Posts Tagged ‘Religious Right’

PJ Buchanan

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

The world that Pat Buchanan was talking about and advocating for in this 1988 interview, simply doesn’t exist anymore and we were moving away from it in 1988 if not only escaped from there by then. Gays, no longer live in the closet. African-Americans, have just as much right to vote and are treated the same as Caucasian-Americans now. Women, now work and hold very responsible jobs, making good money, running and managing their own business’s. The music is much different and much more open about life. Americans, now have the freedom and feel the freedom to be themselves. Which is Americans and individuals and we live our lives the way we want to. Not how Pat Buchanan and other Christian-Conservatives feel we should live.

The 1950s, was great for America in many ways. We were not just the economic superpower of the world, but became the number one military and diplomatic power in the world. This was post-World War II where our economy boomed and our infrastructure system boomed as a result. But the problem with this era was that many Americans didn’t benefit from these American advances. Not because of anything that they did, but because of how they were born. Their complexion, their race, their ethnicity, their religion, their gender. Not because they were, or could be any less productive than Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. What the 1960s and the 1980s brought to America, was true individual freedom. Both from a personal and economic standpoint.

If you watch this video, think you see Pat Buchanan, essentially acknowledging what I’m arguing here. That the America that he grew up with in the 1950s simply no longer exists. And when he was asked, “do you want to use government to bring that America back?” He answered truthfully and honestly and said he doesn’t believe that, because its simply not possible. Which is a very practical answer and the correct answer. As far as the 1988 presidential election, you had Vice President George H.W. Bush, for the Republican Party. Who represented President Ronald Reagan and his policies in that election. Going up against Governor Michael Dukakis, who represented the New America and the direction that America has been moving to ever since.
Remember This-C-SPAN: Pat Buchanan- Biography, Apartheid, Culture War, Foreign Policy, Free Trade: 1988 Interview


Read Full Post »

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on Blogger

As a straight man I’m obviously not the most qualified person to speak about homosexuality and what homosexuals go through in America or anywhere else around the world. But I am qualified to speak about what I see as far as the bigotry that’s thrown at homosexuals as a Liberal, as a blogger and as someone who is friends with gay people and someone whose worked with Gay people as well. Plus the bigotry that I’ve seen and read get thrown at gays just because they are gay and who they are attracted to.

And how gays carry themselves. Which is what I’m going to do in this blog, and not trying to speak as an expert on homosexuality which I’m clearly not. Just like a gay person wouldn’t be an expert on heterosexuality because of simple fact they aren’t straight and they do not know what it’s like to be straight. And bisexuals may be the only people who could possibly be qualified to be experts on both homosexuality and heterosexuality because they’ve lived the life as both at least to a certain extent.

As a Liberal I actually do believe in the old fashion conservative notion of personal responsibility. That we must be held accountable for our actions for good and bad. Fine I agree with that, but I’m going to give homophobes a pass when it comes to their homophobia just for this reason. Because and I don’t know this as a fact, but if I had to guess the overwhelming majority of homophobes didn’t decide that they are against homosexuality. Or the way they would put it, they do not agree with homosexuality. When they turned eighteen or twenty-one.

That its something that was already part of homophobes lives much longer before those two very important birthdays. And that since a lot of their homophobia if not all of it comes from a religious vantage point and they grow up in strict religious households or communities, that a lot of their homophobia comes to them when they are in church or from their families. That’s one theory and the other one coming from lets say lack of exposure to gay people and not being friends with those people and not having a good idea what its like to be around gay people.

This might sound like a fantasy or something, but I bet if you took the one-hundred of the most bigoted homophobes who didn’t have violent or murderous tendencies, that their homophobia was purely verbal and how they think rather than how they act and you had them live in a community of homosexuals for let’s say a week or a month or even longer than that, the Homophobes views of homosexuals would change drastically. Because they would see that gay people are people almost just like them, but attracted to the other gender and perhaps a little more feminine or masculine. To play off of a gay stereotype.

