A Religious-Right Suicide Pact
If I believed in God, I’d be tempted to thank him for James Dobson.
Mr. Dobson, the chairman of Focus on the Family and one of the key political organizers on the religious right, has come up with a plan that would all but guarantee the defeat of any candidate remotely sympathetic to his views in the 2008 presidential election.
The dissatisfaction of Mr. Dobson and others of his ilk with the current crop of Republican candidates is well-known. Mr. Dobson has been especially vocal on the subject.
He has stated that he “would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances” and that Fred Thompson “can’t speak his way out of a paper bag.” He has also suggested that Mr. Thompson is not a Christian, a controversial charge even in conservative circles.
But it is the candidacy of the pro-abortion rights, thrice-married Rudy Giuliani that really gives the chills to the most hardline members of the religious right.
In a column in May, Mr. Dobson described the former New York mayor as “an unapologetic supporter of abortion on demand” and added that there were “moral concerns about Giuliani’s candidacy”. He also, in passing, expressed his annoyance about Mr. Giuliani’s penchant for dressing up in drag, referring to it as “ignoble”.
“I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008,” Mr. Dobson concluded. “It is an irrevocable decision.”
With Mr. Giuliani showing greater stamina than many people expected as Republican front-runner, the religious right has begun floating ideas for how he might be stopped from winning the G.O.P. nomination.
They have also begun pondering what to do if – a nightmare scenario for them – he actually becomes the party’s presidential candidate.
These plans began taking concrete form recently at a meeting in Salt Lake City. Mr. Dobson and dozens of other influential ultra-conservatives, including Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and direct mail guru Richard Viguerie, held a discussion on the sidelines of a networking event.
These activists decided – almost unanimously, according to Mr. Dobson – that they would support a minor party candidate if neither the Republican nor Democratic nominees were sufficiently pro-life for their tastes. An additional proposal – to actually create such a third party – received “some support,” Mr. Dobson noted.
For anyone who, like me, favors government policies that are pro-choice, pro-civil unions and pro-science classes that actually teach science rather than fairy tales, this was welcome news.
But even better was yet to come, in the form of an op-ed article Mr. Dobson wrote for the New York Times the following Thursday.
Mr. Dobson argued that there were two ways of choosing a presidential candidate. One was to “begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs.”
The other, he added with stern disapproval, involved choosing a candidate “according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure.”
Mr. Dobson continued: “Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles…Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.”
Mr. Dobson sounded hell-bent – pardon the expression – on replicating the kind of kamikaze thinking that has in recent years characterized the left more often than the right.
To place the ideological purity of one’s position above the messy business of actually winning elections is a mindset usually observed among the Naderite and Sheehanite left. It is also a surefire recipe for failure. Next Page >
What Mr. Dobson and his religious right will achieve is a Supreme Court that is packed with ACLU judges from now until he is dead and answers to his Almighty God. I personally do not care whom Mr Dobson see's fit to vote for however the Supreme Court will be the ultimate authority in the US as to the states getting the right to ban or curtail abortion. Mr. Guiliani has expressed his view that he wants the states to have that right. Mr Dobson can either trust his word or know in his heart that Hillary will make sure that millions more are aborted than should have been. I would suggest that sometimes those who proclaim the loudest their love for God are the one's whose ego is to great to accept that love.
By inference I suppose that we can assume that not all who will be voting for democrats actually believe all their twaddle either. Does this mean they likewise don't really have a mandate from their voters? Are their voters also so wed to winning that they will compromise their convictions for the party line? What has happened to us, are we so cynical that we are afraid to actually vote our convictions. Then at least our elected officials would know what their constituents believed and desired policies to reflect. At least then they would know they were offending X amount of their voters by voting a certain way. I really believe we just might surprisingly find that most Americans aren't that far apart in either party. We have both been hijacked by our kook fringes with scare tactics. Perhaps it is time for one group to say enough- this is where I draw the line, take it or leave it, these are my principled beliefs. While I might not support all that Dr. Dobson does at least he is being consistent and taking the heat for letting us know. That type of leadership is apparently non existent currently in the political realm from either party. I say bring it on. Let America be America.
