In Strange Bedfellows: Evangelicals learn to love big government, a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Heather Wilhelm of Americans for Limited Government notes that a big change has occurred in what evangelicals-once reliably wary of big-government social engineering- lobby for these days. For instance, the National Association of Evangelicals (NEA) now favors:
more government regulation of health care, an expansion of welfare benefits, more protections for the environment and various efforts to correct "unfair socioeconomic systems."
If this sounds like it's simply embracing the liberal agenda, keep in mind that the NAE also (according to a statement on its website):
supports the President in his endeavor to protect the institutions of marriage and family as foundational to an orderly society. The NAE will continue to promote a traditional view of the convental relationship of marriage and gratefully welcomes the support and backing of the current administration
Or maybe it's no surprise that a demand for government intrusion in areas regarding "morals" has now been joined by a wider view that government can and should solve all problems.
Not all evangelicals embrace the NAE program (its alliances on issues such as global warming "may raise eyebrows of a few purists," Ms. Wilhelm says), but the fact that a large and growing segment is amenable to so much of the liberal social agenda, minus gay equality, may explain Howard Dean's pitch to Pat Robertson's audience.
20 Comments for “Putting Their Faith in Government.”
posted by kittynboi on
I’ve been saying that the religious reich and the “social justice” left would join forces for a while now. We’re just seeing the first steps towards it now.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
It’s happened in Europe already, as the Tatchell article illustrates. I spend a great deal of my time (over 50%) these days in the UK, and the greatest backers of radical Islamic religious extremists like Yusuf al Qaradawi and Abu Hamza are. . . the hard-left and “social justice” crowd.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t think that there is any doubt that the social conservative movement is at odds with the principles of classical conservatism — God knows, I’ve said it enough on this blog in the last couple of years — and that the social conservative movement, if successful, will greatly expand the power and size of the federal government, at the expense of the states and of individual freedom.
Social conservatives seek to increase the power of the federal government in the arenas of education (cirriculum, federal standards), abortion and end-of-life regulation, drugs and healthcare, welfare (faith-based funding), pornography, marriage, and so on, while classical conservatives seek to limit the role of government in the lives of individuals and keep the powers “reserved” in the states.
While the goals of federal expansion may differ between social conservatives and left-liberals, both are adherents of federal expansion of power, and expansion of federal power entails expansion of federal funding. When it comes to big government and big spending, social conservatives and left-liberals have always been cut of the same cloth, in my view.
Lost on both social conservatives and left-liberals are the ideas of restraint in government (a government governs best when it governs least), of subsidiarity (government power should rest at the lowest level possible), and of respect for the individual (government should interfere with the right of citizens to live according to their own lights only when and to the extent interference is necessary to maintain social order).
I think that it is important to remember social conservatives are “conservative” only in the sense that they want to preserve cultural traditions — hence the cultural wars tag — and that social conservatives do not, by and large, otherwise share the goals of classical conservatism.
So it isn’t surprising to see social conservatives reveal themselves as rowing the federal expansion boat right alongside the left-liberals.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
And all those things you’ve listed, Tom, are reasons why the Democrats (the party of big-government social engineering spending on issues important to socialists) and the Republicans (the party of big-government social engineering spending on issues important to theocrats) are both parties which don’t deserve the support, time or money of gay people.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
NEL: “And all those things you’ve listed, Tom, are reasons why the Democrats (the party of big-government social engineering spending on issues important to socialists) and the Republicans (the party of big-government social engineering spending on issues important to theocrats) are both parties which don’t deserve the support, time or money of gay people.”
I agree.
Both the Democrat and the Republican parties are indistinguishable in rejection of classical conservative principles, and both, each in their own way, are foes of individual liberty, and as such, are foes of human dignity.
But for GBLT folk, I think that it is important to keep in mind that there is a difference between the social conservatives who dominate the Republican Party and the left-liberals who dominate the Democrat Party.
The social conservatives are hell-bent to return our culture to days when GBLT folk didn’t dare even think about equality under the law, and are more than willing to use the Constitution and power of the law to achieve that end, while left-liberals are not, for the most part, hell-bent on that course.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“left-liberals are not, for the most part, hell-bent on that course.”
True, but homophobia is rampant in liberal circles as well, and come secret ballots, liberals often vote with social conservatives. Remember, DOMA was supported by “liberals” like the Clintons, Paul Wellstone, et al as well as by the social conservatives in the GOP.
The GOP may present anti-gay bills, but liberals certainly don’t fight those bills with vigor. Many vote for them, and very few advance pro-equality positions.
Where the rubber will hit the road, if the Democrats win back Congress in November, is on immigration rights for gay couples. If a Democratic Congress doesn’t pass the Permanent Partners Immigration Act or a similar law, citing “more important things,” then even the most partisan gay Democrats can safely assume the “liberals” aren’t on our side. I can confidently predict that Democrats will not pass such a law before 2009 if they win a majority — instead, they’ll dangle useless “ENDA” laws in front of starry-eyed useful idiots.
posted by Ed Brown on
So anyone that is not an anarchist or a fan of Ayn Rand, must favor “big” government and hate gays??
posted by audrey on
Ed, that is a straw man argument if ever I heard one. Just because most on this board don?t want the archetypical ?Left? and ?Right? to dictate every second of our lives doesn?t mean we want anarchy either. Read Thomas Pain?s ?Common Sense? if you want clarification.
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | May 28, 2006, 10:31am | #
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/30963.html#1440
Where the rubber will hit the road, if the Democrats win back Congress in November, is on immigration rights for gay couples. If a Democratic Congress doesn’t pass the Permanent Partners Immigration Act or a similar law, citing “more important things,” then even the most partisan gay Democrats can safely assume the “liberals” aren’t on our side.
It is highly unlikely that a Democratic congress, even with a Democratic president, would pass the PPIA or similar legislation, or ENDA, or anything else that might benefit gay people. Democrats at the national level (and offentimes at the state level, are not interested in passing laws that would provide equal rights for gay people. That should be obvious.
Indeed, on a self-described “progressive” Democratic web site, FireDogLake, a few days ago, they were touting a “progressive” Democrat (a fellow named Tester) in a run for the Senate from Montana. Their endorsement of him included the mealy-mouthed comment that “well he (as head of the Montana state senate) was able to block anti-gay legislation proposed by Republicans. My thought–and comment–was, well that’s nice. But is it too much to ask for a so-called progressive Democrat to actually propose and vote for equal rights for gay people? There was no response.
Don’t even think about relying on so-called “progressive Democrats” to provide any benefit to gay people.
The FireDogLake comment thread is at http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/27/howie-kleins-blue-america-montana
Going upthread a bit
Tom Scharbach | May 28, 2006, 8:30am | #
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/30963.html#1437
I hate to tell you, but the sad fact is that there are no classical conservatives in the US–if there ever were any anywhere in the world. The so-called “conservatives” in the US, largely represented by the Republican party, learned a long time ago that they would need to provide welfare to the people that they were pandering to. They did it under Nixon. They did it under Reagan/Bush I, and they are doing it in spades under Bush II. They did it under Clinton, too–remember the legendary mohair subsidy that was insisted upon by Tom “Exterminator” DeLay?
posted by dalea on
The idea I keep coming back to is that Bush2 represents the full flowering of ‘conservativism’. That what we see now is actual existing conservativism. This is what it is all about, in the only real world form it can take. That it departs from the ‘ideal’ which has been enunciate by conservative intellectuals is simply the way the world works. It is very like the difference between ideal Marxism and actual existing Marxisim (Russia, China).
In short for all the talk about limited government, balanced budgets and individual rights are just flim flam to draw the suckers in. When elected, conservatives never govern in this fashion. So, Reagan Bush 1&2 are no more accidents unrelated to their ideology than Stalin and Mao were accidents to theirs. This is reinforced by the plain fact that it has taken six, count them, six years for conservative intellectuals to catch on. Now after all this time, we are beginning to hear fellow traveler type noises from them. The system would have worked were it not for Bush/Stalin. No, it wouldn’t. Bush/Stalin is integral to the system of thought; they are the only type of leaders the system can produce. Back to the drawing boards.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“anyone that is not an anarchist or a fan of Ayn Rand, must favor “big” government and hate gays”
I don’t care what political box they put themselves in, or what books they like to read. I judge by actions, and it’s rather clear that “liberal Democrats who are oh so pro-gay” won’t do diddly-squat to help gay people once they get power.
If that’s the case, where do leftists like yourself get off in claiming that those of us who vote for people who WOULD actually pass the PPIA are “self-loathing” or “unrealistic?” You’re the ones who are voting for homophobes (albeit, homophobes who are less homophobic than right-wing Republicans).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
RAJ: “I hate to tell you, but the sad fact is that there are no classical conservatives in the US–if there ever were any anywhere in the world. The so-called “conservatives” in the US, largely represented by the Republican party, learned a long time ago that they would need to provide welfare to the people that they were pandering to. They did it under Nixon. They did it under Reagan/Bush I, and they are doing it in spades under Bush II. They did it under Clinton, too–remember the legendary mohair subsidy that was insisted upon by Tom “Exterminator” DeLay?”
It is hardly news to me, RAJ, or to anyone who has been reading my comments for the last couple of years.
Classical conservatism died with the Republican Party — or at least was forced back into the shadows, unseen and unheard, since — during the Reagan years. By time Bush I appeared, the social conservatives and their “culture wars” had cowed the party, and since then, “conservatism” within the Republican Party has meant the use of expanded government power to further the agenda of the religious right, while buying off the wealthy for campaign contributions.
But, nonetheless, people who believe in the principles of traditional conservatism — people who believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, minimal intrusion of government into people’s lives, and equal treatment of all citizens — remain among the populace.
I listen to a lot of old-style Republicans in this Midwest, rural county, and they are fed up. The current Republican bait and switch show will not go on forever.
posted by Lori Heine on
The real divide in American politics today is not between Right and Left, but between statism and freedom. Everything else is just the parsley at the edge of the plate.
The Republican Party is slightly less of an incoherent mess than the Democratic at this point. I’m not sure that’s saying very much.
Jon Henke, at Q and O Blog, posits that there are essentially two types of conservatives these days: those who are anti-Left, and those who are anti-State. Right now, the former are winning. But I agree with Mr. Henke that all this may change, and sooner rather than later.
“At some point,” says Henke, “the public will decide that ‘you suck’ is not a useful governing philosophy.”
We who comment here at the IGF are not the only people fed up with the whiny, petulant, spoiled-child attitudes of the statist, culture-war conservatives.
Surely somebody else out there has actually read the Constitution. The FMA would violate at least three existing amendments to the Constitution, and if passed at the state level, a similar measure would still violate at least two.
To pass an amendment to the Constitution that would undermine the authority of the very document itself is nothing short of treasonous. Why do these people bother laying flowers on the graves of the war dead every Memorial Day if they’re going to push nonsense like this? For all the respect they’re showing to the supreme law of this land, they might as well be emptying their chamber-pots onto them.
If we let these morons go forward with their agenda, before very long our Constitution won’t be worth the paper it was printed on. They are hell-bent on rendering it useless as anything more than birdcage lining.
I know Mencken was right when he said that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. But we know what’s going on is wrong, and we must speak out about it.
If we don’t, the time very well may come when we no longer can.
posted by raj on
Tom Scharbach | May 29, 2006, 7:21am | #
Lori Heine | May 29, 2006, 9:32pm | #
I doubt very seriously that the Republican party was ever particularly conservative. Remember that the Republicans controlled the White House during most of the latter half of the 19th century. That was the age of the Robber Barons, and, in more than a few cases, the Barons became Barons by conniving with Republican politicians–the Barons wanted gov’t subsidies and in exchange gave the Republican politicians bribes laughingly referred to as “campaign contributions.”
That continued, without much change–except for the brief interlude of the Teddy Roosevelt administration (and the Wilson administration, which was made possible because TR ran as an independent in 1912)–up until the 1932 election, but current American politics have pretty much returned to the status quo ante.
Regarding the Religious Right’s influence in the Republican party (and this gets into Lori’s comment), this is pretty much an artifact of Nixon’s Southern Strategy, which induced Dixiecrats–most of whom were Southern Baptists–to switch from the Democrat party to the Republican party. The northern Democrats had been paying off the Dixiecrats for decades to induce them to remain in the Democratic caucus, and Nixon learned that he could get the Dixiecrats to switch by paying them off more. I’m referring to actual paying–monies transferred from the federal government, most of which was acquired from the wealthier states, to the po’ southern states. And it worked.
Now, the Republican party has acquired its Religious Right contingent. And, specifically, in regards Lori’s comment The Republican Party is slightly less of an incoherent mess than the Democratic at this point…. This is true, but I believe that you are being optimistic if you believe that the Republican coalition of corporatist interests and social “conservatives” is particularly unstable. Their interests, unlike the interests of some of the groups in the Democratic coalition do not appear to be mutually exclusive. In other words, the Republican party does not have to try to balance competing interests:
(i) The Republicans’ stated philosophy of tax cuts for the wealthy? The Republican corporatist wing and the RR both agree to that, even though it requires borrowing to finance the deficits. Republicans are borrow-and-spend liberals, in contrast to Democrats, who they denigrate as tax-and-spend liberals. But, who cares? The corporatists want their tax cuts, and the RR is unconcerned.
(ii) The Republicans’ stated philosophy of corporate welfare? That pleases the Republican corporatist wing, and the RR doesn’t seem to particularly care about the issue.
(iii) The Republicans’ pandering to social conservatism? The corporatists don’t seem to particularly care about that issue, in large part because most of them don’t have to concern themselves with equal rights for–for example–gay people, because most of them are not gay. Or black. Or asian. Or Jewish. Or any other minority group.
In short, the Republican party doesn’t need to worry about having to balance competing interests among their targeted constituents, because their constituents’ interests largely are not mutually exclusive.
posted by Ed Brown on
Well, frankly liberal Democrats do not win many elections, most Democrats are neoliberals or blue dogs.
The fact of the matter is that their are ONLY two choices; Republican or Democrat. No third party candidate is going to stand a chance until we have real campaign law reform.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I guess you’re from the FOX News school of “repeat a fallacious platitude endlessly and it becomes truth,” Ed.
posted by Mark on
Republicans are just returning to their roots. The GOP was started as a high tax, pro-regulation, pro-business welfare party which opposed the expansion of slaverty for political and economic (not moral) reasons. A few Republicans like Warren Harding were in favor of somewhat smaller government, but they were unusual.
posted by Ed Brown on
Well, Libertarian I really do not watch Fox News, what lie have I been repeating?
posted by Ed Brown on
The fact of the matter is that since the 1920’s ballot access laws have become more and more restrictive and thus eroding the historical role of third political parties in America to knick-knacks.
posted by Scott on
The movement of evangeligcals to embrace big government solutions is no surprise. They’re simply doing the same thing their liberal counterparts have championed for decades. But then, aren’t we as gays seeking big government solutions to the marriage issue and via the courts? Hmmm.