In her article “Giving Up On God,” Kathleen Parker discusses the recent troubles of the Republican Party, attributing them to a somewhat negative image of evangelical supporters. Ironically, avoiding this type of negative image is what the Religious Right was founded on, according to Martin in the introduction to his book, With God on Our Side. Martin quotes the National Associate of Evangelicals (NAE) as “determined to shun all forms of bigotry, intolerance, misrepresentation, hate, jealousy, false judgment, and hypocrisy.” Parker doesn’t really go into detail with respect to why evangelicals might be giving the GOP a bad image, only hinting that many feel that religion belongs more in private live than in politics, but perhaps some of these are factors (although probably in milder terms).
In other words, Parker claims that the overly religious nature of many Republicans is driving away other support. She predicts that if the current trend of pandering to the desires of the extremely religious continues, the Republican Party will be headed steadily downhill and will soon be replaced. Of course, the problem is that if the Republican Party tries to move away from the religious base, it loses an important voting bloc.
What Parker says does make some sense. According to the Downs’ Model, more centrist policies tend to garner more support and therefore the party that stays closest to the middle of the ideological scale is more likely to prevail. Therefore, Parker’s predictions that the influences of extreme conservatives on Republican standpoints and policies will end up hurting more widespread support is probably true. I’m no expert on politics, but it seems to me that a shift to more moderate conservatism would be a smart option. Not only would it presumably bring in supporters such as the “other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats,” but the evangelical voting bloc may not be completely deterred. Even if the stance of Republicans is not as hardcore as they might like, it would probably still be more acceptable than policies of the Democrats and the formation of a new political party doesn’t seem practical. I think Parker maybe goes a little too far in predicting the total demise of the GOP, but her overall point is well taken---religion is important in our lives and, to some extent, politics, but everything in moderation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I agree with Katie in saying that, although the strict Evangelical's effect on the GOP is significant, it will not bring about the demise of the party. It does indeed seem like a stance of more "moderate conservatism" would increase the GOP's span of influence. However, Katie brings up an interesting point in mentioning that the creation of a new political party would be impractical. Perhaps a new party wouldn't need to be created, but if the GOP moved towards a more moderate stance, party lines would have to be redrawn to focus on other issues. If the parties move too close to each other there is the possibility that they could merge, essentially destroying the political party system. I don't think that this is possible; there will always be some sort of division to draw the party lines along, but it's an interesting thought to ponder. Would our government work without political parties?
Katie is quite right that moderation is important. I think that it is a good and simple way to lead a successful life in this country, but not a good way to get elected to national office in this country. The Republican Party nominated John McCain, moderate in his views and moderate in the image he conveyed to the nation. And what was the lesson?—moderation does not win headlines.
I am not referring to moderation in policies, but rather, moderation in belief. Obama appeared passionate about his belief in change and hope, and his supporters followed suit. As Parker observes, “one party [the Democrats’] was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other [the Republicans’] felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.” She goes on to point out that Gov. Palin was the exception to this rule, which is absolutely right—it was Palin (policies aside) who brought energy to the campaign and attracted media attention. That attention she brought was responsible for the spike in the polls McCain experienced in the weeks after he chose her as running mate.
It used to be that the tables were turned: the Republicans were passionate about their faith, which excited people. Now, the excitement has left faith (as Bernard Shaw predicted it would in 1918). So, what’s to be done? I think Parker is right that if the party does not find something else to get excited about, it will fail further. Palin is an example of both what is right and wrong with the party: she is young, savvy (contrary to dogged media portrayal), and ebullient; but, she stuck to the lines Reagan used, rather than finding a language that is a product of this era.
I agree with Katie in that the Republican Party must move more to the middle of the political sphere if it wishes to remain a major political force in both the short and long-term future. I also believe that the Republican Party can and should make this shift without alienating its Evangelical base. For example, while changing its stance on issues like abortion is obviously off-limits to the GOP, I do not believe that moderating its stances on issues that are not as religiously overt would turn off the majority of Evangelical conservatives. Regardless, though, it is quite clear that the Republican Party needs some kind of change in order to compete in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Post a Comment