Dr Dobson and the religious right are setting themselves up for 8 years and 3 Supreme Court Justices that will see more abortions than they could begin to imagine. I believe that sometimes those who proclaim their love of God are so egotistical as to not be able to feel that love. I would like Mr Dobson to stop stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgement - John 7:24
In principle I agree with Dr. Dobson--it does not appear any candidate running for nomination for either party has the values we conservative Christians hold dear.
However, beginning a 3rd party, at least in the short term, would have the same effect that Ross Perot's candidacy had on the 1996 election--Clinton won by default, with a minority (plurality) vote, because the conservative vote in the country was divided between the Republicans and the Independents.
Do we find someone who is the "least of evils" to support, someone who is ELECTABLE and holds SOME of the beliefs we hold dear, or take a hard line and, by voting for an independent, guarantee 4-8 years of liberal politics that may send our country down a path from which it will never recover?
Don't judge Dr. Dobson and others like him for taking a stand. At least he is willing to take a position and try to rally people to join him on his "hilltop". Which honors God more--sacrificing an election to send a message, or minimizing the damage by supporting an electable, minimally offensive, candidate, hoping the next election brings out a strong candidate whom we can fully support?
Unfortunately, in modern politics, an independent has no chance to win the presidency. Do we want Hilary Clinton in the White House? That sends chills (not good ones) down my back. Though I think Dr. Dobson is probably wrong in his public stand, it is up to God to change him if he is not on track with God, not you or me.
Would to God that this country had more people who, like Dobson, are willing to stand up and state what they believe (even if the actions they choose to support those beliefs may or may not be the right ones).
In principle I agree with Dr. Dobson--it does not appear any candidate running for nomination for either party has the values we conservative Christians hold dear.
However, beginning a 3rd party, at least in the short term, would have the same effect that Ross Perot's candidacy had on the 1996 election--Clinton won by default, with a minority (plurality) vote, because the conservative vote in the country was divided between the Republicans and the Independents.
Do we find someone who is the "least of evils" to support, someone who is ELECTABLE and holds SOME of the beliefs we hold dear, or take a hard line and, by voting for an independent, guarantee 4-8 years of liberal politics that may send our country down a path from which it will never recover?
Don't judge Dr. Dobson and others like him for taking a stand. At least he is willing to take a position and try to rally people to join him on his "hilltop". Which honors God more--sacrificing an election to send a message, or minimizing the damage by supporting an electable, minimally offensive, candidate, hoping the next election brings out a strong candidate whom we can fully support?
Unfortunately, in modern politics, an independent has no chance to win the presidency. Do we want Hilary Clinton in the White House? That sends chills (not good ones) down my back. Though I think Dr. Dobson is probably wrong in his public stand, it is up to God to change him if he is not on track with God, not you or me.
Would to God that this country had more people who, like Dobson, are willing to stand up and state what they believe (even if the actions they choose to support those beliefs may or may not be the right ones).
It’s easy to turn this world over to tyrants when one thinks one is going to be rewarded in the next world for being “pure.” As for purity, it’s easy to imagine that a soul can be spotless, just because a body can be spotless, and easy to imagine this “spotlessness” is good, just because we think a spotless body is good.
The Christians must consider whether we can defend Christianity from a charge that Christianity is a revenge doctrine: The world is “dirty,” so we will be “pure” even if it destroys the Earth. Even Heaven is somehow tainted: We await not just “a new Heaven” and “a new Jerusalem,” but even “a new Heaven”! Have we gone too far when we uphold a doctrine of a disposable Earth and a disposable Heaven? “There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death.” I fear that we are the most decent nihilists the world has ever seen, and the least self-knowledgeable. If I am right that James Dobson reinforces such nihilism, he comes to light as an all-unwitting prince of darkness, promoting sin unto death.
Republicans can't win without the block that Dobson represents, but does the non moral conservative wing respect their religion, their politcal power, or their convictions? No, instead they whine about hillary, hurl insults, and condescend. I hate to bring this to your attention but moral conservatives have been fighting the abortion battle for a very long time, and you accepted their support.
You kissed this pig in broad daylight, and in public. You made her promises, and now that she's demanding that you satisify those promises, you suddenly find her unseemly. You seek to badger her into doing your bidding with threats and insults, but as distasteful as it is, you need her. You need her much more than she needs you, after all she has faith and conviction to keep her warm through the long democractic night. What do you have, free trade and open market policies?
