Will John McCain empower the Religious Right?

[DarkWaters]

Religion in government is obviously bad

It is well established that the Religious Right poses an ideological threat to the United States. By the Religious Right here, I mean individuals who want to actively incorporate Christian conservative values into United States politics. These values include, but are not limited to, curbing abortion rights, opposing civil unions, teaching Creationism in government schools as an alternative to evolution, sensoring speech or writing that is deemed "insensitive" to religion, installing new monuments to the ten commandments in court houses, banning homosexuals from the military, making contraceptives more difficult to obtain and reducing adoption rights for "non-traditional" families.

But is the context of the 2008 elections significantly different from 2004?

Typically, a voting strategy is to support the Democrats over the Republicans so as to prevent the Religious Right from dominating U.S. politics. However, now that the Democrats are powerful, The Democrats are becoming open to religion, and the Republicans are weak, what should be a voting strategy for the upcoming elections? In 2004, it seemed pretty clear that supporting John Kerry over George Bush, given a Republican dominated Congress, would be a significant blow to the empowered Religious Right. This is especially considering that John Kerry was clearly secular, George Bush was clearly heavily influenced by religion and President Bush did not really offer any advantages over John Kerry is anything significant. (this was heavily discussed on this forum already; if anyone would like to reanimate these discussions, it should be done in a different thread.)

However, the context of the 2008 elections seems different from 2004 but I am presently unsure as to how substantial the difference is. Here are some differences of the context of the upcoming 2008 Presidential election that will differentiate it from the 2004 election:

• The Democrats now have a comfortable majority in the House and a narrow majority in the Senate.
  
  
• Several prominent Religious Right Republicans have been removed from Congress. This includes powerful Republican Senators Bill Frist (former Senate Majority Leader), Rick Santorum and George Allen as well as Tom Delay, the former House Majority Leader.
  
  
• Only one Supreme Court Justice is expected to retire over the next few years, John Paul Stevens. Unfortunately, there are currently four justices who are expected to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if the opportunity arises (Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts) or would possibly support "States' Rights" concerning passing laws to allow integration of religion and government at the state level.
  
  
• Although he definitely embraces many religious conservative views, John McCain does not seem to have the "born again" mentality that President Bush flaunts. However, John McCain still takes many religious conservative political ideas seriously, as he is for a Federal ban on abortions and he is in favor of having Creationism taught in government schools alongside evolution.
  
  
• Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actively playing up their "faith" and its guiding influence in their lives. It is unclear to me if other powerful Democrats in Congress, such as Nancy Pelosi, are also embracing this new strategy.
  

Now that they are weaker, are the Republicans still more dangerous?

Anyway, the purpose of this thread is meant to explore the current threat from religion and how it should guide one's voting decisions in the 2008 elections. I myself am presently unsure if the Republicans are as much of a threat as they were a few years ago, as both the Republicans and Democrats seem to be pretty dangerous, and the only hope we may have is to keep the two parties gridlocked until a more rational alternative comes along.

The current Administration has demonstrated that Vice Presidents matter. The same might be true in the 2008 elections. A McCain/Huckabee ticket seems much scarier than a McCain/Giuliani ticket. Fortunately, Mike Huckabee appears to have no chance to secure the Republican presidential nomination.

Anyway, I will probably continue this discussion later. What do you guys think?

Edited February 6, 2008 by DarkWaters

[TheEgoist]

[*] Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actively playing up their "faith" and its guiding influence in their lives. It is unclear to me if other powerful Democrats in Congress, such as Nancy Pelosi, are also embracing this new strategy.

I'd like some proof to this statement, past a few quotes they made in heavily Religious settings.

[softwareNerd]

On religious issues, I think McCain sits in the middle, when it comes to his personal preference. He appears to have adopted his pro-religious stances to get the religious vote. For instance, he was for overturning Roe before he was against it. Also, there are reports that he has remarked negatively on the religious image of judges like Alito and Roberts. [i'm not sourcing this stuff, because it's just articles and snippets off the net and I don't remember where. If my info is wrong, I'd be happy for someone to point it out.] If true, McCain is less "politically-religious" than Bush in his genuine values, but appears willing to go along with the religious values of the right in order to get votes.