And that hay people perhaps have different interests, but that they would find things to agree on as well. And even talk about that and homophobia like all other forms of bigotry are based on simple ignorance. Having strong feelings about something that you simply don’t know much about which of course is dangerous. I really believe this because just look at the last ten years where back in 2003-04 gay-marriage was seen as a fringe issue. Now at least half of Americans are in favor of gay-marriage.

But even ten years ago when gay-marriage was unpopular the idea of civil unions seemed mainstream and an appropriate alternative. So we’ve made a lot of progress in just ten years. Which gets to my point that the more people know about something and see that it’s not dangerous and certainly not a threat to you, the harder it is to hate that thing. And more Americans are simply learning more about homosexuality and knowing gay people and seeing that these people are good people by in large just like straights.

Read Full Post »

PM Stephen Harper & PM Benjamin Netanyahu
The only thing I agree with F.H. Buckley in his piece comparing Canadian Conservatives with American Conservatives is that “Canada shouldn’t look South for right-wing inspiration”. For obvious reasons I believe, but a big one being that a Canadian Conservative is probably to the left of a American Center-Left Liberal Democrat. Canadian Conservatives look more like FDR Progressives than Goldwater Conservatives.
To risk stating the obvious Canadian conservatism even looks different from American conservatism even in the classical conservative sense like Barry Goldwater or Bill Buckley, or today with Senator Rand Paul. So so-called religious conservatism or religious conservatives who look like theocrats to most of the rest of the world would never fly politically to a Canadian country that if anything is more secular than America and if anything believes in a bigger separation of church and state than Americans as a whole outside of our Bible Belt.
Canadian Conservatives to me at least represent the best form of a right-wing movement perhaps in the Western world. Because as much as Canada gets stereotyped as a big government socialist state it really isn’t. Their Federal Government and they do have a Federal system spends less of their country’s Gross Domestic Product than we do. And they tax business less than America does. And they do believe in fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism more than American so-called Conservatives. At least in the sense of not taxing and spending and running up big debts and deficits annually. And take a conservative fiscal look across their Federal budget including their defense budget more than American so-called Conservatives do.
There’s really nothing wrong with the Canadian right-wing at least as I see it as an American. They have true Conservatives up there who believe in good government. But part of good government is limited government since there is a limit to the good that government can do for people especially if people aren’t willing to do everything for themselves. And Canada should simply just focus on what works in Canada. As Americans hopefully will get back to what works in America.

Read Full Post »



Source: The Washington Post: Opinion- Matt Miller- How Democrats Can Save Yhe GOP

If I was nothing more than a partisan Democrat who didn’t care that much about the American political system. And American politics in general except for of course how it effected the Democratic Party. And I wasn’t a broader political junky who did care about American political system and American politics. I would tell the current Republican Party to keep doing what you are doing and stay on course. Continue to treat personal freedom like it’s a threat to national security and forget about states rights. As they relate to social issues and continue to treat immigrants who do not come from Europe as invaders. And ethnic and racial minorities as Un American who do not deserve full American citizenship and constitutional rights as. European-Americans and are people who should go home to the land of their ancestors. But even though I’m a proud Liberal and a proud Liberal Democrat, the Democratic Party is not the only. Thing that I care about when it comes to American politics and our political system.

The two-party system in America works best when both parties are strong. Not divided government necessarily but when both parties are strong enough to compete with the other. So maybe we do have united government from a partisan perspective. Meaning one party controls both the White House and Congress House and Senate. But where the minority party has enough seats in Congress and the resources and candidates available to win all three back or at. Least part of the Federal Government back and today that’s where we are basically politically. One strong party in the Democratic Party with the White House and Senate. And the opposition party the Republican Party holding the House to serve as a check. That’s where we are today but long-term if the Republican Party holds course and still relies mainly on what I call. It’s Confederate base of mainly Southern and rural Neoconservative Republicans mostly Caucasian and male. To win elections todays strong GOP will evaporate and become a far-right third-party basically. With Democrats controlling everything in huge numbers and we become basically a one-party state.