Great statement Wormwood.
The GOP are the ones suiciding here. I applaud Dobson and his convictions, because i do not support the "lesser of two evils" philosophy.
Abandon your base, and expect them to react!
Well...
... I was thinking.
I disagree with your beliefs, but certainly agree with your political analysis.
Dr. Dobson would rather be right than President. He will be neither. But isn't the issue for the Republicans rather to win back the Senate? Who confirms the Supreme Court Justices? The Senate. Who ratifies treaties, confirms Cabinet members and top-level Federal appointees? The Senate. Dr. Dobson may not support the head of the ticket--all very well. But don't waste energy on a third-party Ross Perot-cum-Jesse Ventura waltz into the wilderness. Go for the Senate. If Hilary wins (and she will), the answer is blockade. She will go along to get along, that's all she knows, you could write her convictions in one sentence--"do what you gotta do to win". She has to be stopped, and the House is beyiond your reach. Republicans, unite, go for the Senate--you have nothing to lose but your chains.
If the Giuliani is the nominee, the GOP defeat will be because Gerald Ford Republicans decided that this was the time to mount an internal coup within the GOP against the Reaganites.
If Giuliani sweeps the primaries in blue states while the red state Reaganites are divided, one could see how he could squeak to the nomination. But it would be of a bitterly divided party led by people who do not hide their contempt for social conservatives.
Grass roots movements care more about their agendas than about any party. And that is how it should be. Gun owners and the NRA are not going to accept Giuliani's ideas about gun rights just to put a Republican in the White House. Blacks would not accept a candidate who wanted to end affirmative action just to put a Democrat in the White House. Feminists are not going to accept a pro-life Democrat. So why should social conservatives be asked to 'take one for the team' for the sake of the Republican Party ?
There is a fundamental disrespect for the fact that to social conservatives, abortion isn't a "petty issue". To social conservatives it is a moral cause on the level of slavery. Did abolitionists "cool it" about slavery for the sake of the unity of the Whig party ? No. They started a third party. The Republicans. A Pat Buchanan/Lou Dobbs party of protectionism, economic populism, border security, social conservatism, and rejection of neocon war could be the next majority party as it would squarely represent the values and socioeconomic class interests of working class Americans. Who the hell needs libertarians and neocons ? A third party is what happens when the agenda of the people is fundamentally at cross purposes with the agenda of elites and the cross-party elite agenda of free trade and open borders is diametrically opposed to that of the American people.
Dear Dr. Dobson,
Yours is a voice that many Christians in this country listen to. I'm sure many will go along with you. I also wish to say that I agree with your strategy: for too long we have made this Faustian bargain wherein we vote for the less despicable of two candidates because they can win and they're less loathsome than the other probable winner, instead of only granting our vote to a candidate who truly stands for what we believe in. This strategy has gotten us nothing but compromise and regrets.
However, I do wish that you and other evangelical leaders would see the merits in supporting Ron Paul. He is pro-life (and has consistently voted that way), he is a strict constitutionalist, he is for small government, in short, he is everything an American religious conservative would want in a president. If he is not stridently pursuing the morality legislation that some would wish from him, may I simply point out that this is because the constitution does not vest this power in the Federal Government, but in the states. And that is where Dr. Paul believes such issues should be handled.
Cheers,
-dbf
What many people fail to realize is that this is, in a sense, backlash from 2004. Many conservatives loathe George Bush, and were ready to abandon him in 2004. I think we're seeing the neo-cons calling the bluff of the old-school conservatives. I doubt there is a group more willing to stand up for what they believe, so this seems foolhardy to me. But then, the neo-cons have been consistent in exercising bad judgment...
This may finally be the impetus that breaks the two-party lock on politics in America, which I definitely see as a positive development. If a costs a presidential election, so be it. How much worse than W can Hillary be? Long-term, I think it's ultimately for the best.
There is a dark horse candidate in Ron Paul. Despite what the MSM says, he is electable, and will pull a non-trivial number of democrats from Hillary, as many democrats dislike her. Ron Paul's stance on abortion is to let the states decide. I think that's probably as close to a compromise as possible on this issue in this country. It can be palatable to conservatives, as they're not endorsing any pro-choice candidate, and I can't see how liberals could object.
