The election is over and President Obama has won another four years. The fate of the GOP was sealed with the nomination of Mitt Romney, and Evangelicals knew it. Evangelicals vote for Mitt Romney. A few Evangelicals altered their theology and terminology in favor of Mitt Romney. But Romney was not the choice of Evangelicals.
Why did Evangelicals vote for Mitt Romney? Because they did not believe that they had any other good choice. That's what has to change. Trust me: Somewhere in America there's a Bob Dole IV, and whoever he is, today he is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2016. If Evangelicals want to have more and better options, Evangelicals are going to have to create them. I'm happy to get the ball rolling by offering a few thoughts
The hard work of prioritizing our convictions lies before us. This will be the universal conclusion drawn this morning by Republicans, although different Republicans will apply the process differently. The major elements of Republican ideology are, in my estimation: (1)Free-Market Capitalism, (2)The Pro-Life Agenda, (3)Hawkish Foreign Policy, (4)Constitutionalism, (5)Nativism and Anti-Immigrationism, (6)The Law & Order Agenda, and (7)The Anti-Homosexuality Agenda.
I didn't take four weeks to develop that list, but instead threw it together on the fly. Perhaps I've missed something important, but I feel pretty good about it as top-of-my-head efforts go.
We're going to have to prioritize these things, as I said. And we're going to have to do so with some of these other factors in mind.
The Republican Party has to add not merely individual voters to its rolls, but larger and more rapidly growing blocs of voters. This is where the GOP ought to listen to Evangelicals if it wants to survive. Evangelicalism is growing among African-Americans and Latinos. The GOP is not. Obviously, Evangelicalism is not the cause of Republican demographic woes, for in the key ethnic groups that brought woe to the GOP last night, Evangelicals are succeeding.
The question is: If the GOP persists in alienating African-American and Latino Evangelicals, then among White Republican Evangelicals, which of those three words will win out? Will we stand in coalition with fellow Evangelicals, with fellow Republicans, or just with fellow white people? I think we should stand with Evangelicals in the political arena.
Of the ideological elements given above, two stand out as highly problematic: the question of immigration and the question of economic theory. The economic question is not as troubling as it may seem. The country could become a bit more oriented toward Free-Market Capitalism while maintaining a commitment to the social safety net. I think that the safety net concept is important to these demographic groups. Principled opposition to the safety net is probably not going to take root here, but Bill Clinton accomplished welfare reform, yet he retains robust support among these folks.
The immigration question is where the problem lies. And, to speak frankly, some of the more extreme rhetoric on immigration from within the GOP is wrongheaded and wronghearted. I believe that there is an enormous pool of (potentially?) committed Pro-Life Evangelicals who could be developed from within the Hispanic community, but we'll never know so long as Pro-Life Evangelicals are wedded to a severe immigration platform plank.
As for African-Americans, it seemed to me that quite a number of them were not happy with the gay-rights agenda within the Democratic Party, but where else could they go? I can relate to their feelings: I wasn't thrilled with Mitt Romney (nor were many of you), but we didn't have a lot of options open to us, did we? The major obstacles, I suspect, are fiscal rather than cultural in nature.
Although the phrase "compassionate conservatism" is probably beyond rehabilitation at this point, a fusion between a more mercy-themed fiscal policy and a strong social conservatism could be a game-changer within the African-American community (if everyone were acting in good faith). At the very least, it is a conversation worth having. I'm not sure that I understand completely what policy changes would have to take place in order to form a coalition between Pro-Life White Evangelicals and Pro-Life Black Evangelicals, but I'm at least willing to ask that question and learn the answer.
What concerns me is that a conversation has taken place this year among African-American Evangelicals over how their relationship with the Democratic Party will be affected by the radical Democrat sexual agenda, and Pro-Life White Evangelicals never even entered that conversation in any meaningful way. Maybe we don't succeed at building coalitions with African-Americans over justice for the unborn because we don't try very hard to build those coalitions in the first place—not in any way in which we are willing to concede as much as we are asking them to concede.
I'd love to write more, but I'm out of time for today. Rather than stitch together a mega-post over several days, I' think I'll just go ahead and sally forth with this much of whats swimming around in my head and get your reactions, with the promise of more to come.
60 comments:
With its strong anti hispanic stance the tea party has probably irreparably rendered the republican party a minority party in the presidential election (it has lost the vote to the democrat in 5 out of the last six elections). Their only hope would be to send rubio out today with a plan they all support and push it through the senate and get obama to sign but they won't do that (and that still probably wouldn't work). If we want to vote for winners we need to consider electing better (more evangelical friendly) democrats.
I don't think there's room in the Democratic Party for Pro-Life Evangelicals. When you cheer for abortion and boo God, I think you've made your colors clear.
In other words, I think it would be much easier to have a GOP friendlier toward Hispanics than it would be to get Democrats to take even a wee step away from their holy grail of abortion on demand with no questions asked.
I believe republicans will never get Hispanics back (and I have been very close friends with many Hispanics) just like with the blacks on civil rights. Even if they change and say "aw, shucks, we didn't really mean all that we said..." and pass some legislation they aren't going to win back the vote. It will be seen as disingenuous. This election showed us that the democrat can mess up badly yet still be elected. There was never a scenario that would have led to a Romney win. No other republican in the primaries could have won either. The Republican party is done as far as electing a president for a generation.
