Video: Ryan Sager on evangelicals versus libertarians Updated
posted at 11:34 am on November 14, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
From Saturday’s Heartland with John Kasich. He was on to discuss his new book and the prospects of keeping the Republican alliance together. Will we implode before the Democrats do? If so, do I leave the party or does Bryan? And will Michelle keep us both on at Hot Air, or does one of us get a pink slip and a kick to the, um…
Update (Bryan): How about we compromise and kick Sager out? He’s the one who has spent the past four years or so trying to purge the GOP of all Christians and everyone else who doesn’t agree with his pretty narrow libertarianism.
Update (Bryan): Ali Bubba has some salient words for Ryan Sager and anyone who would listen to him:
Sager’s arguments — except so far as they reflect the general Republican consensus on such matters as corruption and out-of-control spending — are divisive and harmful to the GOP. There is nothing to be gained for the Republican Party by listening to Sager’s attacks on evangelical Christians, social conservatives and Southerners. Get new leaders, recruit new candidates, and watch like hawks for opportunities to capitalize on the predictable blunders of liberal Democrats.
Fix that mojo. Everything else is just noise.
Read the whole thing. And ignore 99% of what Sager says and writes. He’s a Kevin Phillips in the making.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Well, it’s the leadership of the party that is shoving both the evangelicals and the libertarians out, and dividing us as they do so.
Do we really want to discuss the recriminations in daylight, or did the traffic hit 100k already?
steveegg on November 14, 2006 at 11:38 AM
This is Sager’s one-trick schtick. It’s nothing new–he just despises non-libertarians and especially Christians. He’s been trying to start this fight for about four years or so now, and I’d suggest to him that he find a new act. This one’s wearing thin.
Bryan on November 14, 2006 at 11:47 AM
As an Evangelical, I held my nose and voted a straight Republican ticket. Sager hit the nail on the head when he said that Republicans elected in 2004 did not deliver on the promises that attracted voters like myself.
We are NOT Libertarians. We are Conservative in every way: Smaller government with enforcement of laws and laws based on moral principles. Moving to the center allienates both Libertarians and Evangelicals for different reasons.
The party is in deep trouble!
LonelyMassRepublican on November 14, 2006 at 11:47 AM
Notice that near the end, Kasich concedes Republicans lost because they didn’t stand up for principles, but he agrees with the author that social conservatives are “ruining” the party because they stand by their principles, or what Kasich derides as “wedge issues.” I used to like Kasich. He has turned out to be such a weenie, and apparently a good fit the the new Republican party.
huckleberry on November 14, 2006 at 11:49 AM
Politics does indeed make straaaaange bed fellows. I’m an Evangelical Libertarian Crunchy Con—can I be all those things at once?
seejanemom on November 14, 2006 at 11:50 AM
Heh, how very typical.
“We don’t like you, just keep voting for our side, shut-up and sit in the back of the room.”
Yes, how dare we expect Republicans to keep their word and tackle these issues that concern us. How dare we turn on them when they don’t.
Those days are obviously over. Even though the vast majority of evangelicals still came out and voted for Republicans it was enough of a shift to cost them dearly. Expect more of the same unless we are dealt with honestly and shown genuine concern for the issues we feel are important.
So Republicans can either recognize that they have two distinct bases they have to keep happy and balance that out or they can count on losing more elections. The sad thing is that their recent decisions have been costing them votes from both of those bases.
Benaiah on November 14, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Well, I guess I’m the diametrical opposite of LonelyMassRepublican. I’ve been voting Republican because I’m interested in smaller government and strong defense. I suspect that if LMR were to try to enforce his “moral principles” on me, I’d be pretty irritated.
But notice. We’re both interested in smaller government. I think if the Republican leadership were to deliver on that principle, it would hold the coallition together.
-Farmer Joe, aka Lonely Mass “Republican”
Farmer_Joe on November 14, 2006 at 11:52 AM
The Republicans should start their own Fight Club and then we could settle this all in friendly, violent ways.
frankj on November 14, 2006 at 11:53 AM
I hate the term Evangelicals. Evangelism is part of Christianity. I know people that share their faith from every denomination. The term has become so politcized it is just a talking point now.