That’s the situation for the Republican Party in near future as the country is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. And less Caucasian with more Americans of all racial and ethnic backgrounds living in metropolitan areas. Meaning for the Republican Party to compete they are going to have to win over voters in non-traditional areas. And stop kissing off the Northeast, big states in the Midwest like Michigan and Illinois at the Presidential level. As well as California and the way we are moving demographically. Arizona and Texas are heading towards becoming swing-states that Democratic presidential candidates will be able to compete. In and win and win at the state level as well and win the state legislature. Republicans can prevent this by bringing in new voters especially Latinos and women but Gays as well who tend. To be economically Conservatives and stop treating these groups as immoral or Un American or just a waste of their time.

I’ve blogged before that the problem with todays Republican Party is that it’s not Conservative enough. Rather than being too Conservative and that they do not believe in states rights and individual freedom enough. That their positions on these issues are too limited rather than believing in them too much. That the way to save the Republican Party is for them to be more Conservative and move away from the Neoconservative Statist policies and views.

Read Full Post »


Big Government Republican

Imagine if President Obama said he wanted more Americans on Public Assistance. Instead of in Higher Education, imagine how the Right Wing would’ve reacted. They would’ve called Barack Obama a Socialist, see we’ve been right all along. Barack Obama is a Socialist. He wants more people in America dependent on government. Instead of taking care of themselves, he wants to transform America into Europe.

Rick Santorum and the rest of the Right Wing can’t have it both ways and be credible. If you believe Higher Education and being Self Sufficient is the right thing. Instead of being dependent on Public Assistance. Something they’ve been saying for eighty years if not longer. Then you can’t say well thats a bad idea now, just because someone you don’t like agrees with you. What you should be saying instead, is that Government Dependence is bad and we need more people working. In America paying their own bills, instead of living off of people who do. Even Barack Obama understands this, we’ve been right all along.

People simply for the most part unless they are an athlete or entertainer. Can’t make it on their own in America, with just a High School diploma. Are economy is just too advanced now, people need Higher Education. And get those extra skills just to have a good chance of getting a good job in this country. Which is something that President Obama was acknowledging and Rick Santorum doesn’t understand.

Read Full Post »

Source: Chicago Tribune: Opinion- Kathleen Parker: Rick Santorum, President Obama’s Dream Opponent

Imagine this. You’re a member of the Opposition Party, facing a President that has presided over the Great Recession. The worst recession we’ve had since the Great Depression of the 1930s. You’re facing a President that’s also presided over a fairly modest if not weak economic recovery. We are still growing at around 2% GDP with 8.2$ unemployment. We now have a national debt that’s larger than our economy. We now have a budget deficit that’s 13% of our GDP and we have the highest poverty rate in twenty years.

The up incoming presidential election is almost completely about the economy. At least to Independent voters that will decide the presidential election. So all you need is a presidential nominee that can talk economics and communicate a plan back to strong economic growth. And bring down our high unemployment rate. You do that and ask the question, “are you better off today, then you were four years ago?” You win the presidential election by 5-10 points and take Congress with you.

I just laid out the perfect storm for how Republicans should be able to win back the White House. But the problem is we are dealing with a Republican Party that’s now dominated by religious and Neoconservatives that believe gay marriage and pornography are bigger threats to the country, than terrorism or the weak economic recovery. They don’t live in the same world as sane people. They care more about ideological purity than they do winning presidential elections. Someone who represents their Far-Right big government political ideology. Than winning the presidential election and doing what’s in the best interest of the country.

Which is the whole reason why Rick Santorum is seen as a serious contender for the presidential nomination. When thirty years ago he would’ve been seen as nothing more than a Far-Right presidential candidate, like Pat Robertson. Like an escaped mental patient who wondered into a political convention and just got this vision that he was President of the United States and got someone to fill out the paperwork for him.

But the problem with the GOP today is that they have more Pat Robertson’s than Barry Goldwater’s or Ron Reagan’s, when it comes to social Issues and national security. Sure, the Far-Right has it’s presidential candidate. And a competitive shot at winning the presidential nomination. The problem for the GOP is most of the country isn’t part of the Far-Right. And someone like a Rick Santorum would have a hard time winning 45% of the vote. And would kill the GOP’s chances of retaining the House and winning back the Senate.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: