More on Parker and Her Comrades
Written by YellowJacket on November 19th, 2008Mike’s post below prompted me to post a bit more about the situation, with the Frums, Parkers, et al jumping ship and completely misdiagnosing the problems of the GOP.
Mike and everyone, you are missing a true gem in Ms. Parker’s latest piece. Surprise, surprise, she has completely jumped on the “we need to ditch social conservatives,” bandwagon.
Apparently these people have been blind for the last 8 years, because for the life of me I can’t see how anyone who calls themselves “conservative,” can see the massive growth of government, both financially and over the bounds of the Constitution, and act like the problem is just simply social conservatism. The Party needs to return to traditional conservative values in line with the Constitution. I feel like I’m yelling at a wall here sometimes.
Read Kathleen Parker’s piece (seriously, it’ll make you want to throw things), then read Jonah Goldberg’s response at the Corner:
I don’t know what’s more grating, the quasi-bigotry that has you calling religious Christians low brows, gorillas and oogedy-boogedy types or the bravery-on-the-cheap as you salute — in that winsome way — your own courage for saying what (according to you) needs to be said. Please stop bragging about how courageous you are for weathering a storm of nasty email you invite on yourself by dancing to a liberal tune. You aren’t special for getting nasty email, from the right or the left. You aren’t a martyr smoking your last cigarette. You’re just another columnist, talented and charming to be sure, but just another columnist. You are not Joan of the Op-Ed Page. Perhaps the typical Washington Post reader (or editor) doesn’t understand that. But you should, and most conservatives familiar with these issues can see through what you’re doing.
For the record, I have no problem with arguments about how the GOP has become too religious. I ended my book with pretty much that argument. I opposed Mike Huckabee vociferously because he seemed the quintessential rightwing progressive imbued with a rightwing social gospel. These are all good arguments to make and they have good responses to them. But please drop the nonsense about how the G-O-D people or the Palin people are low brows and beasts. There are low brows and beasts everywhere, on every side of the ideological spectrum. Maybe if you got more ecumenical hate email you’d realize that.
Update: Jonah Goldberg has more.
19
AM
She is a tad over the top, but I think the biggest thing to take from her piece of work is how many view the Religious Right.
Like it or not, the religious right has a huge PR problem and its sinking the party. They need to tone it down or they will be marginalized. It scares the living crap out of people including other white Christians like myself. Let alone what it does to more diverse groups.
19
AM
Kathleen Parker indicated that she should no longer be taken seriously when she wrote her column about why McCain chose Palin. Her interpretation? McCain chose Palin because he was sexually attracted to her. How did Parker know this? Parker discovered this, she wrote, when she realized that her husband was also sexually attracted to Palin.
Ummm…. Yeah.
19
AM
Ryan, I agree with you, and with Jonah Goldberg. But Goldberg’s and my response are the same - while yes, some evangelicals need to tone it down and realize that it’s not just their party (cough, Mike Huckabee, cough), the argument that we should ditch social conservatism and the people who believe in it completely is rubbish.
I’ll go out on a limb and guess that the vast majority of social conservatives are people like me - who are more private about their faith, but are still concerned with conservative issues (both social AND fiscal). The very vocal minority need to calm down though.
19
AM
I would agree with your assessment of most social conservatives. Most live private lifestyles and are worried about something being imposed on them by another group. The minority in the movement, which controls the leadership of it, is so much of the problem. Faith for most Americans is a private matter. Expressions of it in public make people feel uneasy.
19
AM
This is a great response to the RedState article by a commenter:
JoeG November 19th, 2008 at 1:11 a.m. CST (link)
This libertarian isn’t going
Everything that I stand for is pretty much is opposed by the democrats. They are anti-libertarian.
They support stifling of opposing viewpoints.
They ignore the existence of the second amendment.
I do not for one minute think that I’m about to be told how to worship by social conservatives. I do believe that liberals wish to create a national Church of atheism.
I believe that democrats will whine about the supposed violations of privacy by the Bush administration, then turn right around and abuse governmental power to dig on every private detail of someone who dares to ask a question of their nominee that the nominee doesn’t like.
That said, I’m more than happy to embrace a candidate like Jindal or Palin. I am certain Jindal can attract the social conservatives all the while not being a sellout on taxes, social spending and economic regulation. I’m a little less certain on Palin, but have a very good feeling about her.
I can not ask social conservatives to support Juliani or Romney. In turn, I ask that they understand why I can’t support someone like Huckabee.
19
AM
The social conservatives need to understand why someone with a libertarian outlook would oppose someone like Mike Huckabee.
Again the social conservatives blew it by putting forward a candidate that highlights their worst qualities. The movement needs to really get a grip on its image or it will be marginalized in our society.
19
AM
Dude, I’m a social conservative - and I can’t STAND Mike Huckabee. I think the only ones who did like him were the Bible-beaters who wear their religion on their sleeve.
I may be a SoCon, but I’m also a FisCon, a Federalist, and somewhat of a libertarian, so there’s no way I wanted a nanny-statist, Big Government guy like Huckabee.
I liked Senator Thompson because he had that perfect mix of being socially conservative, fiscally conservative, and in favor of true federalism and limited government. This can be a winning message, and I wish Fred had preached it (no pun intended) with more gusto.
19
AM
From an ideological perspective, Thompson was the best candidate in the field, but got little traction because he was also the smartest guy. His policy stances were sound, but even elements of the religious right attacked him for not being ardent enough. He is a true federalist.
You have a good reason to be offended by Huckabee. He is worse than Bush. He truly believes in something resembling a European style Christian Democracy ideology. Essentially, a values driven nanny state. I want to puke over such a thought.
19
AM
See, Ryan? We can get along on this issue! The real point is telling some people to pipe down a little bit (a minority of evangelicals), and telling other people to speak up (for limited, Federalist government).
19
PM
I think the majority of people view the SoCons as the face of the republican party. Rightfully so because of our last president grew the Government like never before. This is what needs to change and this is why the Libertians are being so vocal right now.
And honestly this is the only way to get some of the young vote back. Unfortunately so many young people vote for what is hip and cool. Selling them the religious right is never going to work. Selling them small government is.
19
PM
For a generation who has grown up in an area of nearly unlimited choices, a party that advocates people making choices has a clear leg up. The Religious Right comes off as being anti-choice on a number of things.
I think we are going to have to forfeit the gay marriage issue though. Way too many young people know way too many gay young people. Its hard to argue for a policy that is seen as discriminatory to a friend. Unless the right can come up with a policy based on facts and statistics not beliefs, they need to punt the issue.
19
PM
Well, Ryan, again I will argue the Federalist view of gay marriage - leave it up to the states to determine whether they want to recognize it. The Defense of Marriage Act was not out of bounds, however, because it simply laid out that one state would not be forced to acknowledge a gay marriage that occurred in another state.
Again, this is an issue that we can reach more sensibly and with less emotional rhetoric at the more local level, state-by-state.
19
PM
Then the Federal Marriage Amendment also needs to be struck from the platform and replaced with something saying each state should be left to determine its own marriage laws.
19
PM
I agree with you Ryan.
19
PM
Less you guys forget Huckabee did not garner the the SoCon vote until the primaries were widdled down to himself, McCain, and Romney. And even with that he split a lot of it w/Romney.
I think you guys also are forgetting that while we have 3 pillars to the stool, many of us fall into multiple categories. I am socially conservative and fiscally conservative and I believe in a strong defense. I am all 3 pillars.
If and when we nominate a conservative candidate that is strong on all 3 pillars we will win again. We should not sacrifice one pillar for the benefit of another. The stool falls over.
19
PM
Benaiah, that is my point exactly.
19
PM
Wow . . . I wanted reach into my monitor and strangle her when I read this bit:
“Here’s the deal, ‘pubbies: Howard Dean was right.”
She can think Howard Dean is right about something all she wants, but “‘pubbies”? Serously? I can get that sort of pejorative crap at DU or Daily Kos and it drives me crazy to see a “conservative” write that crap. What next? Is she going to start refering to “repugs”, “wingnuts”, “religiodt” or “bushitlernazis!!1!”? STFU if that is all you have to offer. Personally I think she is enjoying her notoriety a bit too much and is intentionally saying inflammatory shit now just to be annoying.
Of course I just saw Jonah thinks the same thing:
“Moreover, as a matter of political analysis it’s beyond absurd to think the GOP can become a majority party by adopting a rhetorical tone toward religious conservatives usually found at the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos. I’m sure Bill Maher agrees with Kathleen. But normally, at least for people who call themselves conservatives, when Bill Maher agrees with you it’s a sign that you took a wrong turn somewhere.”
Yeah, what he just said.
This is what it boils down to for me and why her whole argument is specious:
“Even Sarah Palin has blamed Bush policies for the GOP loss. She’s not entirely wrong, but she’s also part of the problem. Her recent conjecture about whether to run for president in 2012 (does anyone really doubt she will?) speaks for itself:
“I’m like, okay, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I’m like, don’t let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is…. And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it’s something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I’ll plow through that door.”
Let’s do pray that God shows Alaska’s governor the door.”
So Sarah Palin is part of the over-the-top “God rhetoric” that is dragging down the party because she she mentions that her faith in God leads her to ask that she be able to see an opportunity when it is available? Palin’s statement was the softest, friendliest, most “Reader’s Digest” type Christianity that is out there. No preaching, no condescension, no talk of gays or abortion or “my Lord and personal savior Jesus Christ”, just the casual (and very common) sentiment that she hopes God helps show her the way forward for her family and her career. Personally I think this ticks of Kathleen Parker more than the God reference: “I’m like, okay,”. This sounds like some woman being catty to another woman who she thinks speaks too poorly to be head of the local PTA.
Many millions of Americans share Palin’s sentiments and this isn’t a case of an evangelical bashing her religion over our heads and Kathleen Parker knows this.
She really reveals herself with this statement:
“Meanwhile, it isn’t necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world’s architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents.”
Let me paraphrase: Yeah Christianity has done some nice things for us, we got some pretty buildings and Notre Dame, Rice, Wake Forest out of the mix and I guess our Founders were Christians so it’s not all bad.
What about Christianity for Christianity’s sake? What about the actual moral and spiritual benefits conferred to the practitioner? What about the ennobling belief in God? How about the power that the faith that God loves you can give you to persevere through life’s struggles? Kathleen Parker mentions none of that, if religion to her is the Hagia Sophia, Boston College and the Constitution then that ain’t religion at all, it is a cultural appreciation of history’s offerings, nothing more.
And that is fine if that is what she wants to believe, but let’s not lump all of the reasonable, private, God-fearing Christians out there into “the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP” because those people are a minority of a minority. They make headlines because they are so wild, but that isn’t representative of even the social conservative wing of the GOP, let alone American Christianity in general.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Parker would find C.S. Lewis too pushy and would think of the Pope as a hardcore “Christianist” if he weren’t a Catholic.
Seriously, STFU until you have something more intelligent to say.