The next few elections will be decided candidate by candidiate. Republicans just grew the middle. Pelosi will more than likely do the same. Swing states will be even more important. Rhetoric will go by the way side and politicians will have to run on substance, results, and voting records.
Theworldisnotenough on November 14, 2006 at 11:58 AM
The quicker and the bloodier, the BETTER!
seejanemom on November 14, 2006 at 11:58 AM
I’ve got my armament drawn and ready. Brass knuckles? Check. Knives? Check. Aluminum baseball bat? Check. Sword? Check. M1911? Check. Bulletproof vest? Who wants to live forever?
steveegg on November 14, 2006 at 12:03 PM
Ryan Sager is teh sexy.
armylawyer on November 14, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Frankj!!
Honestly… Rule #2, DO NOT TALK ABOUT REPUBLICAN FIGHT CLUB!
Hoodlumman on November 14, 2006 at 12:06 PM
I have 4 suits of armor, I can loan out 3, so anyone who needs one can ask.
They are: Japanese, 14th Cen. Plate, Leather Brigandine
tormod on November 14, 2006 at 12:11 PM
It has been my experience that Libertarian type Republicans don’t care much about the social issues that we Christian conservatives do. It’s like they are willing to give us those issues as long as we stand with them on smaller govt., lower taxes, and less regulation, fight gun control, and fight for property rights. And we stand with them on those issues just fine. So I don’t see a big problem here. As long as we support candidates that include all those things mentioned.
Rightwingsparkle on November 14, 2006 at 12:11 PM
This can be settled in one episode of “Celebrity Death Match”. Gingrich vs Guilliani
LakeRuins on November 14, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Well, speaking personally, I can say that I care a great deal about them. Probably, in the opposite direction that you do, though.
Farmer_Joe on November 14, 2006 at 12:16 PM
Fatal Four-Way – Gingrich vs Giuliani vs Romney vs McCain.
And I claim the role of Johnny Gomez.
steveegg on November 14, 2006 at 12:22 PM
The strategy is pretty straightforward. Take those wedge issues and push them out of the Federal government and to the states. Then the various flavors of Republicans will be able to focus on the national issues. Why in the heck would we confuse the war on terror and immigration with incredibly personal issues like abortion? Sager makes sense.
shirgall on November 14, 2006 at 12:36 PM
I’m a Christian and I have socially conservative values, but I don’t want government legislating those ideals. I want government to get out of the way so I can freely practice my ideals!
That’s why, even as a social conservative, I can happily support a candidate like Giuliani. As long as he pledges to nominate originalist/constitutionalist judges, his opinion on social issues are not as important to me as his stances on foreign policy and shrinking government.
aero on November 14, 2006 at 12:38 PM
There ya go! I can support that.
Farmer_Joe on November 14, 2006 at 12:39 PM
shirgall,
I agree. Many social issues are best dealt with by the states–they just don’t belong at the federal level.
aero on November 14, 2006 at 12:40 PM
I don’t find that the GOP stands with libertarians very well at all. I refused to vote GOP this time around because they overspent even worse than the Dems did. (Not that it matters much, I live in a blue state so my vote is thrown away no matter who I vote for.)
shirgall on November 14, 2006 at 12:40 PM
Guiliani and McCain stink on the gun ownership issue. I would never vote for them for president.
shirgall on November 14, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Message to Mr. Kasich and Mr. Sager: the Party needs to run on principles and not simply campaign on a ‘we are better than the Democrats’ platform. The Republican party is failed in 2006 because it failed to promote an agenda (look at Reagan, look at the ‘Contract With America’). You can’t expect to maintain your party base and get cross-over votes without an agenda. Stop attacking the Christian, conservative base of the party.
If this is what Kasich really thinks, I’m glad he is out of Congress. As for Mr. Sager, who cares what he thinks. A guy writes ‘ONE’ book and now FOX considers him an expert! What’s wrong with that picture.
P.S. I want to see the video of Sager at the Fight Club when it’s available.
gmaninatl on November 14, 2006 at 12:43 PM
That’s not very “crunchy con” of you.
