Republican Party’s Preoccupation With Christianity Can’t Seem To Change.

If anyone is expecting a different Republican Party, more secular with less religion inserted into government,  forget that.  It is starting down the same path it did in the 2012 election with the far right organizing to put their favorite evangelical in as the Republican Presidential nominee.

Candidates for 2016 are already making calls on Christian fundamentalist organizations and conferences asking for endorsements.  The organizations, themselves, are holding planning conferences laying out the Christian requirements for candidates they will endorse.  The Iowa caucuses need fundamentalist Christians to show up and the process of finding them has started.

My impression is, while it is necessary for the Party to field a secular candidate with a broader agenda, the task of fielding one will be more difficult in 2016 than it was in 2012.  The defeat in primaries of the most religious candidates in 2012 was not seen as due to lack of appeal, but of a need to redouble its efforts.

Another way of saying this is the polarization of our politics has not stopped.  Instead, it is becoming more polarized.

Evangelicals who post here on the comment page have complained Mitt Romney is not an  evangelical and lost.  Why not, they argue, nominate a real Bible thumper and things may turn out better.

There is a basic dilemma everyone knows, but few talk about.  It is the desire of evangelicals to regulate people’s personal lives more while talking up “less government”.

Voters get this.

21 Responses

        1. entech

          Whatever you say Henry. As I Say I am a foreigner with limited local knowledge, just pointing out the similarities between political supporters in different countries. Didn’t notice the bit about golf.

          PS. I notice the misspelled presidents name presume that is a political comment. The misspelling of a sportsman name, could that be some kind of racial thing that you have going, the mark of Cain to go with the mark of homophobia.

          1. Henry

            entech: “The misspelling of a sportsman name, could that be some kind of racial thing that you have going”

            Interesting you focus on the racial attribute. I was thinking of Tigger’s wife and kids having to deal with a guy that pounces like Tigger on things he shouldn’t have been pouncing on.

          2. entech

            6:28 As you say interesting. An interesting reflection on the impression you leave on my innocent little mind, an impression of bitterness and bigotry: as with so many things I could be wrong about this, I often think you are playing a part in a game, a game of which I do not know the rules.

            But, thank you for the clarification, it actually reflects your overwhelming fascination with all things sexual, especially those things which are often described as sinful.

          3. Henry

            If you were paying attention, you would have noted my concern for the well-being of Tigger’s wife and children in all this. The focus wasn’t sex. Your eye, however, wanders from the attributes of skin color to sex.

          4. entech

            Whatever you say Henry, as always whatever you say. The pouncing of the tiger has no sexual connotation? Pray tell on whom and for what purpose.

        2. Henry 6:18 “Woodward now can’t go golfing with…”

          How soon we forget. Woodward was so ga ga over W. Bush he could not see the stupidity of that administration. Before the Iraq invasion, he said the probability of no weapons of mass destruction was “zero”. He had not done good investigative journalism because he loved Bush so much. Had he done so, he would have found reports of weapons of mass destruction came from a known liar with no independent corrobortation. Woodward was given more time with W. than any other reporter.

          1. Henry

            Jon: “Before the Iraq invasion, he said the probability of no weapons of mass destruction was “zero”.”

            He was just following the demoncrat party line at the time until they discovered a way to make political hay out of a war situation. Keep in mind the democrats advocated and authorized the report that indicated there were WMD’s in Iraq before we went to war. Colon Powell (closet d) wouldn’t have otherwise been all gung-ho over a republican authorized national intelligence assessment.

          2. Jinx

            The Bush regime completely destroyed Colin Powell’s political career by taking advantage of his training and dedicaton to honor and duty. I guess it was a good thing after all, the voters know now Powell will follow the leader down a rathole…..not exactly a trait I’d want in my presidential candidate.

            Entech & Jon, you said it well enough above….no need for me to respond to anything else.

  1. Brad

    The dilemma for the GOP is that they are a regressive (as opposed to conservative) party. They are going backwards, and they are hell bent on moving the country backwards. The problem is that the country is moving forward with or without the GOP. I fail to see how the GOP can continue to exist long term, given that they are against the future, and people are seeing more and more clearly how hypocritical and inconsistent they are with their “small government” for themselves and their corporate friends, and big brother communism for the rest of us.

  2. entech

    Frightening to a foreigner that the most advanced country could still have something like this going on.

    The comments on that page are fun, the first one could be from one of your very own evangelinas; it spoke of it being wonderful and then went on about making sure the election isn’t rigged as they believe the last one was. This does seem typical, they can’t accept that not everyone believes as they do or votes as they think they ought to. Fortunately in Australia this is still at a much lower level.

  3. Michael Ross

    You just don’t get it. “Conservative” candidates could care less about the so-called “social issues”. Between Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 are 20 years of “pro-life” presidents. How man abortions did they stop? Zero! How many wars did they start? A dozen or so, depending on definition. “Right-to -Life”, “family values”, “church and state”, are great vote getters but once in office their only agenda is to beat the drum for war.

    “There is no telling how many thousands of Christian Americans that Bush administration lapdogs Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Lindsey, Thomas, and Boone have influenced.”

Comments are closed.