I recall people saying exactly the same thing about Democrats after Ronald Reagan's victory in 1984. I think it is very unwise to make such categorical statements. History has an easy enough time making fools of us without our rushing to her assistance so.
Bart,
This is the second post you've written that I've found myself agreeing with almost every single word. This dialogue seriously needs to take place between White evangelicals and Black evangelicals who would view and prioritize these matters similarly, but would want significant interest and support-perhaps at a greater level than White evangelicals- be given to safety net issues.
The term "Conservative Evangelical" carries with it a lot of baggage in the African American community. Once the term is properly defined, most would agree that they are "Conservative Evangelicals," but it is a term almost exclusively used in the White Evangelical Community-very seldom in the Black Evangelical Community.
"Bible believing," or "Bible-Centered Christians" would better communicate and bridge the gap with the majority of Black Evangelicals than "Conservative Evangelicals." There is a National Black Evangelical Association that been in existence for maybe 40-50 years, comprised mainly of Black Alumni of evangelical schools such as Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Dwight,
Well, let's get them together then.
Hi Bart,
Regarding your list: (1)Free-Market Capitalism, (2)The Pro-Life Agenda, (3)Hawkish Foreign Policy, (4)Constitutionalism, (5)Nativism and Anti-Immigrationism, (6)The Law & Order Agenda, and (7)The Anti-Homosexuality Agenda. This is a reasonable list of Republican ideological priorities. I am sure you will adjust it as you give it thought. You are good at thinking.
(1) Free-market Capitalism without a comparative emphasis on generosity is greed, and greed is idolatry.
(2) The Pro-Life Agenda is impotent in past practice. It is not good enough. What is a sufficient plan to prevent the next 50 million dead babies?
(3) I have little desire for a Hawkish Foreign Policy that will enable the spread of democratic socialism on a godless philosophical basis.
(4) Constitutionalism is good. With the moral condition of the American majority it is too late to advocate the impeachment of justices who legislate from the bench; the wrong minds would be impeached.
(5)Nativism and Anti-Immigration; too late. The concepts of diversity and disintegration are two sides of the same coin.
(6)The Law & Order Agenda, not sure I follow you.
(7)The Anti-Homosexual Agenda is inadequate. Choosing one form of sexual immorality to confront while ignoring other kinds of sexual immorality appears bigoted. Being anti-gay-marriage without being anti-hetero-sexual-divorce appears bigoted. Christians are called to have Christian marriages and man-and-woman-only marriage still falls short of the marriage virtue God expects. Half-hearted commitment to the truth of God falls short of the mark.
I will vote as long as I am allowed to do so. I have confidence that meaningful propositions can still be passed. But it is time for American Christians to write off the Republican Party as any kind of meaningful solution. The Republican Party mindset is revealed. It is only slightly better than the Democratic mindset.
Four years is a short time to build a third option, if anyone cares to try.
Pro-choice is the present and is the future, and fighting it only makes you tired, ornery, and wastes your resources and those of the pro-choice movement, too. Change your focus and help those supporting pro-choice reduce pregnancies. Or continue beating your head against the wall and having little impact.
Good things to think about, Bart. I think you have nailed the major elements of the Republican ideology fairly accurately. I agree with most all of these in my own way, except the Hawkish Foreign Policy (and I am a long ways from being a pacifist).
In light of the Mourdock & Akin controversies, as well as the same-sex marriage votes in Maryland in Maine, I think there will be a lot of talk -- and a good bit of push -- of jettisoning (at least distancing from) these issues in future Republican platforms. Evangelicals probably carry enough weight that it will only be watered-down and maybe some of the rhetoric refined -- and that last one needs to happen anyway since we're often not doing a good job saying what we mean with clarity.
There needs to be a much better Christian brush applied to capitalism and immigration. I think immigrants should follow the law as well as anyone else. But, for example an issue that has been discussed here in Texas -- where is some compassion for children who were brought here through no fault of their own and literally are Texans by their raising. Should they be deported, or is there room to spread some love their way?
Politically, I think a third party is the right direction to go. There is too much baggage in either of the major parties. The third party idea certainly offers no instant solutions -- a thing which we've all become accustomed to loving. I was part of a grass-roots movement some 30 years or so ago now that helped build the Republican Party in Texas. Yet in many ways those in power did their own thing and paid little attention to us little folks.
As Christians, we need to build coalitions outside of politics with like-thinking believers on Christian agendas so that we have something in common when we need to pull together!
Finally, we must not vote based on fear. I penned a few thoughts last night for my blog about laying down in peace regardless of who wins what because "this is my Father's world." That doesn't mean I'm happy with the direction the country is going. But I see far too many who hang on to the Republican Party and its nominees because of "night terrors" of what will happen when the Democrats are elected.
Sorry to be so long; I'll just have to pull the plug and stop myself.
Jerry,
By the "Law & Order Agenda" I guess I'm reaching back to my Reagan days, although I think that there are still vestiges remaining today. Joe Arpaio is perhaps a good poster-child for the Law & Order emphasis of the GOP. The death penalty would perhaps be the issue most closely related to that agenda. There's not as much talk about crime and punishment in our presidential debates these days, though.