Rick on November 14, 2006 at 12:52 PM
Our libertarian friends are making a good point that many of the social conservative issues should be “fought out” at the state and local level. I agree. But if you examine the national agenda of the social conservatives, you will see that it is a national resistance to the federal instrusion into state and local politics that has been foisted on us by the liberals. The fatal mistake of the Republicans was failing to fight the battle against the growth of federal spending on local issues… they embraced it and seemingly out-liberaled the liberals.
huckleberry on November 14, 2006 at 12:52 PM
I’ll say that while I am an evangelical christian, I do have some libertarian leanings. I just can’t support a party that’s pro-death. I’m all for MUCH smaller government though and I don’t think the government needs to be sticking it’s head into half the issues it does these days.
Benaiah on November 14, 2006 at 12:56 PM
The first rule of Fight Club is not talking about Fight Club. You knew that, right? ;)
jaleach on November 14, 2006 at 1:00 PM
Make that ‘a quarter or an eighth’ of the issues it does these days and I’m with you. For the most part, I just want the government to leave me alone.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 1:02 PM
I should add – Sager sucks. He’s a bit too antagonistic toward evangelicals to be any part of an effort to bring the parties together.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 1:14 PM
As Janet Jackson said, “What have you done for me lately” Republican party?
Of course, the black voters could ask the democrats the same thing.
SouthernGent on November 14, 2006 at 1:26 PM
Curse ye, SouthernGent, for putting that song in my head.
I rain down a curse of ABBA upon you:
Well I can dance with you honey
If you think its funny
Does your mother know that youre out?
And I can chat with you baby
Flirt a little maybe
Does your mother know that youre out?
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 1:31 PM
bryan, i think you should consider how patient we’ve been while individual rights-based liberty principles have been marginalised in favor of “family” issues.
its true. i’m sick of the ultimatums. inteligent design is silly, and you shouldn’t have the right to federal matching dollars if you elect to teach your children mythology in place of science. i don’t care if “god” made us heterosexual so as to beget the family as a social unit, in turn creating a civic model who’s highest expression is a godly kingdom. keep it to yourself. it violates the constitution, and the constitution is the only operative document with regard to which relationships the government can privlege. america is not based on christian values, its based on western values, of which christianity is only one single facet and nothing more, and in fact a lesser contributor than classical values.
jummy on November 14, 2006 at 1:32 PM
First of all, Kasich is a moron. “Wedge issues”? Why strive for power if you don’t *stand* for something.
A moron…and hard to watch on TV. There. I feel better.
…from a strictly practical standpoint, if you are presented a way forward which has you prioritizing the how you serve which part of your base, and you have to choose between “evangelicals” (”values voters”) and so-called libertarians, whom do you count on.
…hmmm…evangelicals or libertarians.
…evangelicanls…fired-up, organized, loyal if you treat ‘em right…the “country music fans” of modern politics. You can put out a crap CD…er…a crap policy, and they take the long view.
…libertarians…so-called…what *ARE* we talking about here? Anti-gun-control, but also not religious? Anti-tax-hike, but also not religious? Who *ARE* they, first of all. Secondly, who’re squishy at best. If libertarians were such a force *IN AND OF THEMSELVES*, the Libertarian Party wouldn’t be such a collection of chattery stiffs…the “girl with great personality” at the political sock-hop.
Trying to get some libertarians to congeal around an issue is like trying to make snowballs with sand.
…in the end, it’s a false dichotomy.
Probably most of the dreaded, betrayed base of the Republican Party is *BOTH* libertarian *AND*…er…I won’t use the abused term “evangelical”…a values voter. Liberty is chief among those values.
Somebody wanna tell me something: just who’s on this “bring about the theocracy” committee, anyway? They’re damned slow, whoever they are.
This Sager guy, and Kasich and his “wedges” (sounds like sour grapes of some sort), sounded for a bit like Democrats! “Bush is going to enforce *his* values on America!” *faint from vapors*
“The Evangelicals are coming! They’re going to make us all go to church/tithe/sober up/stop buggering our chihuahuas! Run for the hills…take off the high-heels first! Pound crooked pieces of wood over all the windows! Flee! Run away!”
The illustration Sager himself used was key: they put homosexual marriage on the ballot, the Republicans are saved from themselves. They lose that sort of thing as a rudder…and likewise ignore other of Kasich’s “wedges” like the border…and concentrate their campaigns on “keep Pelosi out of the Speakership”, “the War’s not *THAT* bad”, or the execrable “Support the President!”, and they get their a$$es handed to them.