Its good to know that tolerance and acceptance of those who disagree with ones own personal world views is alive and kicking at the observer...
You're all being silly!
This just in. Most recent very extensive world-wide study. Abortion rates do not change as a result of legallity from country to country. In countries where it is illegal however, more women die as a result. read here. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html
Giuliani is the only hope the republicans have of defeating hillary. This is coming from a registered democrat who fully hoped for a Clinton presidency, but even I would probably vote for Giuliani.
A fiscal conservative who doesn't want my teenage daughter to die in a back alley for his cross, or my gay friends to repress themselves for his holy view. Yet my great grandchildren have some hope of not being saddled with debt of 500% gdp!
Please sign me up, I'm voting republican
red stater.
It's funny how people are trying to separate religion from politics and now they are contradicting themselves by saying that religion plays a huge part in politics!!
make up your minds.
I don't hold the words of Mr. Dobson to be the almighty decision of mine or anyone's position in the world. I think Mr. Dobson is very reckless and should be taken with a grain of salt.
who's says that christians are "christ-like" when they persecute others for not thinking like them? I would say that anyone who condemns others for not thinking for themselves are quite evil.
I for one will not put up with this religious right, especially when they are wrong in their actions and words to others.
A recipe for failure in what exactly? If he's not represented he's just not represented. You can't win or fail if you're not in the race. Fuck you for spewing your weak minded polarized bullshit, as if we all have to pick between the two shittiest teams or the world will implode, and cheers to the uber-christian lunatic for keeping his scruples.
Ron Paul in '08 - he's good for secular humanists, objectivists, dissatisfied republicans, alienated democrats, anarcho-capitalists, old school Goldwater conservatives, Voltaire-style liberals, and the religious right!
Limited govt. and a return to constitutional govt. for the win!
www.ronpaul2008.com
www.lewrockwell.com
Why does Dobsen not support Ron Paul?
Is it because Ron will not support the war in Iraq?
Why does Dobsen support the war in Iraq? WWJD
first of all, anyone that votes for a candidate because of said candidates supposed feelings on abortion is very very stupid. the last time everyone voted for GWB, a supposedly prolife candidate he went and started a war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and continues to kill. in the time it took you to read that last sentence his policys have killed an innocent person. if anyone can tell me how they justify that as prolife i would be grateful. the president is supposed to manage the country, and abortion has nothing to do with that. not to mention that no one will ever really be able to over turn abortion, i mean when has anyone even come close to doing anything that actually outlawed abortion. what do you want? do you want women to go to jail for murder who get abortions? they'd have to if it was outlawed. its called equal protection under the law. anyway you've all been used and the people you voted for are liars and manipulators. vote for the good of the country. how come dobsons not supporting ron paul? vote ron paul.
Why does Dobsen not support Ron Paul?
Is it because Ron will not support the war in Iraq?
Why does Dobsen support the war in Iraq? WWJD
@Egerthe: "guarantee 4-8 years of liberal politics that may send our country down a path from which it will never recover"
As opposed to the path your country is going down right now?
Do you have the vaguest idea of how your country now looks to the outside world? You've lost the majority of your reputation throughout the world. This is the legacy of your lunatic republican leaders.
Doesn't Ron Paul oppose abortion?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
What keeps Dobson from supporting Paul?
It's odd: I'm actually pro-choice, but Ron has too many good points to overlook. I'd rather have someone in office that's going to get 80% of things right than the mess we have now.
And a question: does anyone actually feel the nation is better right now than it was in the 90's? The step backwards seems so distinct it's hard to believe people would want to go further in this direction. But perhaps some people (people I've never met) love how things are going?
I hate abortion and won't ever support anyone running for president that agrees with it. Its the ultimate dealbreaker for me. Rudy Giuliani could be a priest for all I care, but if he agrees with abortion I won't support him.
Unfortunately my abortion views usually push me over to the republican side. I'd really like to see some strong democrat candidates that hate abortion.
Why doesn't this ever happen?
Have you checked out Ron Paul? http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
Hard to find anything not to like.