You've seen straight to the point of my terminology on the anti-homosexual thing. If we're not going to fight against the no-fault-divorce culture that is eviscerating our society, then we can't say that we're in favor of "traditional marriage." I almost put "Family Traditionalism" in that slot, but the very question you're raising made me choose the terminology that I chose.
Good, thought-provoking comment.
Anonymous:
Pro-choice is the present and is the future
The future belongs to the pro-life movement. Technology is opening the womb to us. No longer can anyone credibly claim that these are just blobs of tissue being removed. In a world of 3D ultrasounds, all can see that we are killing tiny human beings. Science will carry the day for the pro-life movement.
fighting it only makes you tired, ornery, and wastes your resources and those of the pro-choice movement, too.
I will be proud for my children to remember me as the person who got tired and ornery spending all of his resources to save the lives of others. Future generations will remember you and all those like you as the cowards you are, unwilling to endure a little inconvenience to save lives.
Change your focus and help those supporting pro-choice reduce pregnancies.
The people who are pro-choice-to-murder-your-baby don't want to reduce abortion. The "safe, legal, and rare" language in the Democratic Party platform was always a lie, and this year the party finally removed it, proving that it was a lie all along.
Or continue beating your head against the wall and having little impact.
We're having impact, but even if we were guaranteed never to change the law of this land, I am having impact. I'm having an impact upon myself, because I can rest well at night knowing that I, like the abolitionists of the 19th century, am taking a stand for those people whom the heartless among us will not acknowledge as people. I'm having an impact upon my two adopted children, because they are learning that everyone, them included, deserves a chance to live no matter the circumstances surrounding their conception. And I'm having an impact upon eternity, for when I face the judgment, whatever else makes me want to hang my head about my life, it certainly will not be this.
R.L.,
As usual, you've given us great thoughts through-and-through. I need to run on home, but I will take a second to comment about the senatorial candidacies thrown away by those rape comments.
The worst thing about what Akin and Mourdock said is that they were wrong—not accurate. Women don't have any mystical way to prevent conception when they are raped. Rape is clearly something that God permits (i.e., does not prevent from occurring), but it is not something that God intended. And if God did not intend rape, then He did not intend conception as a result of rape.
There are better ways to answer the question that they were asked. Why nobody works with candidates (for the U.S. Senate, no less!) to think through these issues and give accurate, compassionate, convictional answers to them, I'll never understand.
Bart:
You said:"I don't think there's room in the Democratic Party for Pro-Life Evangelicals. When you cheer for abortion and boo God, I think you've made your colors clear."
Let's just be honest about this Bart SBC=Republican. It has become that cut and dry.
Just as with innerancy--unless you proclaim innerancy there is no place for you in SBC life. Likewise unless you proclaim allegiance to the Republican party there is no place for you in the SBC. You will be marginalized.
But I think what we saw yesterday is that people repudiate extreme positions. I do not see that changing in the future.
The SBC from the early 1980s until as late as yesterday was heavily involved in politics=Republican Party.
It will not work anymore--Proclaim that there can be no abortions even for rape, incest, life of the mother-but if you are running for political office do not expect this to get you elected--that is just too extreme.
BTW when you say the Democratic party is cheering for abortion and booing God that is way too blanket of a statement.
Thought for the SBC share the Gospel with the lost.
Recall the goal is reduced abortions, not do you feel good about yourself, are teaching your children, or would be defending your actions in eternity, not that any of these are not important (or are in opposition). Your position does not and will not have the political power to enact its will, nor will technology give you what you think. Your position is not the only option open to Christians, although you will continue to use rhetoric to demonize those that disagree with you. And your pride in your faith, thus it comes down to being about you, will prevent you from working with others that, like you, are concerned, too. And while you spend your energies fighting pro-choice, those with said perspective will fight you. And neither side would then be working toward actually reducing the problem. Yes, I get it that you wish to act with integrity. You are not the only one, however, notwithstanding your objections. Thus, what's it going to be? More fighting about the issue or more fighting with others on the issue?
Brethern;
Pardon me in advance; but, the last 4 losing Republican/conservative (more conservative than the dems, at least) candidates ALL suffered from Baptist Preacher syndrome "Positive, positive, positive, pos..." and just waiting for the populace to recognize how much better pepople they were than their opposition. A guaranteed losing strategy. Politics is a competitive/combative endeavour, "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen". If you are not willing to call out a lying opponent- stay out of the race. If you are not willing to fight the good fight, every day- stay out of politics.
Billy Sunday staged 'fights' with the devil on his platform and won men's hearts. But we've grown too sophisticated for that sort of thing. Until we support that type of candidate; this is an interesting intellectual exercise, with little prospect of success.
You're welcome,
Dale
Hi BART,
I guess the plan is to create a Republican Party/Evangelical Christian Consortium. I think that has actually been developing ever since the time that the Moral Majority, Pat Robertson, and the SBC's 'takeover' all came on scene over thirty years ago.
But now, with the progressives in our government moving on so many issues: women's reproductive issues, abortion, marriage equality issues, labor union rights, 'affordable health care' act, equal pay for equal work act, and more;
it looks like the RE-ACTION of the conservative movement would benefit from reconsidering its priorities and resources, as you are suggesting.
But, in doing this, one word stands out for consideration:
'demographics' . . .
study the break-down of the vote for Obama and for Romney to determine how demographics affected Obama's victory . . .
then apply that information as part of the current reality that you are facing, as a conservative group, in planning priorities and sequencing strategies for the future.
Do I think it is wise for the SBC to be wedded to the Republican Party?
No, I do not. But I have no say about this. I will remain concerned for the SBC as I see it as a part of the larger Body of Christ, so the SBC is important to me.
some thoughts . . . thank you for the opportunity to express them
one additional thought:
I think it important to share that it would be a mistake to think that people who rejected the Republican Party candidates were rejecting Our Lord.
Hispanics were terrified of Romney, women took note of comments by candidates like Akin and Mourdock, and the stats reflect reaction to comments that are unconscionable to most women, including Republican women. And the efforts to limit voting in certain districts by Republican governors and legislatures which led to extremely long lines . . . this also backfired.
People stayed in those lines. And they voted.
Our Lord was not rejected when the Republican Party lost this year. The reasons for the loss call for some introspection, serious introspection, by all involved in the Republican family. I know I am right about this, and I am not happy about having an American political party get in this much trouble: our country needs a healthy two-party system.
"... a mistake to think that people who rejected the Republican Party candidates were rejecting Our Lord."
In all likelihood a point that is and will continue to be for some time lost on many posters to this blog and others like SBC Voices. When a good many of the posters here and at SBC Voices realize that it is the way that they approach politics, even religion, that represents the extreme element in the GOP (that the party will need to moderate if it desires to have greater influence in America), perhaps they will take a hard look at themselves instead of focusing on others as the object of their problem. When these conservative Christians come to understand that their Christian perspective is but one in the larger universe of Christian perspective (and yes, they have a point worthy of consideration), rather than being arrogantly convinced that they are God's last and only hope, less divisiveness among Christians just might result and better policies might be fashioned to tackle a multiplicity of social issues. But their current ham-handed response is to become more of the very thing that the people just said “please, we are tired of that.” If they continue, they will surely run into arithmetic, which does not yield to anyone's perspective. The numbers are just not there and will not be there for those with such a closed and negative view of those that are different. The world will never be a "Kum ba ya" place, but it need not be "You’re on the fightin' side of me," either. That is, these days the only side the conservatives have is a fighting side. And they are losing the fight and all of us have been losing with them, too. Most people are ready to move on, hopefully with, but prepared to go without the religious conservative, but surely not with the religious conservative having an arrogant attitude. Give ear religious conservative, the Lord is Lord of and over All and is worshipped and followed by many other than yourself.
Tom Parker, Christiane, and Anonymous:
Let me see if I can get this straight: You're accusing me of walking in lockstep agreement with the Republican Party—me, the guy who in the immediate past two posts stated that I was not committed to voting for the GOP Presidential nominee and opposed those who were altering their theology in order to line up behind the GOP????
Might I suggest to you that you should actually think before you comment, rather than just dealing out your knee-jerk aphorisms?
I am not locked into the GOP. I do not think that the Republican Party is the party of God. I could happily work outside the GOP.
But what I won't do is support the slaughter of innocent babies that the Democratic Party holds up as its great achievement of our time. It is evil. If you stand idly by and let it happen, then you are evil. I will stand in a third party that consists solely of me before I will support any party with a pro-infanticide plank in its platform.
Dale,
I'm all in favor of GOP candidates who are ready to take the fight to the people (and that's largely the theme of the second half of this post), but on immigration some elements of the GOP have been fighting for the wrong thing, and on fiscal policy and abortion exceptions some elements of the GOP have been fighting stupidly.
I think that we become more able to fight the good fight if we bring over more pro-life people into the GOP. There are a lot of African-Americans and Latinos who could add to a coalition of social conservatives in the USA.
Bart, if you wish to talk about knee-jerk reactions, then look to your own words: “You're accusing me of walking in lockstep agreement with the Republican Party ….” No, I did not. Really. Check my comments. Second, yes, you are an extreme voice in public discourse if you insist on using following highly emotional, but seriously lacking in rational thought, language: “… the slaughter of innocent babies that the Democratic Party holds up as its great achievement of our time.” If you, again, insist on misrepresenting the pro-choice position, then you will continue to offer darkened counsel to the discourse on and for reducing abortions. Translation, you don’t have a good grasp on the issue, notwithstanding your emotional intensity.
Anonymouse,
Stoicism and rationality are not the same thing. For example, suppose that you and I were standing outside the Labor & Delivery Nursery at a nearby hospital when a man walked in with a Glock and started shooting babies in the head.
On the one hand, in our hypothetical situation, you say, "Let's keep our calm here. We haven't spoken with this man in order to understand his point of view. We can have a rational discourse about this."
I, on the other hand, grow sorrowful about the loss of the babies, grow angry about the murder being perpetrated right before my eyes, dash into the room, fight the assailant, subdue him, and call the police.
Which of us was emotionally-charged? Which of us was rational? I submit that the emotionally-charged person WAS the rational person.
Hi BART,
If I have misunderstood you, I am sorry for it. I thought I had understood your post correctly, but if you say I did not, then it is my responsibility for having got it wrong.
It is important now that people really try to understand one another.
I do admit that I am left now in some confusion.
I will make a renewed effort to seek to better understand the meaning of others whose opinions I do not share, or cannot share in good conscience.
Please forgive, if I have presumed incorrectly, as you deserve much better from me than that.
Bart, when you resort to "Anonymouse" you undermine your credibility for desiring intelligent, i.e., rational, discourse.