…no brainer…and, take it from me…I’ve got the apptitude test scores to verify it…no brainer!
One other thing Sager said was interesting: that they (the evangelicals) get promised a lot, and they don’t get much.
So…deliver!
You seek, campaign for and get power in order to *do something*. If your end is office, or to get and maintain party primacy, do us all a favor and run for dog catcher.
If he doesn’t want somebody to get their evangelical peanut butter on his precious libertarian chocolate, he’d better go to academia…politics is too rough a game for him.
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 1:34 PM
I don’t think Bryan is saying that. I read his statement as simply saying that Sager has been trying to pick this particular fight for years, and it’s not helpful. Finding where we can compromise and work together is a heck of a lot more useful than trying to force some ideological purity on the party from either side.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 1:35 PM
Keep talking to Christians like that, jummy, and get ready for about 20 years of Speaker Pelosi and leftwing dominance for a long time to come. Keep listening to Sager, keep inverting the history of recent political issues (FMA is a reaction to court over-reaching, for instance, not an “attack” on anything as some seem to think it is), and keep adhering to the Sullivan view of Christians–and the GOP will be a rump of its current self.
The Democrats long ago gave Christians the message that we’re not welcome in their party. We got that message loud and clear, and most of us vote Republican as a result. For the GOP to send us that message now would be lethal to its own interests, and to those of anyone else who doesn’t want a huge, socialized government.
Bryan on November 14, 2006 at 1:40 PM
how very progressive-like: the party apparatus is in your hands, you threaten to eat it every time you don’t get precisely what you want, yet you reserve the right to play the victim/underdog.
please. you’re invited to turn on us. maybe then the movement and the party can return to speaking sense rather than speaking in toungues.
jummy on November 14, 2006 at 1:42 PM
Wow, you pulled out the nasty quite soon on this one.
The party apparatus is hardly in the hands of the evangelicals – we don’t get everything we want, and for the most part, still vote GOP anyway. When the libertarian wing doesn’t get what it wants, it votes for spoiler candidates and leads Republicans to defeat.
So who should the party listen to in that case?
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 1:44 PM
If this libertarian can’t handle fundies in the G.O.P., he should just join the Losertarian Party.
The L.P. is into ideological purity … they are also into losing elections.
I am a small “L” libertarian … I know better than to bitch about other people who have been in the G.O.P. for decades … and fundamentalists who are offended by libertarians in the G.O.P. can always join the Constitutionalists if they desire ideological purity as well.
If you join a party … you support the party in public. Infighting should not be a spectator sport.
Kristopher on November 14, 2006 at 1:56 PM
honestly bryan, i like you, but this sort of threat has worn thin. i think a de-christianized conservative movement would only suffer being returned to its original state. no one ever suffered very much from a bath.
on this we agree – except! what then of the question when lawfully submitted independently in each of the states? because i seek to preserve our representative republican form of government, i have to be satisfied with a party dominated by people who’s reason for opposing gay marriage is some form or another of “..because its turtles all the way down…”?
note the implicit equasion: incomplete aquiescence = complete alienation.
jummy on November 14, 2006 at 1:57 PM
I get sick of any federal dollars going to brainwash children with the fairytale of evolution. It’s just so old school. Children need to learn the truth and the truth will set them free:)
wytammic on November 14, 2006 at 1:58 PM
Slublog…that “Pepper” story on your blog was quite funny! I hate those types of dogs! I want a man’s dog! Like a labrador retriever!
SouthernGent on November 14, 2006 at 1:59 PM
Yeah, my friend Dan wrote that for a newspaper. Cracked me up when I heard it for the first time.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 2:01 PM
sorry if it seems that way. i was recently in a jthread about the movie jesus camp where i was defending christians’ right to worship in spite of bigotry from the left. i found myself explaining the practice of speaking in toungues and even to some degree defending it when i realized how stupid i sounded.
