In the short time since the November 7th elections, it's become increasingly apparent that the right wing has muscled itself out of the American political scene.
Perhaps it's about time.
Certainly, this minor portion of our population has been exercising more than its fair share of clout. And the net result has been far from satisfactory. An erosion of civil rights, a flawed foreign policy, a blurring of the line between religion and government, all of these trends - and more - can arguably be credited, in part, to the pervasive influence of the right wing.
It's the democratic way in our society for all groups and points of view to be represented. In a true democratic sense, however, we might find ourselves doing better, as a nation, as we hand the reins back, once again, to the moderate majority.
Bill Frist, the social conservative out of Tennessee, who left a medical career to be a senator, and then left his senatorial career to prepare for a run for president has, himself, taken a close look at the right wing tea leaves and decided to hang onto his hat.
And poor President Bush. Can't you just see him, drumming his fingers on a table in Jordan and wondering what circumstances had brought him to that empty conference room. There he was, the leader of the free world, supposedly the most powerful person on earth, sitting all by himself.
Despite having invested hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in the welfare of the people of Iraq, and despite having orchestrated a military campaign for the same purpose - that caused nearly 3,000 American deaths - there he was, waiting for the very puppet he had put in charge of the country to reluctantly decide to meet with him.
So, can't you just hear him: "Damn those right wingers."
The jury's still out on whether the president will actually moderate his position with respect to the Middle East. He continues to talk the same talk, but changes are in the wind.
So far, the right wing has also continued to talk the same talk, and it appears that this will only hasten its move, deeper and deeper into isolation. An example occurred last Friday here in Orange County, California.
Conservative white pastor Rick Warren invited Senator Barack Obama to speak at his 20,000 strong evangelical Saddleback church in the community of Lake Forest. Specifically he asked Obama to address a group at the pastor's second international conference on AIDS.
What could be a better fit, right? A man who has devoted much of his life to the cause talking to a group of Christians about this terrible pandemic.
The fact is, however, it didn't quite work out as the pastor had hoped. The angry reaction of the evangelicals was pretty well summed up by Christian radio host, Kevin McCullough, who wrote on his blog: "Why would Warren marry the moral equivalency of his pulpit - a sacred piece of honor in evangelical traditions - to the inhumane, sick and sinister evil that Obama has worked for as a legislator?"
Ouch! By yesterday, Saddleback Church was on the defensive and Pastor Warren was back-peddling in ernest.
Warren's wife, Kay, is perhaps the most disappointed of all. She has been a rare evangelical who has not been afraid to talk about the problems related to AIDS. Her concern for the 12 million children in Africa that have been orphaned by the disease prompted her to visit Mozambique, a trip that, in turn, brought her to the realization that she, her husband and the conservative Orange County community were guilty of indifference, according to an article in the LA Times.
Indifference is one way to describe it. Selfishness is another. But, whatever it's called, the right wing has definitely isolated itself in an extreme corner of our political arena, far removed from the moderate majority that spoke loud and clear on November 7th.
So what do you do for a group in isolation?
Well, the standard treatment is - keep them in the dark, feed them just enough to survive, and then slam the door shut.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee clank!




Comments: 26
Don't count the evangelicals and other right wingers out prematurely. I think this is just a lot of wishful thinking.
These additional issues did not seem to sit well with the board of the Christian Coalition. Thus it seems that the goals of the Coalition are those that limit others, as opposed to goals that might limit their own aspirations.
If Jesus was upset at the money lenders in the temple, what would his response be to the Prophet of Profit ideal of so many who call themselves Christian today?
What most of the liberals DON'T understand is that the NASCAR bunch, although prone to the influence of Big Media, doesn't always agree with the RINO's and Fascist's currently in charge of our government. In fact, they give less credence to FauxNews than you give to MSNBC.
The RINO'S will have less control come January, but mark my words not much will change 'Under the Dome', especially for the Globalist plotters who couldn't care less about 'Party', using it only as a tool to divide those of us who know what 'critical thinking' really is.
It's time for the citizenry to start thinking 'Outside the Box', if we're to have a 'snowball's chance' of saving 'Our Grand Experiment' for our heirs and namesakes.
NAU or NWO, and I don't mean WRESTLING!
Although I'd like to agree with you, I have to join Nanci's view. There is no way they are down for the count. They will, no doubt spend the next two years figuring out the most divisive issues they can rally the faithful around, and work at making sure we are reburied in the tombs of minority, if we give them half a chance.
Based on the jockeying for position in the party, some of the stupid things people are saying (did anyone else notice that Charlie Rangel insulted our troops in his attempt to support the draft proposal he has floated) and the news reports on the changes to their 6 for 06 plan, I suspect that the dems will send them screaming home to the right.