I think it is tough to predict what he will do on the religious front if he is in power. Since he does what he does with an eye to votes, I think the big variable is whether he wants a second term. If he does, he might give the right a justice they want. That is the bare minimum -- even Guiliani threw them that bone. On "faith-based" initiatives, I suspect he might genuinely think it's a good thing; so, I would not expect him to roll that back. He might want to inspire more secular "service corps", but I doubt he'll mess with this aspect. In terms of who gets power in all sorts of agencies, I would expect that less religion-related people will be appointed than under Bush.

Effectively, I think McCain will end up as the most "politically-religious" candidate of the three (Billary, Obama and he), even though Obama is probably the most personally religious. OTOH, he will likely be less politically-religious than Bush was. Nevertheless, he might put the 5th anti-Roe SCOTUS judge in power.

Not sure if you want discussion on this aspect; but, to me, if I vote against McCain (which seems quite likely) his anti-Capitalism would be a major reason.

[adrock3215]

It's going to be a very tough decision, especially if Obama is the Democratic candidate and McCain is the Republican. Obama goes to a Lou Farrakhan-esque church. I strongly urge you to listen to this video: Obama's Pastor.

This pastor is an idiot, and Obama goes to his church. Watch how he gets loud and rowdy for no reason, he is of the type he believes Blacks should seperate from America and create their own country. Who is say whether or not Obama believes in a "black-value system" and "liberation theology"? It may influence Obama as much, if not more, than Christianity would influence McCain.

I have more thoughts about religion in politics and I will be back later to post them.

Edited February 6, 2008 by adrock3215

[UptonStellington]

Not sure if you want discussion on this aspect; but, to me, if I vote against McCain (which seems quite likely) his anti-Capitalism would be a major reason.

sNerd, what about Obama? I'm not challenging here, I'm legitimately asking -- I haven't had a chance to research the things he has voted for, but isn't he substantially anti-capitalist as well?

I've seen McCain's voting record when I was researching for a project and it was abysmal, as far as global warming / anti-industry regulations go. Good god.

[softwareNerd]

sNerd, what about Obama?

I don't know enough about him. If he's nominated, I'll have to learn more. Right now, my guess would be that Hillary, Obama and McCain are all in the same ballpark when it comes to being anti-Capitalism, as far as their intent and personal philosophy goes, but they might differ in what they can actually "acheive".

[fletch]

I dont see how McCain wins the general election without Huckabee or a guy just like him on the ticket as VP. Huckabee won what, 5 states, and he did it on a K-mart budget. He seems to be able to rally the evangelicals in the Republican party like no one else. He can probaly bring those people to the polls in November if he is on the ballot as McCains running mate even if they have no particular fondness for the guy at the top of the ticket, McCain. So I think the answer to your question: Will John McCain empower the Religious Right? is yes. He is so unpopular among conservatives that he has no choice. He cant win if they sit home.

The potential that he might actually win in November is another problem, particularly for Republicans. He will not likely represent gridlock, but will engage in constant compromise with the Democratic Congress. He has never seemed to have a problem with betraying Republican orthodoxy in order to get an agreement, and I dont think that is likely to change if he becomes president.

[Clawg]

@TheEgoist:

Barack Obama Hopes To Be "Instrument Of God" And Create "Kingdom of God"

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/39728

Edited February 7, 2008 by Clawg

[Thales]

@TheEgoist:

Barack Obama Hopes To Be "Instrument Of God" And Create "Kingdom of God"

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/39728

Interesting link, Clawg. I also thought this excerpt was noteworthy:

Recently Sen. Barack Obama removed his American flag pin from his lapel, explaining that he will instead express his patriotism by his words and actions.