jummy on November 14, 2006 at 2:02 PM
Every political party is a coalition of interests and groups that don’t always agree on all issues but tend to agree on the big ones. The mistake Sager has consistently made throughout his career — and the reason I discount nearly everything he says — is to assume that evangelicals are aggressors and that we’re not “true Republicans” because we don’t agree with everything he thinks. Well, tough. That’s life. As for us being aggressors, last time I checked it wasn’t evangelicals starting a huge fight over gay marriage–it’s liberals like Gavin Newsome and the Mass Supreme Court who are starting these divisive social issues fights. We’re reacting to the left’s social issues aggression by trying to use the Constitutionally prescribed methods of doing so. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Sager is also an aggressor in consistently pushing the GOP to marginalize or purge Christians. He’s been trying it for years, and maybe after this year’s loss he’ll find an audience. But listening to him is a mistake. Along with Julian Sanchez, Sager is nearly insufferable in his self-righteousness on libertarian issues. And to put it mildly, his brand of values-free libertarianism just doesn’t command anything near a majority, inside the GOP or outside of it.
As for me bringing up the Democrats and all that, it’s not a threat. It’s just history and fact. If the GOP sends a like message to Christians, why should we vote for the GOP? It’s pretty simple.
For the record, I’ve never spoken in tongues. That’s yet another misconception that too many have of Christians–that we’re all a bunch of holy roller types. I wish I could claim the holy part, but the roller part is pretty foreign to my Southern Baptist leanings.
Bryan on November 14, 2006 at 2:05 PM
I’m not a charismatic, so I couldn’t speak to the issue of tongues. My major point, though, is that libertarians and evangelicals kind of need each other to win elections. It’s not the happiest coalition in the world, but it’s worked for years.
I get irritable when people like Sager try to break it up on the name of ‘purity.’
For a time, I was a member of the “big L” libertarian party, but dropped my membership when I realized just how dedicated some of them are to losing elections on principle. I’d rather win with half a loaf than lose with nothing at all.
On the subject of Jesus Camp, the place closed. Sort of.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 2:06 PM
That describes big ‘L’ libertarians to a tee.
Part of me thinks that might be by design too. Doing it in the manner you described allows them to continue to hold on to their theories while never having the responsibility of actually governing and having said theories collide with reality.
thirteen28 on November 14, 2006 at 2:21 PM
Divide and Conquer!
By the increasingly volatile tone of these comments, I think the Dems have succeeded in doing just that.
It certainly appears that the divide is growing…and as it grows, so do the chances of a one party (socialist)government for for many years to come. We either find some common ground (and fast) or we’ll be innaugurating HC in 2009.
If we continue to (in)fight, one faction will end up winning and the GOP will be one-third smaller a year from now.
Let’s here some ideas for bringing the party together toward the common goal of taking back Congress and retaining the White House in 2008. McCain and Guliani are not the answers.
LonelyMassRepublican on November 14, 2006 at 2:24 PM
Actually it’s Sager who has done a good job of dividing us. That’s what he does.
Bryan on November 14, 2006 at 2:33 PM
…indeed…
“How do we have party unity?”
“Get rid of *THOSE* guys!”
“Excellent, grasshopper! …now, pass the pipe to a brother….”
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 2:44 PM
McCain is a no-go.
Guiliani on the other hand. Sure, I don’t like all of his positions, but he’s a fighter. It’s been a long time since the GOP had one of those in a prominent position. I don’t think you’ll see Rudy cave under the attacks of Democrats.
Pair Guiliani with a social con and you have a pretty good ticket, I think.
As for ideas on policy? I think we need to return to basic federalism. Republicans have too often looked for federal solutions to policy questions, instead of trusting voters at the state level. Limited government is always a winner, I think.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 2:46 PM
Gee…let me see how many times I can fit the words “I think” into a single comment.
Blah.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 2:46 PM
Sager looks and writes like a quintessential Doofus. You know the type – the kid who got chosen last for softball games and got put in Rightfield.
Hilts on November 14, 2006 at 2:55 PM
…what libertarians need to realize is that “values voters” aren’t antithetical to the aims of libertarianism. Religious freedom requires freedom overall.
What “evangelicals” need to realize is that they can’t vote *THEIR* values into being. Either you have ‘em or you don’t.
They also need to look into the whole “two kingdoms” idea. You *DON’T* gauge anyone’s piety by checking their voters registration.
I remember hearing of one prominent evangelical association wheel saying some rot like “have whatever doctrine (religious tradition, “take” on Scripture, etc.) you want, just vote Republican!” With that sort of thing about, the Left is *JUSTIFIED* in sliming us.
