagree as enemies and objects of contempt. Moderate and liberal Christian churches don't do that anymore. The Catholics don't do that anymore. Even the Mormons don't do it, at least not publicly. The Jews don't do it. The mainstread American Islamic groups don't do it. But the charismatic white churches of evangelical protestantism do. They're really just about the only Christians left in the western world who do it.

[RedskinsDave]

Danforth is an Episcopalian minister, thus representative of the people who once ran the Republican party. [The Episcopal Church was once described as "the Republican party at prayer."] It's a known fact that Episcopalians and Southern White Baptists -- who used to hold great power in the Democratic party, but now run the GOP -- cannot reside in the same church or the same political party. Danforth is a dinosaur, one of these people who can't bear to ditch the GOP even though the GOP long ago ditched him. He hates what the party has become, but still thinks he has a chance to change it. He's kidding himself. Jim Jeffords figured that out. Danforth probably never will, so he'll go to his grave as this guy who used to be respected by both parties, but came to be regarded as something of a joke. I do feel pity for a man who means well and has a brain, but just can't see the obvious truth in front of him.

Jeffords was never a republican in anything more than name.

[akhhorus]

Jeffords was never a republican in anything more than name.

Anyone who sings in a barbershop quartet with Ashcroft and Trent Lott is probably not a RINO.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I think Danforth has a valid point. The far right makes no bones about installing biblical law and railroading mainstream America. Their rejection of civil unions and the Schaivo incident illustrate this perfectly. The Republican party needs to move in a more moderate direction if it wants to sustain the majority. The only way to do this is to stand up to the radical Christain right at least once in a while.

[fent]

I think Danforth has a valid point. The far right makes no bones about installing biblical law and railroading mainstream America. Their rejection of civil unions and the Schaivo incident illustrate this perfectly. The Republican party needs to move in a more moderate direction if it wants to sustain the majority. The only way to do this is to stand up to the radical Christain right at least once in a while.

wrong, the republican party needs to move back to it's roots of small government and fiscal conservatism to sustain its majority. the schiavo case was not at all a matter of being too conservative. it was a matter of government intrusion which flies in the face of small government conservatism.

[RedskinsDave]

wrong, the republican party needs to move back to it's roots of small government and fiscal conservatism to sustain its majority. the schiavo case was not at all a matter of being too conservative. it was a matter of government intrusion which flies in the face of small government conservatism.

ding ding ding! We have a winner!!

[Spence]

Jeffords was never a republican in anything more than name.Dave, do you have any idea of the history of your party? Jeffords was part of a long line of northeastern elites who believed in limited government: balanced budgets, low taxes, manageable regulation of business, government out of the bedroom. These people ran the GOP for most of the history of the party, so for you to assert that Jeffords was never anything but a Republican in name is flatly absurd. People like him WERE the Republican party. Politics existed before you became aware of it and so did the GOP. A Republican president founded our national park system and introduced environmentalism into public policy. George H.W. Bush was, during his political career until 1980, both a leader of the GOP AND one of Planned Parenthood's closest political allies. [His nickname in Congress was "rubbers."] These people have a much longer history in the party than people like you do.

It was only after 1980 when big government types took over the GOP and changed the party's orientation towards deficit spending and government regulation of private life. Small government advocates like Jeffords and Danforth have no place in the Republican party of today, I agree, but not only were they Republicans once upon a time, they were the essence of what Republicanism used to be. Jeffords' views on policy have changed almost not at all during the course of his political career. In fact, his views are virtually indistinguishable from those of his father, who was a leader of the northeastern GOP elite. It is the Republican party that has changed -- for better or worse, depending on one's point of view.

[Ibleedburgundy]

wrong, the republican party needs to move back to it's roots of small government and fiscal conservatism to sustain its majority. the schiavo case was not at all a matter of being too conservative. it was a matter of government intrusion which flies in the face of small government conservatism.

The far-right Christain leadership does not agree with you that the Schaivo case had too much Government intrusion. I think they would argue that it was not enough. This kind of thinking is in direct contradiction to small Government mentality like you said. It's one or the other IMO and lately the Christian leadership has trumped the small Government wing of the Republican party.

[Spence]

wrong, the republican party needs to move back to it's roots of small government and fiscal conservatism to sustain its majority. the schiavo case was not at all a matter of being too conservative. it was a matter of government intrusion which flies in the face of small government conservatism.:lol1:

Actually, that doesn't quite cover it. One more:

:lol1:

[fent]

:lol1:

Actually, that doesn't quite cover it. One more:

:lol1:

do you disagree?