Things never considered by the church-going sheep:
1. If the "road to hell is wide and the gate to heaven narrow," implying that the majority of people will go to hell; and, all unborn children are indeed innocent, then a merciful Christian should prevent the eternal torture of vast numbers of souls by encouraging abortion--thus preventing that which Christians perceive as a soul from the overwhelming likelihood of going to hell after death. In other words, the possible life gets a "free ticket" to a glorious paradise where this soul would worship the Judeo-Christian god for all eternity instead of chancing the likely afterlife of eternal torture to his supposed displeasure!
2. However, if life is defined as beginning before birth, then all aborted fetuses possess sin and must end up in hell as "all have sinned." All miscarriages and accidental in utereo deaths attributed to god-controlled and directed natural processes must necessarily end in eternal suffering as well. It is argued by some theologians that these souls would be offered a fair choice between serving god or denying god, though there is no biblical evidence supporting this (this argument, like the basis of Christian belief) is a manufactured story to explain the curious lackings of manufactured stories. If either point were true, then the Christian god would be neither merciful nor honest.
3. As follows, if such a god truly prescribes all life and all death, and all that exists is composed of his direction, then he is responsible for all life and all death--including abortion. If he holds total control and participation in the universe as required by Christian belief, then a soul's eternity would be his predetermined will as well. If we are to declare that this particular death was the will of god, but this other death went against his will, then he is either chaotically malevolent or he is not omnipotent.
4. In the Roman-assembled, oft-disputed, and heavily-translated text we call the bible--a collection of books that were not written until after all known "real" characters had been dead for quite some time and placed together in one text much later--we are told that "all have sinned" and that "all sins are equal in the eyes of god." This implies that no children are innocent to the Judeo-Christian god; and, that if abortion is a sin, then it is equal to lying which is equal to looking a woman with lustful thoughts which is equal to using the Christian god's name in vain, which is equal to planting two different crops in the same field, etc.... The emphasis of concern which Christians place on this act or that act is not biblical, but entirely subjective to their denomination's doctrine and/or culture. Either the great majority of Christians are hypocrites, the bible is contradictory, god is far more sadistic and cruel than often imagined, or the various books of what we call the bible are flawed replicas of the original manuscripts if such manuscripts ever existed.
5. Though often used to make the concept of war acceptable to Christians, Jesus is providing an answer to the question of taxes when he states "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's," and all other inferences are drawn from culturally and selfishly conjured conclusions about the meaning of that statement. It is notable that most politically-conservative Christians are more vocally upset about the act of paying taxes (which is never defined as sin in the bible) than they are about the act of killing (killing of actual people, not imagined). The act of killing--according to the supposed account of the teachings of Jesus--is defined as a sin no matter what the circumstances may be. Therefore, most Christians have contradictory beliefs that result in a hypocrisy that has continued to allow terrible violence--or god's will is different from his rules forcing humans to fail and suffer, and he is sadistic. It's a good thing killing is equal to lying, is equal to...etc.
6. Let us also note that taxes gathered during the time of Jesus were primarily used to preserve and increase the size of the Roman Empire through violence. Universal health care, support for the impoverished, universal education and other social support systems benefiting all members of a society were either nonexistent or of very low importance. Large armies and luxuries for the richest members of society were the primary uses of tax revenue.
7. Since the bible used by western churches tells us to give to the poor, to not kill and to help each other, it is another example of hypocrisy by politically-conservative Christians that they primarily support tax revenues to be used for purposes similar to those of the Roman Empire, while simultaneously opposing the use of tax dollars for obviously Christian purposes such as health care, social security and education. It's funny how the very things which would make a society more conducive to rearing children are also the very things opposed by those who claim to care the most.
8. In any event, if Jesus did separate the practices of a Christian life from the acts and requirements of governments, then political action by Christians is in contradiction to the supposed teachings of Jesus.
So, it's a good thing the socially conservative are going to lose with the help of one of their nuttiest leaders, since we wouldn't want to see them contradict themselves on yet another issue...
Sounds like Mr. Dobson understands what the author of the article does not -- if you don't have a chance of winning, then lose in a way that gets your base as riled up as possible. Don't throw your support to some bogus late convert to pro-life -- let the Demon Woman win and watch the bug-eyed Xian right come out of the woodwork next time around.
Ah, yes, the pipe dream of liberals - the "religious right,"
bowing out of the electorial process. When it gets down to it, the "religious right" will vote as simple as ABC - Anybody But Clinton.