…in the world, but not of the world, remember. Render unto Caesar….
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 2:55 PM
…EGADS!
Return to that dusty old Constitution thing? Solve problems close to home instead of broadcasting ‘em for all the world to enjoy? Don’t see it happening…with either party….
As Pope Leo X said of Christianity, “This myth of (a Constitution) has been very good to us.”
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 2:58 PM
As an “evangelical” I should be able to make good secular arguments for my policy views if I stand any chance of effecting public discourse. And I think we’ve made very good secular arguments against gay marriage, abortion (which, I agree, is an intensely personal issue—for the abortee), et cetera…. I don’t (and shouldn’t) expect the world to jump just because the Bible tells us to.
“Compassionate conservativism”, with its “evangelical” underpinning, puts the emphasis on govt helping out fellow man (”when americans hurt, govt needs to move” not so much). This is bad conservatism, baaad. Churches and individual Christians have traditionally held that responsibility, locally—as it should be.
I’m still waiting for the Libertarian soup kitchens to sprout up.
jdpaz on November 14, 2006 at 3:00 PM
I couldn’t agree with Bryan more on his last statement regarding the FACT that it was never the Christians who brought up divisive issues. It has always been forced upon us. The left pushing unfettered abortion and gay marriage on us from the beginning. And it isn’t like they are even willing to compromise. We say “how about parental notification for minors, ban on partial birth abortion, and informed consent?” And they say “No way, our way or the highway.” We say “How about civil unions?” And again they say “now wa.” We say “Lets look at the more promising adult stem cell and cord blood research first.” And they say “No way.”
It isn’t the Christians who are hardliners on these issues.
As far as the nice idea of getting the Federal government out of these issues and giving them to the states…Well, good luck with that. Ask Californa how that works. People vote on an issue and the liberal judicary overturns the people’s decisions.
Rightwingsparkle on November 14, 2006 at 3:10 PM
umm.. mistyped there. “now wa” should be “no way.”
Rightwingsparkle on November 14, 2006 at 3:11 PM
Interesting to look at the issue overlap among various constituencies. If I hear the Libs clearly, they have more in common with “conservative” Democrats than with Christian conservatives. Devil-may-care on all social issues, and balance the budget. And we’ll give up our guns if that’s what you want.
The problem with that thinking is that there is no such thing as conservative Democrat when it comes time to count votes. And, Djummy, do you really want to line up with the left on partial-birth abortion? Is that a “libertarian” position?
Have you really studied the science behind evolution theory well enough to tell Christians that creationism is “mythology”? The left said that about the big-bang theory for about 50 years, didn’t they?
Big picture, people. We.Belong.Together.Warts.And.All.
Jaibones on November 14, 2006 at 3:22 PM
rightwingsparkle, I thought you were speaking in tongues there for a second. Thanks for clearing that up.
jdpaz on November 14, 2006 at 3:22 PM
…or is that “typing in fingers”???
jdpaz on November 14, 2006 at 3:31 PM
i want to be clear on where i’m coming from. i’m not coming from a sam harris point of view at all, and i’d take a christian over an objectivist any day of the week.
and of course i don’t equate all christians with snake handlers, though i did make that equasion here out of spite because i’m angry about this.
i am offended – i think justifiably – whenever i hear the term “homosexual agenda” applied (by christians and pandering secularists alike) to what is in fact an agenda waged by progressives of general social deconstruction which uses gay individuals as cannonballs. the fact that gays and not progressives become the target means we’re not aiming at the forces aiming at us. so it is with many things on the right.
the appropriation of christianity into the conservative world view has prevented the conservative movement from developing a secular social theory – something which must be developed for conservatism to be a whole disposition.
jummy on November 14, 2006 at 3:35 PM
no. don’t recall suggesting any such thing.
i could study it extensively and never arrive with as complete an explaination as the bible provides. leaving your theory open to falsifiability is a deficit that way i guess.
jummy on November 14, 2006 at 3:43 PM
maybe i’m naive about this, but that used to be easy when it was all about provident change and local controll.
jummy on November 14, 2006 at 3:46 PM
so very true.
jummy on November 14, 2006 at 3:51 PM
Well, that was enlightening. He wants to sacrifice a Republican “permanent majority” in favor of ideological purity.