Again, you repeatedly prove you do not understand the pro-choice position and continued use of extreme language will continue getting you what you got on Tuesday. A third party based on your desired plank already exists; it was the one that lost two days ago and the supporters of such are a diminishing (at least percentage-wise) group of people.
Well, I certainly want to understand. Enlighten us all about the great mystery of the pro-choice-to-murder-your-baby position. You have the floor.
Bart: "Well, I certainly want to understand. Enlighten us all about the great mystery of the pro-choice-to-murder-your-baby position. You have the floor."
This I would expect from a 15 or 17 year old, not an adult that is an institutional trustee that holds a PhD.
Perhaps some time away to give you a chance to gain greater control over your emotions is warranted.
Look, I'm offering substantive comments, and offering you the chance to make substantive comments. You're name-calling and saying nothing—refusing to say a single substantive thing.
If that's what I were offering to the thread, I'd remain anonymous, too.
Bart: "Look, I'm offering substantive comments, and offering you the chance to make substantive comments. You're name-calling and saying nothing—refusing to say a single substantive thing. If that's what I were offering to the thread, I'd remain anonymous, too."
And who was it that that referred to this poster as "Anonymouse". That's rich, Bart.
Second, your last post was a not a serious inquiry. Obviously, you have already made up your mind.
Thirdly, given your education, you know where to find the research.
People are trying to offer advice on how you and others, with and without GOP affilitation, might be a bit more effective in advancing your concerns. But it seems your response and many at SBC Voices, too, is this: "if doing this does not work, then let's do this again."
Anonymous, assuming you're the same 'anonymous' who posted first (seems to be a couple of different ones if I'm not mistaken), you wrote, "Pro-choice is the present and is the future...Change your focus..."
I can't speak for anyone else, but since I believe that abortion is a murder of a human life it is hard to make a substantive change on the matter without compromise. I think we need to look at issues and see where we can and need to "change our focus". But there is a difference between changing one's focus in order to find the truth and the practical application of it, and changing one's focus in order to win elections. That seems to me, at least to a degree, to be what you're proposing. That is one of the great scourges of politics and politicians -- saying what needs to be said in order to be elected.
I long for a world where politicians will state their beliefs and policies and say elect me if you think this is the direction you believe the country needs to go. Perhaps that is a pipe dream!?
R L, I am not suggesting you change from being pro-life to pro-choice, only that you find and act upon the common ground that you have with pro-choice people. Both wish for fewer abortions, and such would result from fewer pregnancies.
At the risk of coming across as overly naive, I do not believe there is any way forward with regard to the moral concerns we share as Evangelicals by way of political coalition-forming. That ship has sailed. The way forward is to preach the gospel and to make disciples. Anything else will fall flat. At the same time, we must avoid preaching the gospel and making disciples as a political strategy. It is not a political strategy. It is a kingdom strategy.
As Evangelicals, and as Christian disciples, we will continue to have biblical convictions that will bleed over into political stances on various issues. We should continue to vote according to our convictions. But politics, at the core, involves compromise, and this is antithetical, from the start, with radical discipleship. We must obey God, nothing more, nothing less, and leave the results to him. Regretfully, since the advent of the Moral Majority, we have lost much credibility in the eyes of the world for not following this line of action.
At the same time, I do agree that White Evangelicals need to do all we can to reach out to and form greater bonds of friendship with Black and Latino Evangelicals, both on an individual basis, as well as on a collective basis. But this should not be motivated by political expediency, but rather by gospel faithfulness. By the same token, we need to put more emphasis on compassion and justice. The role of government as a tool to achieving these means are up for debate, among Evangelicals, and among others as well. But the need to have a heartfelt commitment to the needs and rights of underprivileged and marginalized is not just an option for us as Christians. But, once again, not as a political strategy, but rather as a gospel conviction.
Will this lead to greater success in the future at the polls? Perhaps not. But, then again, I don't think the Lord is going to ask us about our political effectiveness when He brings us to account at the Final Judgment.
Bart,
As I see it, the Republican party lost this past election for several reasons. Correct these issues and they are right back in the game.
1) Poor Candidate - Mitt Romney was a moderate, Mormon from Massachusetts who was unable to generate much enthusiasm from the party until the first debate. Romney was also handicapped on attacking Obamacare.
2) Poor VP Choice - Paul Ryan was a young Congressman from a democratic state with some baggage in the form of the Ryan Budget. While I personally like Ryan more than Romney, had Mitt chosen Rubio he wins Florida and thousands more Hispanic votes, or chosen Portman he wins Ohio and more votes in Florida, or chosen McDonnell and he wins Virginia.
3)Ignored Ron Paul and the Libertarian Branch of the Party - I cannot understand why Ron Paul was not given a chance to speak at the Republican Convention in Florida. This snub led to Ron Paul never officially endorsing Romney and over 1% of the popular vote (more than a million votes) going to Gary Johnson. All you have to do is look at the numbers in Florida and especially Ohio to see this 3rd Party impact. Ron Paul's support would have also carried some weight with younger voters.
4)Played It Too Safe - This President was vulnerable in multiple areas, however, Mitt Romney continually choose to limit his attack to the economy. The 3rd Debate and the weeks that followed were essentially wasted as Romney tried to sit on his supposed lead.
5) Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie - Only after seeing exit polls in several states was I willing to acknowledge this fact. However, it seems that thousands of people who were forced to decide between a President that didn't want to vote for and a challenger they didn't really want to vote for either were influenced by this moment and Christie's praise.
In Summary: Better Candidates (perhaps some with Charisma and likeability) from battleground states, unify and expand the party, and limit October surprises. My 2 cents. Thanks for letting me share.
Joe White
I voted for Barack Obama with a clear conscience. This information had something to do with my decision:
Is Barack Obama Really Pro-Life?
"In 2012, even more than in 2008, the answer is “YES!” Looking through the lens of Catholic Social Teaching, President Obama has spent his entire career striving for the common good. He led the historic effort to pass health insurance reform, a central tenet of Catholic Social Justice for more than 100 years, extending care to 32 million more Americans. He helped turn the corner on the worst financial crisis in 75 years, with all its disastrous implications for working families; and he worked tirelessly to find solutions that allowed distressed families to stay in their homes. Rather than trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, the weak Republican approach to dealing with abortion for the past 40 years, President Obama implemented the first explicit abortion reduction legislation in US history, promoting health care for pregnant women and better infant care, day care and job training. Now a new study from Washington University in St. Louis following 10,000 women for four years has shown that the provision of free contraception, one of the provisions of the new Affordable Care Act, dramatically decreased abortion among a group of high-risk girls and women."
http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/cfo/index.php
For those who do not reject birth control in conscience in all situations, this should be encouraging news.
Christiane;
It's nice that your conscience is clear; in spite of a muddled mind. If you believe 'CATHOLIC --democrats--' is more viable than your church; you should really consider your own religious standing. And you definitely shouldn't post such drivel on Baptist blogs.
Dale
Hi DALE,
Is it drivel when abortion numbers go down ?
Not in my religion, and I don't think in yours either.
This has been a tough week, very shocking and upsetting for a lot of people. I posted something that I thought might bring a bit of hope to those who want to see abortion numbers go downward. Goodness knows, it encouraged me and many of my own faith.
If you were personally offended by my comment, I AM sorry for having posted it.
Your opinion, in any case, is valued by me as a representative of Southern Baptist thought.
Anonymous:
While there may be some pro-abortion supporters who want fewer abortions, I am not convinced that this is anywhere near the position of the majority. Viewing those who seemed to be spitting and foaming at the mouth over Susan G. Komen foundation's decision to defund Planned Parenthood (and the like) gives me no assurances in that regard. Their emphasis is on "choice" not life. "Fewer pregnancies" is kind of vague and undefined in your posts. Generically I am not a supporter of "fewer pregnancies" but rather a supporter of few or many pregnancies under the right circumstances - marriage.
David:
Though I wouldn't agree with you "to a t," you suggest some important cautions for us to consider. We must remember that we are Christians first and foremost, and thereby enjoined to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Within that seeking must be the remembrance that it is the gospel that changes people and that the law restrains the lawless. The law is good and necessary in its sphere, but too many Christians have cast themselves upon law and politics as if it were the way to change people's hearts.
RL, there is more that can be said, obviously, but given your extreme language of "spitting and foaming at the mouth," constructive dialogue is probably not possible. That people differ from you is no call to speak of them in this manner. Today I learned of a Texas GOP official that referred to those that voted for Obama as maggots. Perhaps conversation will be more fruitful once greater control over emotions is attained.
Christiane;
'Drivel' is the assinine assummption that after 50 yars of liberals demanding recreational abortions; and, now you want to claim credit for reducing abortions. Get a life- that lie is is too prepostorous to deserve response. You and your race baiting hero deserve 0 credit for any decrease; and, eventually that will be made wonderfully clear. And, horor of horrors, you don't get to 'explain' your wonderful intentions.
Dale
"recreational abortions"
To do today:
Meet with boss at 10 AM in conference room
Lunch with client at noon at Cheesers
Renew subscription to Better Homes and Abortions
Abortion tailgating at 6PM prior to
Abortion match at 8 PM at gym
Can't afford contraception? That just kills me. How much are condoms? They can't afford contraception but somehow they can afford abortions? And from what I have read in more than one source, the number of abortions has held steady since 2008.
The Democratic position is that men and women are simply rutting animals with no self control.
spitting and foaming at the mouth
maggots
rutting animals
As you continue, keep in mind that skunks and barnacles have already been used.
Apologies to all in the thread: A power substation in Farmersville went down somewhat catastrophically earlier this week, causing some equipment problems with our computer network at the church. Here at FBCF, I'm the IT guy, so I've been a bit overwhelmed for the past few days. SBTC Annual Meeting starts tomorrow in San Antone.
So, I see in my email that there have been a lot of posts. I haven't been able to read any of them yet. Perhaps in a few days I can get back to the thread. So sorry.
Looking over the many comments, my own included, I feel impelled to share something I have learned in a long and blessed life,
this:
Even in our deepest disappointments we can still find the Grace of God. And when we find it, it is beautiful in our eyes.
Anonymous, you discredit my "extreme language" of "spitting and foaming at the mouth" as indication that constructive dialogue is probably not possible. Do you deny that there were people who had a violent reaction to the Komen foundation's actions (and other such like things)? Do you think all the "spitting and foaming at the mouth" just occurs on the other side? I wouldn't shy away from using that expression to describe the way some pro-life proponents act as well. SO, I can speak of people that differ from me and people that agree with me "in this manner." To use an expression to refer to the angry and violent reaction that was spewing forth from some is not to apply it to all who disagree with me. But I do believe this is representative of many who are interested in supporting "choice" at all costs.