[gags]

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

This article is interesting: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/20...rys-prayer.html

I remember seeing news footage of Hillary come out of these prayer sessions with people like Santorum. At the time I thought it was strange. What the hell was she doing with a bunch of conservative bible thumpers? It seems that she takes her religion very seriously.

[DarkWaters]

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

This article is interesting: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/20...rys-prayer.html

I remember seeing news footage of Hillary come out of these prayer sessions with people like Santorum. At the time I thought it was strange. What the hell was she doing with a bunch of conservative bible thumpers? It seems that she takes her religion very seriously.

Thanks for posting this. It was informative.

I think SoftwareNerd has made a very good point concerning the difference between a candidate being "personally religious" and "politically religious". Hypothetically speaking, if both Hillary Clinton and John McCain are both equally religious in terms of personal terms, John McCain will still be the more dangerous candidate in terms of integrating religion into government. Both of these politicians accept the idea that they should be a "team player" and therefore, as President, both will compromise with whatever the majority of their elected party members want to accomplish. Thus, John McCain will be reaching compromises with those on the Religious Right, such as Senator Sam Brownback, while Hillary Clinton will be compromising with the nascent (but growing Religious Left.

[fletch]

Thus, John McCain will be reaching compromises with those on the Religious Right, such as Senator Sam Brownback, while Hillary Clinton will be compromising with the nascent (but growing Religious Left.

I think McCain will throw them some bones, but his political career has largely been defined by his eagerness to compromise with the most liberal members of the Democratic party, not members of his own party. That is why he is so disliked and distrusted by conservatives.

[gags]

I think McCain will throw them some bones, but his political career has largely been defined by his eagerness to compromise with the most liberal members of the Democratic party, not members of his own party. That is why he is so disliked and distrusted by conservatives.

I think you're right. I just don't see McCain as being someone too terribly concerned with the religious wing of his party. At least it's my perception that he hasn't bent over backwards for them in the past. On the other hand, if he were to put the doofus Huckleberry on his ticket, that would be a very bad development.

[Mammon]

McCain told The New York Times that he saw Jesus in the Constitution. "I would probably have to say that the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation," he stated.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5107

[Miles White]

I would probably have to say that the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation.

Funny, and I just love how all these conservatives have a tendency to simply ignore the fact the Thomas Jefferson was a Diest.

[agrippa1]

Funny, and I just love how all these conservatives have a tendency to simply ignore the fact the Thomas Jefferson was a Diest.

Maybe he dabbled in Christianity while he was writing the Constitution.

I'm a little confused about the focus on religious right here. The way I see it we have two parties, one of which promotes personal freedom and one of which promotes economic freedom.

Americans, who value freedom in all facets of their lives, are forced to prioritize the two types of freedoms and align themselves accordingly. So the lefties vilify the right for infringing on personal freedoms and the righties vilify the left for infringing economic freedoms. Those who value both personal and economic freedom are labeled "moderates," as if they don't really believe in anything. The parties maintain the core issues that divide the nation, unsolved in perpetuity. Anytime a third party gains power, the two parties triangulate on just enough issues, and the press plays up the supposed futility of third party voting, until the new party is squeezed out.

In '92, Perot won 19% of the vote, while 20% of the voters said they would have voted for him if they thought he could win. That's 39% of the vote, and Clinton only won with 43%. I'm not saying Perot wasn't at least a little nuts, just that the press and the parties conspired to manipulate Perot out of the running by appealing to citizens' political considerations. (and that was after he screwed himself by dropping out and picking Stockdale as VP) Both parties are equally despicable in my book, and in a very real sense are just two wings of the same party.

What we need in this country are two things to break the Dem/Rep stranglehold: Term limits, to break the chain of seniority-driven power positions; and run off elections (majority wins only) to allow citizens to vote their conscious, not the political expedient.

Edited February 12, 2008 by agrippa1

[softwareNerd]

What we need in this country are two things to break the Dem/Rep stranglehold...