[Booser]

What makes American right-wing Christian evangelism almost unique in the western world is that it not only makes a truth claim, but it also regards those who disagree as enemies and objects of contempt. Moderate and liberal Christian churches don't do that anymore. The Catholics don't do that anymore. Even the Mormons don't do it, at least not publicly. The Jews don't do it. The mainstread American Islamic groups don't do it. But the charismatic white churches of evangelical protestantism do. They're really just about the only Christians left in the western world who do it.

I respectfully disagree. I attend an evangelical church and an evangelical seminary, and not once have i heard anyone denounce other religions/belief structures as enemies OR objects of contempt. That really does not fit within the context of Christian beliefs - not Biblically at least, since the historical track record has been less than steller.

Instead, I am continually brought the message of reaching out to people, giving aid to those who need it, and being selfless.

For the modern church, liberal vs conservative usually comes down to strict vs loose Bible constructionism. The Episcopalians, for example, are traditionally one of the more liberal churches - most don't believe in the infallibility of the Bible; therefore it is up for some interpretation. A conservative church (usually reformed) takes the Bible much more literally.
Either way, the underlying message does not change, but the evangelical movement has been portrayed quite differently in the media.

In my mind, one reason for this is that it has been hijacked by special interests. Someone isn't especially religious but doesn't like gays? He can champion "real marriage" and self identify as an evangelical. Meanwhile he shares none of the conviction that comes along with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Of course another causal factor would be that there ARE extremists and radical evangelicals out there... just like radical Muslims, Mormons, and couch jumping cultists throughout the world. They are misguided - and under no circumstances should be looked upon as representative of the evangelical culture.

Instead of bashing evangelicals, come to my church. You won't hear that Catholics are evil, homosexuals are damned, or only evangelicals see the bright side of eternity. You might hear that you should treat others the way you like to be treated, love your enemies, marriage/family are beautiful things, and that we should be conforming to the likeness of Christ more and more every day... but you wont find that in this month's Rolling Stone article on evangelical Repubicans. That's why I love Rolling Stone (or I'm trying to).

[fent]

The far-right Christain leadership does not agree with you that the Schaivo case had too much Government intrusion. I think they would argue that it was not enough. This kind of thinking is in direct contradiction to small Government mentality like you said. It's one or the other IMO and lately the Christian leadership has trumped the small Government wing of the Republican party.

this sounds like a long-winded way to say "i agree"

[Booser]

the timing of that last post was funny - i was disagreeing with Spence's previous post, not fent's right above it. classic.

[fent]

the timing of that last post was funny - i was disagreeing with Spence's previous post, not fent's right above it. classic.

i knew where you were going with it. good post by the way.

[CNYSkinFan]

wrong, the republican party needs to move back to it's roots of small government and fiscal conservatism to sustain its majority. the schiavo case was not at all a matter of being too conservative. it was a matter of government intrusion which flies in the face of small government conservatism.

You mean the same roots that kept you from a majority for over 40 years? Don't get me wrong because I wish to God that the GOP would move back to that place, not because I think the Dems will be stronger but because I think political debate would be more palatable then it is now. But make no mistake, without the Christian right called upon by Reagan in the 80s and continued until and after the 1994 coup there would be NO sustainable GOP majority because the absence of wedge issues like Homosexuality and Abortion could not blind the public to continually vote against their own economic interests.

[Spence]

do you disagree?Not really, fent, but the entire scenario is absurd. The GOP governing coalition was built around an alliance between Wall Street, K Street, and the Christian Right. You know that as well as I do. GOP leaders were not making some sort of miscalculation when they intervened in the Schiavo case. They knew the polls were against them and they did it anyway. They did so because they had to. The Schiavo case wasn't an anomaly, it is the price the GOP pays for its alliance with the Christian Right. Do you know how many Republicans on Wall Steet and K Street favor President Bush's policy against federally-funded stem cell research? Almost none. But that's the policy anyway because that's the price of the GOP's alliance with the Christian Right. How many Wall Street Republicans want the federal government giving taxpayer money to churches? Again, the correct answer is: Almost none. But the Bush admin does it anyway because that's the price of the GOP alliance with the Christian Right.

The alliance with K Street, as you know, fent, is built around deficit spending. As right-wing think tanks like Cato, Heritage, and AEI have demonstrated, the Bush admin and its allies in the Republican-controlled Congress spend money like no one since LBJ. I'm sure you've heard plenty of grumbling about the fiscally-reckless nature of the new budget-busting Medicare Plan D from your caucus, but the thing passed anyway and was signed by President Bush because that's what the party's funders in big Pharma demanded. Plan D doesn't make any sense and your party is going to get punished for it in November by seniors. It's just a big giveaway to K Street. That's just one example -- you know I could name many others.

