The Republicans Base

December 2nd, 2008 By: marc moore | Tags:

Writing at USA Today, Rod Dreher confirms something that I wrote about a couple of weeks ago, namely that social conservatives and Christian voters are an essential element of the Republican base and that the McCain/Palin ticket lost for reasons having little to do with deep demographic changes misidentified by pundits such as Jeffery Hart and the aforementioned Kathleen Parker.

There are of course those who would like to see Christian voters marginalized as a voting force. 

Democrats like the idea because it helps them win elections.  Fiscally conservative Republicans wish the religious right didn’t have so much say in the Republican party.  And many liberals reject Christianity and resent its influence in the country. 

That’s a lot of opposition.  The marginalizing of Christian voters may happen in the course of time if the decades-old trend of it’s-all-about-me social philosophy continues to erode traditional national beliefs away.  Dreher says that doesn’t have to be so:

Today, the greatest threats to conservative interests come not from the Soviet Union or high taxes, but from too much individual freedom. Look around you: Americans have been poor stewards of our economic liberty, owing to cultural values that celebrate unfettered materialism. Our families and communities have fragmented, in part because we have embraced an ethic of extreme individualism. Climate change and a peak in oil production threaten our future because we have been irresponsible caretakers of the natural world and its resources. At best, the religious right stood ineffectively against these trends. At worst, we preached them, mistaking consumerism for conservatism.

All political problems, traditional conservatism teaches, are ultimately religious problems because they result from disordered souls. In the era now dawning, Americans will learn again to live within limits — and together. Religious conservatives are philosophically positioned to lead the way, but we can’t do it by pouring new wine into old skins.

It’s worth noting that the extreme individualism that Dreher decries is the problem not because of the fact of individual freedom itself but rather because of the choices that individuals make with that freedom.  This contrary to the view of many religious fundamentalists of the Islamic and Christian faiths.

We have the God-given right to make our own decisions, in life and in the voting booth.  On this point, Dreher notes a truth that many conservative candidates don’t always consider when banking on Christians’ votes:

…we mustn’t err as our elders did, assuming that the culture will improve if we elect more Republicans.

Americans of all political and religious backgrounds have been ill-served by the current batch of Republicans, something social conservatives should bear in mind when choosing the next Republican party lineup. 

Like it or not, Christian voters will have a loud voice in the Republican coalition for years to come and deservedly so.  Both the origins of the United States and current demographics indicate that their views deserve to be be heavily represented in our republican government.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. True Red
    December 2nd, 2008 at 15:58
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Palin for President in 2012!

  2. Tom
    December 2nd, 2008 at 16:18
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I think you need to clarify what you mean by “Christian”.

    Do you mean anyone who identifies themselves as Christian?

    Do you mean Catholics and members of the mainline Protestant churches?

    Do you mean politically conservative Christians?

    Do you mean evangelical Christians?

    Do you mean fundamentalist Christians?

    When I heard discussions about the Republican party base it’s usually the conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist Christians who are mentioned. Which obviously would make up a good part of the Republican base.

  3. Castanea
    December 2nd, 2008 at 17:31
    Reply | Quote | #3

    “There are of course those who would like to see Christian voters marginalized as a voting force.”

    I actually think most of them want christianist voters marginalized. There is a difference between those who want religion as a general recommender of values and aims and those who claim to represent a religion to a higher degree and want to use scripture as leverage in real-world issues.

    Palin is scarily close to being of the latter category. The reason the GOP lost is because they spent so much time getting “us” fired up that “them” ended up bigger than their “us”.

    “Both the origins of the United States and current demographics indicate that their views deserve to be be heavily represented in our republican government.”

    Yes, the christian ethic in a more limited and cautious sense is a basis for a good America. But political religion will always have an ambiguous relationship to the social liberalism that the US must also represent.

    The reprehensible divorce by plebicite in California is just the latest of arguments against christianity as a force that serves America as a whole.

  4. c3
    December 3rd, 2008 at 00:44
    Reply | Quote | #5

    “Christianist” has become one of those words that turns off further brain function (at least for me). the word is a red flag for other sentiments to follow (i.e. rant). Similar to the old “bleeding heart liberal”.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.