Guliani in 2008 will force Evangelical Republicans to revise their positions on various issues.
skw0484 said 11/13, 02:47 PM
Short and sweet:
The Evangelical Republican base has long boasted the role as the moral compass of America as they act through politics. However, when one looks at the top 2008 Republican candidates (specifically, Guliani) the biggest moral issues used by Evangelicals (gay marriage and abortion) to most their morality are in conflict with the candidate.
While I don't see a national "We Repent of Our Platforms" day on the 700 Club, it is likely that this widely influential political base will either completely shift the focus of the election to other issues, or revise these positions altogether.
HAHAHAOHWOW said 11/13, 03:13 PM
Evangelical Christians will not change their views on various issues simply because of who they are. Their political views are based upon their religious teachings. They will continue to advocate at least the restriction of abortion and at most the abolition of it.
If Rudy becomes the Presidential nominee, they will find some level of reconciliation by analyzing the abortion issue from a Federalism perspective. State restrictions on abortions would likely be held up by Rudy nominees, who forseeably take the Scalia/Thomas/Alito view that Roe is bad law, and states should establish their own laws for abortion. A similar result on Gay Marriage. Rudy would likely not support a Federal Marriage Amendment, but would likely do little to prevent State Ballot Initiatives to enjoin the same.
skw0484 said 11/13, 03:38 PM
I think history is the big ticket to understanding how this one might play out. Keep in mind, I am speaking as a Christian who attends an evangelical university where George W. Bush is practically part of the trinity.
I would submit that the Evangelical base currently advocates the abolition of abortion, and a Rudy victory would push them to advocate the restriction of it. The self-proclaimed "moral compasses" in American history are just as power-hungry as most politicians; they simply want to be heard.
Thankfully, the emergent church in America is waking up to the bigger picture and recognizes things such as poverty and labor injustice around the world are "moral issues", just like abortion and gay marriage.
How does this apply to 2008? While the moderate Christian can bend according to their conscience, the political/religious forces have more at stake in losing their influence, which is most likely why Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy. The aim is maintaining lobbying power. To some, that power might be worth a little stretching...
HAHAHAOHWOW said 11/13, 04:09 PM
Stretching is not changing a position or focusing on a new position.
Although I have a sincere problem with the concept of "evangelical" as a label, the position of "prefer abolition but work for restriction" has been the realistic goal of the Christian lobby since day 1. If they adapt this position in 2008, it is hardly a change from the status quo.
((Not to bring things off track: It is a political pipedream to have a federal ban on all abortion, or have every state in the union ban it outright.))
I do not believe that the religious leaders of the conservative christian movement are truly afraid of immateriality. Conservative Christians vote as a bloc for Republicans with little to no variance. As such they are a core constituency for the party. I submit that with the relative nationwide political parity of both parties, they will never be the reason an election is *won* but can be the reason it is lost. From a GOTV perspective, Pat Robertson has no reason to fear irrelevancy. And assuming "Rational Actor" theory, as a group they will easily choose to vote for Rudy every time over not voting at all or voting for Hillary (assumed, arguendo to be the same thing).
skw0484 said 11/13, 08:36 PM
"Conservative Christians vote as a bloc for Republicans with little to no variance. As such they are a core constituency for the party."
Excellent point! But happens to those who tow the party line when that very line changes?
I'm way down on votes here, and I should have put more thought into my arguments, so i'll just end with this brief, terribly partisan comment... The conservative Christian base has the appearance of a fortified unit, but are truly fickle when it comes to political loyalty vs. integrity, especially when many opt for religious indoctrination to choose their sides on various platforms. I would argue that religious leaders will be forced to rethink how to inform their constituency, thus affecting the way the whole base thinks.
I'm in the trenches of it right now... i'll let you know how it turns out.
HAHAHAOHWOW said 11/13, 09:25 PM
Unfortunately what happens when "the very line changes" is where rational actor model comes in. It's a two party system. I believe that with this framework, people will choose "the lesser of two evils" each time. Ask the people who voted for Nader in 2000 or Perot in 1992 whether their vote for the third party was the functional equivalent of voting for the other guy. It's the stark reality of our political system.
I think that the Conservative Christian doesn't get the bulk or even a tangible minority of his or her political information from the pulpit or from "figureheads" such as Pat Robertson etc. With the vast resources of media available, I highly doubt any have not heard of most talk radio hosts or bloggers on the internet. Although such religious figureheads can be used to put a face on a get out the vote effort, I don't think they tell Christians what to think. Although they vote almost exclusively as a bloc, they are not automatons.
Besides, Rudy is not the annointed one yet. You have every right to choose who you want to vote for in the primary. Its what they're for.
Comments
Add Your Comment
The above comment is further support of my view of internet ron paul supporters as hopeless spammers.
HAHAHAOHWOW | 11/13/07
Report Offensive Comment
I sometimes think Ron Paul supporters are paid to spam this sort of stuff online. Seriously, when I get a "double-match" request on HotorNot.com with a woman holding a Ron Paul sign, you know there's got to be some financial motivation.
Austhus | 11/13/07
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
Not if Ron Paul is the nominee...here is his stance as the only true conservative in this presidential race: "The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle. In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called ???population control.??? Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn. As an OB/GYN doctor, I???ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life" -Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas)
Migueld | 11/13/07
Report Offensive Comment