I think they will not forget the last six years so easily. Many will stay independent as well. Speaking for myself, once you go there, it's pretty hard to lure someone back, because you don't get there on a whim.
Ron >
People do tend to forget about the hearty independents, don't they? Until it comes time to woo them for votes going down the homestretch. The pollsters just don't seem to fathom that some voters are thoroughly and permanently disenchanted-- but still pay attention and vote. In that sense we have finally achieved a third, countering party.
You give me hope. I have a born again brother, that I have been trying to tell Bush and friends were using him and his church, for six years now, but it's a tough nut to crack. They want so bad for him to be who they think he is, that nothing can faze them.
As for Giuliani, he is going to have a very hard ime with many Evangelicals. He takes a very hard line on crime and national security issues but he is very liberal on social issues.
Joe, if you mean the evangelicals don't give across the board so to speak, I am under the impression that they tend to want to give to their own, with their own money--but I may be very wrong about that. Nanci, do most evangelicals open their charitable coffers to anyone? Jewish Community Services, and Catholic Charities for example, provide services to anyone in the community who needs them. Be that as it may, however, I believe we are "our brother's keeper" and its partly our own responsibility as individuals to do that and it's our government's responsibility to help us help those who through no fault of their own fall through the cracks. Kind of what the president says we're doing in Iraq? No, wait that doesn't make sense. . .because there I want to say that "charity begins at home. . .and me coming from a long line of missionaries. But then, spreading the gospel is different to me than physically taking care of the flock -- come from a long line of farmers too.
I'm glad you're still here--or out there, too. Ditto on McCain and Guiliani. All that police brutality in Los Angeles? Guess who's the police chief? Bratton, the one who cleaned up the streets of N.Y. for Guiliani. McCain is superhawk and super two-faced; he certainly presented himself as a moderate there for awhile until they cleaned his clock with the dirty campaign tactics. And, I agree the dems moved toward the middle and pubs stayed pretty much where they were--looking at the spread on the votes for whip, etc. You're the only one I've heard mention that O'Bama has "world" vision--I agree and don't trust politicians who see the light later in life [I know that's not fair]. I think he's somewhat calculating and a seasoned politician already--but without breadth of experience. It's my fervent wish that voters will get their mojo back as to who really cares about making a difference and who doesn't give a damn about anything except their political career and fortune. Of course, Bush probably wants to make a difference--more than anything in the world--all over the world. Ok, I'm shooting for "trustworthiness" and "genuinely cares about people in general." Closest I've seen to that so far is John Edwards.
No group praying before dinner?
Quote:"I'm glad that you know Evangelicals who do charitable work but let's face it - it's not on their political playbook. They are much more interested in government intrusion into the lives of non-Evangelicals"
I think you would be better served to tend the log in your own eye.
Evangelicals, as you're so fond of calling Christians, don't have a political playbook. Things like that are for people who have no foundation for their lives. You seem to be quite the voice for charity so why don't you tell us all about your giving and good deeds. Every church I know of has outreach programs for the poor and prays for peace in the world. What do you pray for?
As for the original article it is this kind of spiteful writing that will keep America separated into a more widely fractured Left and Right. Of course if we all thought of ourselves as citizens of the United States first, and worked towards a productive agreement of our common goals, or determined to part company then we would all be better off.
During the Reformation, Martin Luther referred to his movement as the evangelische kirche (evangelical church). Later, "Evangelical" became a near-synonym for "Protestant" in Europe. It retains this meaning in Germany today.
A British historian, David Bebbington, defines an "Evangelical Christian" as a person exhibiting four beliefs and behaviors:
Conversionism: the belief that lives of all humans need to be changed by way of a "born again" decision to repent of their sins and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Activism: the expression of the gospel in various ways, including missionary outreach and social reform.
Biblicism: a particular regard for the Bible as the Word of God and the ultimate authority for religious belief and morality.
Crucicentrism: a stress on the substitutionary atonement by Christ on the cross.
Thanks for setting me straight.
Labels: they get us into more trouble. We think we know what they mean -- and then the meaning changes. Just for example, what is an Evangelical [thanks for the definitions/ Felix R.]; exactly what is a liberal, a righty, a lefty -- just labels until we know more details about the underlying issues which either unite or divide us.
The GOP/Dem panel I watched seemed to agree that the old labels don't apply anymore -- which gives the pollsters nightmares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen: Therein lies the crux of the problem; i.e. "working towards a productive agreement of our common goals, or determined to part company then we would all be better off." If we don't know what the "labels" really mean, then the forgoing is difficult or impossible--and we very often part ways because we think we know what the other means when we really don't. I deal with that by trying to look at those thorny core or so-called wedge issues as best I can and if can't find any common ground then, yes, agree to disagree. But that is so difficult when actual policy rides on those differences. And, it is so easy to go off and dialogue with ourselves or preach to the choir, as it were.