I don't think breaking the Dem/Rep stranglehold will change anything fundamental. The reason for this is as follows: the "independent" voter wants to take the country slightly away from Capitalism by keeping big, bad businesses in check; and, is slightly against immigrants; and thinks a few restrictions on abortion are okay; and figures that government-run schools are a good idea, only they need improvement; and, thinks that while Al Gore is exaggerating things, we really should be doing something about "global warming".

Form instance, if Perot had become President, he might have tried really hard to tackle the Social Security deficit. However, he was doing it from a basic philosophy about Social Security being a good thing. Also, the independent voter is not convinced that it should be "privatized". So, the likely end-product would probably have been some mix of higher taxes to fund SS, and some curtailing of benefits to the higher-income recipients. Similarly, if Bloomberg were to become President , he would probably agree to some carbon-tax.

As a physical analogy, think of a stick, held horizontally. Chopping off equal amounts at the extremes won't change the center of gravity.

[gags]

I think this is a correct assessment SN. Our most basic political problem in this country is a philosophical one. The vast majority of Americans don't understand that the fundamental role of government is to defend individual rights. They believe that government should be charged with redistributing income to make life more fair and saving the environment and regulating business and creating jobs and providing healthcare, etc....etc.... Both major parties have bought into this view and wholeheartedly endorse it. We won't have political change until we have philosophical change among the people.

[softwareNerd]

Speaking of Bloomberg, check out what he says on global warming:

Mr. Bloomberg renewed his call, made first late last year, for taxing countries such as America that emit large amounts of carbons, which are believed to cause changes in the planet's climate. "So long as there's no penalty or cost involved in producing greenhouse gases, there will be no incentive" to meet targets set by international institutions, the mayor told the General Assembly. "For that reason, I believe the U.S. should enact a tax on carbon emissions.

"Terrorists kill people. Weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill an enormous amount of people," Mr. Bloomberg told reporters after addressing the U.N. General Assembly, but "global warming in the long term has the potential to kill everybody."

Emphasis added.

[Mammon]

I think this is a correct assessment SN. Our most basic political problem in this country is a philosophical one. The vast majority of Americans don't understand that the fundamental role of government is to defend individual rights. They believe that government should be charged with redistributing income to make life more fair and saving the environment and regulating business and creating jobs and providing healthcare, etc....etc.... Both major parties have bought into this view and wholeheartedly endorse it. We won't have political change until we have philosophical change among the people.

Don't forget the governments role in deciding who you can and can't marry, what adults can and can't have sex, who can and can't start a business, making sure Christians feel comfartable at all times, making sure people don't lose money when they make stupid choices, protecting American workers from competition....

Oh, the list goes on and on.

[agrippa1]

Our most basic political problem in this country is a philosophical one. The vast majority of Americans don't understand that the fundamental role of government is to defend individual rights.

That's a secondary problem. The fundamental problem is that Americans have lost touch with the meaning of "individual rights."

While the original indies probably meet SN's definition in terms of their middle-of-the-road politics, I believe that a great deal of the current expansion of indy numbers is made up of people like me who finally understand that Dems and Reps, while they preach social and economic freedom (respectively), actually stand for economic and social servitude (respectively). I base this on a sample of two (me and my wife) who have both switched from Rep to Ind in the last few years. I also base it on general surveys which find that Americans in general are "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative," as if the two are ideologically opposite stands that represent a middle ground between Liberalism and Conservatism, rather than a rejection of the anti-individual bases of both of those ideologies.

Of course, your point is well taken, that people who recognize individual rights often go overboard to the Libertarian/Anarchist fringe, and fail to consider that an institution they recognize as evil, actually has a proper and significant role to play in individual freedom. It is this proper role that Objectivists should prepare to expound upon, to break the notion that we stand simply for "laissez faire" and "selfishness" in all their extreme literal implications.

[gags]

Oh, the list goes on and on.

We should probably add regulating the wearing of baggy pants to the list. That's one of my all-time favorites.

That's a secondary problem. The fundamental problem is that Americans have lost touch with the meaning of "individual rights."

You mean I don't have a right to healthcare and a comfortable retirement income? What about the "social contract"?