(This is part 2 of a…

(This is part 2 of a 2-part post, split due to (apparent) Blogger size limitations. The first part appears below this post, as they’re posted in reverse chronological order.)

The same could be said about Republicans vis-a-vis the Pat Robertson presidential bid some years back. The difference is, however, that views of the “religious right” happen to match up quite well with conservative values (protecting the life of the unborn, allowing people to keep more of the fruits of their labor, defending traditional marriage), whereas the views of the “religious left” (Jackson, Sharpton, et. al.), which seek to factionalize, don’t mesh well at all with the people they supposedly admire (e.g. King, as in the “race is character” quote from Clinton). The “religious right” doesn’t factionalize nearly as much as the “religious left” does. Both claim to come from a moral viewpoint, but the Robertsons and the Falwells mesh better within their chosen political party, even if they do have to be distanced on occasion.

That last point cannot be understated. When the Falwells and the Robertsons of the “religious right” start politicizing things that ought not to be, or make outlandish statements, no one is quicker to denounce them than conservatives. And that doesn’t just apply to the specifically religious element of the party, either. David Duke is not viable in the Republican party, not because of Democrat opposition, but Republican. Senator Bill Frist owes his new position as Senate Majority Leader to Republican votes. Dennis Hastert is Speaker of the House instead of Bob Livingston because Livingston stepped down over moral issues, something Bill Clinton wouldn’t do given worse offenses.

Both parties have internal disagreements. You can’t get around that with such a diverse population split among two major parties. The problem for the Democrats is that they’ve relied on the dynamics of those factions to keep folks feeling victimized, voting for Democrats so they can keep getting favorable treatment of one form or another. This has worked for Democrats for far too long, and it probably got them more votes than showing themselves to be the party of socialized medicine, equal outcome instead of equal opportunity (i.e. socialized results), wealth redistribution (i.e. socialized economics) and moral relativism (i.e. socialized values).

However, it appears that folks might be getting wise to that (at least that’s my optimistic view of the results of last November’s elections). If so, factionalization may be on the wane, which means that unity just might be making a comeback.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!