If it is your belief that spitting and foaming adequately describes by far most, neatly all, adherents of either pro-life or pro-choice, then yes, you are an extreme voice, and such is in keeping with rhetoric and policy proposed by Republicans seeking to appease its leaders of its far right faction. It was found to be a losing strategy, and will continue to be a losing strategy. There is common ground, yet perhaps some perceive that to be inconvenient.
Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, if it is your belief that these shrill voices are not trying to be heard above the rest, you may be like the ostrich with its head in the sand. But I doubt that you are not aware of them. Over a long period of years, based on the rhetoric (whether shrill, sweet or smooth) and actions of the pro-abortion movement, I have become convinced but that their chief interest is not in rare abortions but that abortion as a choice be on the table in every case.
In regard to "losing strategy," I am not as much interested in a winning strategy as finding the correct position and then presenting it effectively. If it wins, it wins; if it doesn't, it doesn't. As far as your continuing to tout working with others, you dream as if no one who believes that abortion is wrong in every case could or would work, or has worked, with others who do not agree with them. But, for example, a pro-life person in Congress could hold on to his principles and still reach across the aisle to reduce the number of abortions, agree on banning partial birth abortion, and such like.
To illustrate with a different type of case, let's consider deaths of young children caused by abusive parents. Two people of different opinions on the issue could work together to craft law intended at reducing the number of these kind of child deaths. Would that require one abandoning the belief that ideally no such deaths should occur and that all of them are wrong? Obviously not.
RL: Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, if it is your belief that these shrill voices are not trying to be heard above the rest, you may be like the ostrich with its head in the sand. But I doubt that you are not aware of them. Over a long period of years, based on the rhetoric (whether shrill, sweet or smooth) and actions of the pro-abortion movement, I have become convinced but that their chief interest is not in rare abortions but that abortion as a choice be on the table in every case.
Anonymous: Of course abortion is on the table, for such is given with choice. That the decision will be made for abortion, however, is not a given.
It seems to me that your tact here is to paint those supporting pro-choice as shrill, but those holding to pro-life as not being shrill. I support the latter, but not the former. That is, far, far most, nearly all, in both camps are reasonable people that have plausible and honest differences with each other’s perspective. However, when pro-choice is reconceptualized as pro-abortion, indicating a deficient understanding of pro-choice, it is apparently, then, easy to demonize and overgeneralize.
RL: In regard to "losing strategy," I am not as much interested in a winning strategy as finding the correct position and then presenting it effectively. If it wins, it wins; if it doesn't, it doesn't. As far as your continuing to tout working with others, you dream as if no one who believes that abortion is wrong in every case could or would work, or has worked, with others who do not agree with them. But, for example, a pro-life person in Congress could hold on to his principles and still reach across the aisle to reduce the number of abortions, agree on banning partial birth abortion, and such like.
Anonymous: I understand your desire to be correct more so than being powerful, thus indicating wisdom, and I wish more shared your value. And yes, there are people from competing perspectives working with the other. I don’t, however, expect that to be the norm among a good many in SBC, especially given their animus of working with the people closest to them, CBF.
RL: To illustrate with a different type of case, let's consider deaths of young children caused by abusive parents. Two people of different opinions on the issue could work together to craft law intended at reducing the number of these kind of child deaths. Would that require one abandoning the belief that ideally no such deaths should occur and that all of them are wrong? Obviously not.
Anonymous: First, let’s be clear, I don’t conceptualize abortion as being abusive (but I will grant that trimester abortions [which is a very, very, very small category of abortions] at some point do cross that threshold, thus the choice of the mother is not the only concern in these cases) nor the fetus a child; thus, let’s not try an end-run with this example. Given such, who is for the abusive treatment of children?
For the sake of argument let's just say that none who favor choice are shrill. Let's stipulate all are fair, articulate, and judicious in their presentations of their views. It is not the people of "pro-choice" that I ultimately have a disagreement with, but the position. Let me be clear. I believe life begins at conception, and therefore the choice of "pro-choice" is a choice to kill a human life. Those who are for abortion are working to keep that choice on the table and those who are against it are working to get it off the table. At times they may come to agreements and work together on in between issues, but their final objectives are at odds with one another.
My example (though the point was about working together) brought out that you do not recognize an unborn baby as a child. Though you have some qualms about late term abortions, it seems that in your position generally unborn children have neither human rights nor legal rights.
SBC? CBF? I don't own stock in either of these companies, so you'll want to look to someone else to discuss their problems.
RL: For the sake of argument let's just say that none who favor choice are shrill. Let's stipulate all are fair, articulate, and judicious in their presentations of their views. It is not the people of "pro-choice" that I ultimately have a disagreement with, but the position. Let me be clear. I believe life begins at conception, and therefore the choice of "pro-choice" is a choice to kill a human life. Those who are for abortion are working to keep that choice on the table and those who are against it are working to get it off the table. At times they may come to agreements and work together on in between issues, but their final objectives are at odds with one another. My example (though the point was about working together) brought out that you do not recognize an unborn baby as a child. Though you have some qualms about late term abortions, it seems that in your position generally unborn children have neither human rights nor legal rights. SBC? CBF? I don't own stock in either of these companies, so you'll want to look to someone else to discuss their problems.
Anonymous: Again, I disagree with all … for either perspective, and extremist on both sides do little to encourage in some a desire to work together. And there are a good many things we can do to encourage shared ministry, but let’s hope the air is not first poisoned by mis-articulations of the other side’s perspective.
The choice that pro-choice is working to keep on the table is ultimately the right to exercise the autonomy of one’s person. The issue is not that of I am against abortion and I am for abortion; such is a simplification that leads to much demonization and marginalization. I don’t care for abortion, and wish there were fewer abortions, but such is an intensely personal matter that except for very rare cases, I don’t accept government involving itself to determine one’s choice. Nonetheless, good people can agree to disagree on said opinion and work in a civil manner to influence the law toward their respective perspective, even as they are working together to reduce the number of abortions.
As you would surmise, I don’t hold to life beginning at conception, meaning at conception there is a child. Even in conservative and conservatively religious rich Mississippi, the people decidedly rejected a move to make abortion illegal by basing such on this belief. Nonetheless, rights compete and an absolute claim of any right over all others in all circumstances is an argument that I would not wish to be tasked with making, but a guide that I think is helpful in determining moral/ethical behavior is one that seeks to balance utility, rights, and justice. Even with such an outline that seems very straightforward, working through it is very, very difficult.
I think we are nearing the end of our conversation, RL, and I also think it is ending better than it started, which I find encouraging.
Anonymous, since you indicate a desire to end our conservation, I'll not add any new comment in reference to yours. If anyone has a question or concern about what I've written, they can ask me.
Anonymous,
I can't let you get away with your comment about conservative Mississippians not holding to life beginning at conception. Proposition 26 was defeated only because of the millions of dollars spent by pro-abortion groups to spread falsehoods about how the law would affect fertility treatments and cases where the mother's life was in danger. The scare tactics were deplorable, but enough people believed them to defeat the proposition.
The truth is, anonymous, if you do not believe that life begins at conception, the onus is on you to show that it begins somewhere else.
Anonymous: There is nothing inaccurate about my comment (“Even in conservative and conservatively religious rich Mississippi, the people decidedly rejected a move to make abortion illegal by basing such on this belief.”); it is simply a statement of fact. That is, 55% of voters defeated the measure. I can’t speak to what went on in the state, but it is unlikely that only one side was lobbying for votes. Most people in the state, likely more given to pro-life than pro-choice, seemingly thought the measure a bit extreme, as seemingly as voters in Colorado, too. In the run-up to the vote, the support for the measure was the strongest among white male Republicans. A strong majority of the sample was past the typical family child-bearing age (i.e., 46+), and although I have not seen the final tabulation, I would suspect the strongest support for the measure was pretty much among the same group of people (i.e., middle-age and above white male Republicans). These measures are wasted energy and a diversion of resources that could be used to actually make a difference attenuating abortions.
Matt, thanks for addressing this. After the fact, I decided the Mississippi issue needed addressing, but just hadn't gotten back around to it. The Mississippi vote on the personhood initiative definitely should not and cannot be viewed as a referendum on whether or not Mississippians believe life begins at conception. It is much more complicated than that. There was the well-financed opposition you mentioned, but also some pro-lifers (who believe life begins at conception) seemed to think this was premature and there were some questions that needed to be addressed before this moved forward. I don't think this made them oppose it so much as that they just weren't as strong of proponents of it. Matt, does this latter seem correct to you as a Mississippian better informed on this than I? That's the way it looked from here.
I suspect if Mississippians were simply polled as to their beliefs, it would show they overwhelmingly believe life begins at conception.
R. L.,
There were a lot of pro-life voters who allowed other issues to cloud their vote. The pro-abortion lobby did a great job of leading people to believe that the amendment was poorly worded and could lead to problems with things like ectopic pregnancies and in vitro fertilization. The pro-life groups simply did not have the money to counteract the false claims, and the media for the most part was complicit to let the pro-abortion claims stand.
I believe you are correct in your assumption that most Mississippians believe that life begins at conception. If not at conception, then when? Even "anonymous" has avoided dealing with that.
First, gven the law is unprecedented, who could say where it might lead with subsequent legal challenges, thus concerns are not unfounded, notwithstanding other beliefs. Even a good many pro-life proponents were uncomfortable with this extreme proposal.
Second, it is not denied that a process for life has been enacted, but when legal considerations become a factor, sometime in the trisemester is reasonable.
Anonymous,
OK. You're right. I wish I had been as quick as you to understand that some murder of human life is reasonable. I'm sure the guys on death row at Parchman Prison will be glad to have new trials and base their appeals on how worthless their victims lives were. I'm sure that would seem very "reasonable" and go over real well in "conservative and conservatively religious rich Mississippi."
I'm sorry, anonymous, but this conversation is going nowhere. I believe that all human life is precious and should be protected and you believe that at least some human life is open to murder at will. I assure you that I will never accept your position, and I find it highly unlikely, barring a work of God in your life, that you will change yours. Therefore, I will leave off the fruitless conversation now, but I will continue to pray for you.
Matt, actually we agree; that is, I don't accept the position you have outlined, either.
Post a Comment