I think he would rather see these “big-government” evangelicals join the Democrats and help form a permanent majority for them, leaving the Republican party to serve as the Slightly Less Crazy Libertarian Party.
see-dubya on November 14, 2006 at 3:56 PM
…to be honest, the homosexual community has lent itself to this controversy vis a vis the “progressives”.
Look at the willingness of these “champions of privacy” to “out” folks with whom they share…er…tastes and lifestyle decisions when it suits ‘em.
There certainly *IS* a “homosexual agenda” in the minds of an activist remnant of the homosexual community. The rest, as among evangelicals and libertarians, are quietly homosexual…just as most evangelicals and libertarians don’t wear their hearts on their sleeves.
The Left has glommed onto this issue as another divider to us to drive fissures into the ediface. In almost *EVERY* case, the reaction to the moves for homosexual “marriage”, etc., are just that…reactions.
If folks get up to icky things in private, that’s their business. When it is *MADE* the business of the rest of us, when they try to wrest approval from the majority, teach tolerance of their…er…positions in public schools…well, it’s an “agenda”, full stop.
Like most of these divisive social issues — homosexuality, the environment, race, the homeless — the Left jumps from issue to isse, using them as anything from irritants to major cause celebres depending on the amount of mileage they’l get out’ve ‘em…regardless of whether all the attention they receive goes to solving *ANY* of the problems raised.
You want to succeed in politics? Keep bringing up problems to someone who’s actually interested in solving problems…until he gets overloaded or disgusted and quits.
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 4:00 PM
jummy,
At the risk of going off-topic, since when is evolution/big bang falsifiable?
Just about every tenet of naturalism has been shown false and yet that pathetic theory keeps being propped up by ever more lame excuses. Evolution (in a positive direction) has never been observed, nor is there any guess as to how it could happen. The conditions needed for evolution to occur contradict every observable, testable law of operational science. The fossil record shows stasis to be the rule—no credible transitional forms. Despite all this, we’re told evolution obviously happened because, hey, we’re here, aren’t we?
Creationism is also falsifiable. We expect to see distinct groups of organisms with variation (just as one example). Lo, and behold, that’s what the fossil record and biology show. Huh.
jdpaz on November 14, 2006 at 4:01 PM
This whole argument is so silly. Pure-blood libertarians are such a miniscule portion of the Republican base that the idea of them “purging” the party is ridiculous.
Furthermore, there are a lot more categories of views than simply Libertarian v. Evangelical. I’m an atheist with some libertarian leanings, but I think it’s dangerous to view human life as a nuisance (abortion) or an experiment (embryonic stem cells), I think it’s a disaster when a child is born out of wedlock, and I am very comfortable with my evangelical neighbors and relatives. So do I get purged as well?
Clark1 on November 14, 2006 at 4:01 PM
Clark, I’ll lay you good money that that is EXACTLY what Joe Lieberman said to himself about the Democrats’ moonbat constituency.
mikeomatic on November 14, 2006 at 4:05 PM
jdpaz –
Evolution is very easily falsifiable. It’s just that we have literally trillions of pieces of evidence that all support evolution. Every piece of DNA sequence from every organism (e.g. 3 billion bases from humans alone) for which we have data is completely in line with the predictions of evolution. If you were to find an organism (say a mammal) with DNA sequence that did not compare to it’s close relatives (other mammals) the way evolution predicts, that would falsify the model. If you were to find an organism that did not share similarities in cellular structures, functions, and protein sequences to many other organisms, that would also falsify evolution.
I am not sure I understand what you said about falsifying creationism. Could you please explain what observation would disprove creationism?
Clark1 on November 14, 2006 at 4:08 PM
Good points. I’m in a similar boat, although I wouldn’t call myself atheist, I’m definitely not an evangelical Christian by about a million light years … and yet I find myself agreeing with them on a lot of these issues such as abortion and federal funding for ESC research. If they get purged, I’m going with ‘em.
thirteen28 on November 14, 2006 at 4:34 PM
clark1, (really risking going off-topic now)
Contrary to what you have stated, DNA doesn’t actually support evolution at all and is a big liability for the theory. The differences between chimp and human DNA amounts to ~125 million base pairs. With only 5 or six million years between their supposed divergence, evolution must be occurring at a blinding (ie, measurable) pace (~100 favorable mutations per generation). This contradicts everything we know about genetic mutation (overwhelmingly negative effect on genome). Barring miracles, there simply isn’t enough time for the required DNA modification to occur.