The fact is, Fent, the Republican governing majority was built by abandoning small government conservatism. You may not like it, but I'm sure you're smart enough to see it. There isn't a real conservative party in the United States anymore. At least, not one that matters.

[fent]

You mean the same roots that kept you from a majority for over 40 years? Don't get me wrong because I wish to God that the GOP would move back to that place, not because I think the Dems will be stronger but because I think political debate would be more palatable then it is now. But make no mistake, without the Christian right called upon by Reagan in the 80s and continued until and after the 1994 coup there would be NO sustainable GOP majority because the absence of wedge issues like Homosexuality and Abortion could not blind the public to continually vote against their own economic interests.

having worked up here for several years and dealt with hundreds of thousands of constituent contacts, there is a VERY large portion of the party that feels betrayed by the spending and growth of government. the thing that worries me the most about the upcoming election isn't a mass exodus of republican voters to the democratic column, but a general apathy on the part of the republican voters because so many disagree with these positions but refuse to vote for a democrat.

[RedskinsDave]

Dave, do you have any idea of the history of your party? Jeffords was part of a long line of northeastern elites who believed in limited government: balanced budgets, low taxes, manageable regulation of business, government out of the bedroom. These people ran the GOP for most of the history of the party, so for you to assert that Jeffords was never anything but a Republican in name is flatly absurd. People like him WERE the Republican party. Politics existed before you became aware of it and so did the GOP. A Republican president founded our national park system and introduced environmentalism into public policy. George H.W. Bush was, during his political career until 1980, both a leader of the GOP AND one of Planned Parenthood's closest political allies. [His nickname in Congress was "rubbers."] These people have a much longer history in the party than people like you do.

It was only after 1980 when big government types took over the GOP and changed the party's orientation towards deficit spending and government regulation of private life. Small government advocates like Jeffords and Danforth have no place in the Republican party of today, I agree, but not only were they Republicans once upon a time, they were the essence of what Republicanism used to be. Jeffords' views on policy have changed almost not at all during the course of his political career. In fact, his views are virtually indistinguishable from those of his father, who was a leader of the northeastern GOP elite. It is the Republican party that has changed -- for better or worse, depending on one's point of view.

According to Americans for Democratic Action, Jeffords' liberal quotient was 55 percent in 2000. This puts him to the left of Sen. John Breaux (D-LA, 50 percent ADA rating) and his party's leading northeastern moderates. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) had a 40 percent liberal quotient, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) stood at 30 percent and Sen.
Susan Collins (R-ME) at 25 percent. His liberal rating was a staggering 50 points higher than the media's favorite maverick, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). By contrast, Jeffords' lifetime American Conservative Union rating is only 26 percent.

[CNYSkinFan]

having worked up here for several years and dealt with hundreds of thousands of constituent contacts, there is a VERY large portion of the party that feels betrayed by the spending and growth of government. the thing that worries me the most about the upcoming election isn't a mass exodus of republican voters to the democratic column, but a general apathy on the part of the republican voters because so many disagree with these positions but refuse to vote for a democrat.
And that should worry you. But Karl Rove blamed mass apathy on the Chirstian Conservatives for Gore's win (err I mean loss) in 2000. He corrected that in 2004 and ran to the hard "You know you hate men kissing" right. And Schiavo was the pay off.

[Spence]

According to Americans for Democratic Action, Jeffords' liberal quotient was 55 percent in 2000. This puts him to the left of Sen. John Breaux (D-LA, 50 percent ADA rating) and his party's leading northeastern moderates. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) had a 40 percent liberal quotient, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) stood at 30 percent and Sen.
Susan Collins (R-ME) at 25 percent. His liberal rating was a staggering 50 points higher than the media's favorite maverick, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). By contrast, Jeffords' lifetime American Conservative Union rating is only 26 percent.Those ratings can be a bit crude, but in general I think they're accurate. They're not useful for your argument, though, only for mine. You'd see a lot of Republicans in Congress with ratings similar to Jeffords if you ran the numbers in 1975 or 1965 or 1955. It was a Republican president who warned against the growth of the military-industrial complex. It was a Republican president who created OSHA. By 2000, the date you give, the party had changed entirely. The northeastern elites who used to run the party had mostly fled to the Democrats, apart from tax cut-obsessives on Wall Street. The small government types either became mavericks and did their best to adjust to the new GOP [Danforth, Jeffords, Chaffee] or fled altogether [Lowell Weicker].

[RedskinsDave]

Those ratings can be a bit crude, but in general I think they're accurate. They're not useful for your argument, though, only for mine. You'd see a lot of Republicans in Congress with ratings similar to Jeffords if you ran the numbers in 1975 or 1965 or 1955. It was a Republican president who warned against the growth of the military-industrial complex. It was a Republican president who created OSHA. By 2000, the date you give, the party had changed entirely. The northeastern elites who used to run the party had mostly fled to the Democrats, apart from tax cut-obsessives on Wall Street. The small government types either became mavericks and did their best to adjust to the new GOP [Danforth, Jeffords, Chaffee] or fled altogether [Lowell Weicker].

I am trying to figure out which it was then. Was that party some bastion of liberal ideals or a raging group of bigots bent on keeping blacks and women down. It can't be both. When someone argues about Teddy R and Linclon being GOPers, someone from the left tosses out that argument. When I call someone like Jeffords a liberal, the argument reverses.

[CNYSkinFan]

I am trying to figure out which it was then. Was that party some bastion of liberal ideals or a raging group of bigots bent on keeping blacks and women down. It can't be both. When someone argues about Teddy R and Linclon being GOPers, someone from the left tosses out that argument. When I call someone like Jeffords a liberal, the argument reverses.
Oh Dave.....Of course it can be both if the governing majority is based on hypocracy...which it is.

The NE Liberal republicans sided with the Democrats during the civil rights era, That is how most of thoise reforms passed since several conservative southern democrats and all conservative southern Republicans opposed it. So the Southern Democrats left the Democratic party and joined the GOP. The balance of power in the GOp switched from the Northern more liberal small budget conservatives to the racail and religiously charged conservatives of the south. This started to happpen in 1960 and continues to this day.

As the NE Liberal republicans lost power instead of switching over to the democratic side, many formed an alliance (some would call it unholy but that is too ironic for me) with the Christain conservatives to build a sustainable majority that lasts till this day.

Now you start seeing some of the small budget conservatives fighting with the religious extremists. The utter incompetence of the Democratic political machinery is the only thing holding these two wings together....but even the Dems incompetence is being overweighed by the gross mistakes of the GOP for the last 5 years.

[Spence]

I am trying to figure out which it was then. Was that party some bastion of liberal ideals or a raging group of bigots bent on keeping blacks and women down. It can't be both. When someone argues about Teddy R and Linclon being GOPers, someone from the left tosses out that argument. When I call someone like Jeffords a liberal, the argument reverses.Dave, you can count on zero fingers the number of times I have said the original Republicans like Lincoln and Roosevelt were bigots. Those are two of my political heroes. Heck, I even think Ike was a vastly under-rated president. [He built our modern highway system, after all.] The GOP's flirtation with racism began in the mid-to-late 1960s, when civil rights legislation passed by Kennedy and LBJ alienated most white southerners. None of this is a secret. Anyone can go to the library and pick up a copy of The Coming Republican Majority by Kevin Phillips, who was an advisor to Richard Nixon and neatly outlines the Southern Strategy which created the backbone of the current GOP governing coalition. Before that, the party of institutionalized racism was the southern half of the Democratic party, which began to split away from the pro-civil rights northern half of the party in 1948.

I'm hardly a fan of everything the original GOP did. Their opposition to Social Security [which continues to this day] is a particular problem for me. Same goes for Medicare. Nevertheless, had I been born 100 years earlier than I was I would have lived most of my life as a very content Republican. But that party doesn't exist anymore.

[RedskinsDave]

Well Jeffords came to the Hill in 1974, so by most accounts, my claim that he is a small government liberal stands.

[Spence]

Well Jeffords came to the Hill in 1974, so by most accounts, my claim that he is a small government liberal stands.Dave, you didn't call Jeffords a "small government liberal." You said he was never a Republican in anything but name. That's absolutely not the case.

The president in 1974 enacted some of the most left-wing economic policies in America in the 20th century. That was a Republican named Richard Nixon. Jeffords would have been to the right of Nixon on a host of fiscal issues. But, again, the GOP was very different then. Jeffords was a mainstream Republican in those days. The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was the watershed moment for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was the first time the anti-abortion plank was included in the party platform. Previously, the party had no position on abortion rights and many in the party, like Jeffords or Bush, were pro-choice. Secondly, the Reagan administration would usher in the new "big government conservatives," who favored a previously-unheard-of combination of government spending and steep tax cuts. Jeffords campaigned hard for Reagan, though he later came to identify Reagan's election with the beginning of the end for Republicans like himself. [Jeffords originally supported Bush in 1980, like most of the northeastern elites.]