There is a new & dangerous trend going on in politics. Religious fanatics are being given more and more credibility and are even gaining support from those who in most respects seem diametrically opposed to them in principle.
Two of the most recent and notable cases would be Republicans: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Arizona Senator & war veteran John McCain. Both are likely to run for President in 2008, both are moderates in their party, if not at times likened to liberal. In spite of some clear differences in ideology with the far-right spectrum of the Republican party line, both have seemingly 'sold-out' to far-right ideologues.
In the case of McCain, he has made Campaign finance reform a big issue as well as treatment of detainees held by the Government as part of the 'war on terror' as well as other issues that are generally protected by more conservative Republicans, and particularly the Religious Right. In spite of this he has repeatedly thrown his support to Bush, whom he ran against in 2000 as Bush has faced increasing criticism over both foreign and domestic issues, and even more disturbingly he's set to give a lecture at Evangelist & 'Religious Right' fanatic Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. In the past McCain has been rather critical of those on the Religious Right, including Falwell & Pat Robertson. Some say that sort of talk lead to him losing whatever support he may have had from the Christian conservative base in his bid for President.
That support ultimately went behind Bush as he and his campaign fed them the sort of rhetoric & promises they've been wanting to hear — pro-god, family values, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage. To see him now putting his apparent disdain for Falwell's brand of conservatism aside, along with making apologies for Bush suggests that a man who has for years often stood up for his beliefs & followed his convictions even when firmly at odds with the rest of his party may well have sold-out much of those convictions.
Rudy Giuliani, a Republican moderate who is somewhat socially progressive if not a bit liberal as far as Republicans go, even being supportive of such issues as gay rights has recently been putting his support behind former President of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition [1989-1997], Ralph Reed. He's the mouthy little devious hate monger who has said things like "I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night", "What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time and one state at a time. I honestly believe that in my lifetime, we will see a country once again governed by Christians... and Christian values", he's also vehemently anti-gay. Certainly not loved even among even moderate Democrats, Reed is running for Lt. Gov. in Georga. While Giuliani admits that socially he doesn't agree with Reed, he takes a 'big tent' approach to the Republican party saying that the thing that matter most to Republican's are smaller government, state's rights, openness in international trade & business, etc. That may be what 'should' matter most to Republicans but as some, like Ralph Reed & current Mass. Governor Mit Romney make quite clear is that moral issues are extremely important, and perhaps their biggest agenda centers around increasing the influence of religion in both government & social progress. Historically this is not a Republican issue per se, it's simply that those with socially conservative and pro-religious agendas realize that if they're going to push their agendas & change society as they want to they will have to gain a lot of control over government, and to do this they have to get elected & have the power to influence policy making.
To accomplish this they've needed to build a strong & numerous base, and to be taken seriously. Concepts like 'The Moral Majority' and running as independents or in 3rd parties accomplished nothing in the way of gain the power the need. What they needed was to hijack a major party, and obviously there is only one that fits much of their ideology as is and that would be the Republican party.
What all of this sucking up to groups and agendas that one is seemingly opposed says to me is that these guys have little honor nor integrity. To me if you ideologically disagree with someone then you should state it as such when it counts, and stick to it. If you're strongly anti-abortion then you shouldn't be throwing support behind a candidate who is staunchly pro-abortion rights. Conversely, if you're anti-gun control then you shouldn't support someone who is strongly for it. This shouldn't just be 'politics' in all it's seediness. Ideology is so fundamentally important. I can understand groups or individuals who don't agree coming together, but I see no reason to resort to some big love in. I can protest with anti-Bush people who typically vote Republican even though I typically would not vote Republican. But there is no way in hell I'm going to be at an anti-Bush rally with a bunch of bigots who are chastising Bush for not being tough enough on abortion & gay rights. I won't be carrying any pro-bush signs of course, but you can bet on that day if I protest anything it's going to be THEM. And I probably would have a hard time standing amongst those some people at an anti-war protest. Those who oppose the issues that are important to me are largely my enemy. It's a shame that it has to be this way, it shouldn't have to be. But in light of how things have changed over the past 10 years, and especially the last 6, I don't believe that we can afford the luxury of looking at this in shades of grey.
Of course some would argue the opposite I suppose, saying that we should support ANY candidate that is the 'lesser evil', there is too much to lose if we don't. And I can partly agree with that. As far as I'm concerned when the 2008 election comes up I'm all but certain that's exactly what I'll be doing, and I certainly don't like that, but I feel I have to. However, I will not be voting for politicians who advocate agendas that I strongly disagree with. For instance, I support some liberal causes but I don't support far-left, 'socialist' causes, therefore I probably wouldn't vote for Hilary Clinton
and I definitely wouldn't support her candidacy.
The fact is, there is an ideological war taking place here, things are black & white, right & wrong in this war. It is us vs. them. This is a fight for the soul of America, only those who are claiming to fight for 'family values', 'American ideals', are actually working for the devil. Those on the right, & yes some on the left are selling out the poor, the sick, the middle class, they're trading liberty for security, advancing unAmerican & draconian concepts like theocracy, moral legislation, unilateralism, a fascist sort of nationalism, they're using religion as a rationalization for persecuting individual & social liberties among certain classes of people, and handing our system of government over to the wealthy & powerful to exploit at their leisure. We can't afford to get caught up in this 'game' of politics, we stand for principle, even if we have to take a loss for it. Otherwise we've sold our souls.
~ James
|
|
|