Even if the time obstacle was overcome, DNA isn’t unequivocal support for evolution anyway. The creationist believes it shows a common designer.
I agree that creationism alone is unfalsifiable. No matter the evidence, it can be said, “it was created that way”. But particular strains of creationism, like, say, Biblical creationism is indeed falsifiable. There are a great number of predictions that can be made and tested. Levels of minerals in the oceans, for instance. The recession of the moon. C14 found in coal. Stasis in the fossil record, attested to by none other than Stephen J Gould.
jdpaz on November 14, 2006 at 5:08 PM
Translation:
Ryan Sager: It’s not that we don’t want the Evangellical vote. It’s that we want them to be quiet and do as they’re told. Heck, they’re supposed to be the meek ones, anyway. So, be meek, STFU, and stay out of our way while we do “grown-up things.”
spmat on November 14, 2006 at 5:44 PM
Janet Jackson, and ABBA?
Man, this thread is getting mean.
arkansasmike on November 14, 2006 at 6:13 PM
I would call myself libertarian. I can easily live with and agree with social concervatives up until they begin using the aparatus of government to impose thier social view in federal laws and agencies. It is social concervatives who are driving the Republican party left and fracturing it by embracing the liberal idea that governemnt programs can spread thier social agenda. We can all agree the (R) has embraced big gov’t spending the past decade, you can’t make the case the Libertarian wing is responsible for this that is absurd on its face.
So in this sense, Bryan, it is the social concervatives who are being aggressive and fracturing the party.
Resolute on November 14, 2006 at 7:55 PM
Wait…is that his hair? WTF? Is that a toupe?!
Jaibones on November 14, 2006 at 10:35 PM
[Ok, sorry. It's just that I was away for several hours, and forgot the topic. So, after I threw out the snarky hair comment, in lieu of my first nasty thoughts about his chin(s), I went back to read the thread and now I see that the Libertarian v Christian Conservative question evolved -- if you'll allow me -- rapidly into a discussion of falsifiability and genome and other words that I can't use in a complete sentence, and then quickly jumped so far over my head that any further attempt at relevance risks a bitch-slapping not unlike the one I got from ConstantWhine a few days ago but which still stings to the touch...]
Jaibones on November 14, 2006 at 11:37 PM
Right. The states had complete discretion on abortion law before Roe v. Wade.
So what you are saying is, “Repeal Roe v. Wade“? I’m down for that.
Also, you are saying “Overturn Lawrence v. Texas, so that states can outlaw consensual sodomy,” correct?
The Supreme Court decision that forced VMI to go coed — repeal that. While we’re at it, repeal the 19th Amendment, so that each state can decide for itself whether to allow women to vote.
You know, this is really cool. There ought to be some kind of phrase for this idea, but … doggone it, I just can’t think of one.
But generally speaking, I am in favor of local government. It’s just that you Yankees won’t let us have it. So since y’all insist that everything be decided in Washington, I guess we’ll just have to fight it out there.
Ali-Bubba on November 14, 2006 at 11:56 PM
Sager (at least in this interview) is not advocating kicking evangelicals out of the party. He’s talking about putting aside the theocratic aspirations of evangelicals and focusing on more important things. Low taxes over government meddling in private end-of-life issues. Smaller government over government benefits for heterosexuals. Freedom over silly “under God” injection squabbles.
You’ve seen what happens when Republicans lose their way and become the big-government party of divinely inspired legislation and security primacy: they lose at the polls.
You must not be on the same right-wing-wacko mailing lists that I am. The only times the gay marriage issue has ever affected me in the least is when anti-gay groups have sent “if you vote Democrat, gay people will make out on your porch” fliers. See also: “homosexuals will ban the bible” … that was a cute flier.
Without the evangelical + bigot reaction to this issue, there would be no fight.
Mark Jaquith on November 15, 2006 at 1:31 PM
United we Stand!
Divided the Dems take control of everything for the foreseeable future!
LonelyMassRepublican on November 15, 2006 at 1:32 PM
Comment pages: