One of the foulest influences on the Republican Party over the last 25+ years has been the rise of evangelical Christians - the Christofascists as I call them - who have worked to merge their ugly religious beliefs into the nation's civil laws. Along the way, they have made the embrace of ignorance and denial of science a prerequisite for any candidate who wants to win a GOP primary at almost every level. These knuckle draggers cannot countenance anything that challenges their myth and fantasy world based beliefs. That Ted Cruz, even as insane as he is, chose to announce his candidacy at Liberty University shows how strong the strangle hold on the GOP has become. There are some, however, who conjecture that the evangelical base may be splintering, which could be a good thing for the GOP and America over the longer term, Here are excerpts from a piece in Salon:
In a new profile of supposed evangelical kingmaker David Lane, the New York Times’ Jason Horowitz describes Lane as “emblematic of a new generation of evangelical leaders who draw local support or exert influence through niche issues or their own networks.”
“New” generation is a bit misleading; Lane, after all, has been around working the room since the 1990s. The “new” moniker is meant to distinguish him from the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell generation, although it’s really less of a generational difference than an organizational one.
[T]he key distinction between Lane’s efforts and the Moral Majority or Christian Coalition models is not local versus national: it’s a function of evangelical base splintering in different directions. Lane represents the pander-by-praying and extolling-the-Christian-nation wing. The other wing, as I reported last week, has tired of that routine. They’d rather hear the candidates talk about religious freedom, not offer overwrought displays of piety blended with patriotism.
[Lane] He’s certainly a player, and perhaps even more so because of the support he has received from the American Family Association, which was behind Lane-inspired efforts like The Response (hosted by then-Texas Governor Rick Perry in 2011, and this year by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal). . . . . The AFA is known for its virulently anti-gay and anti-immigrant stances, and not just because its ongoing affiliation with the execrable Bryan Fischer. Former employees have recounted appalling conduct within the organization. On the other hand, as I reported last week, a growing number of evangelicals support immigration reform, including a path to citizenship. And many realize the futility of continuing to talk about opposition to marriage equality, hence the shift to talking about religious freedom instead. They still share opposition to same-sex marriage with the AFA. But they’ve adopted a different frame: advocating for what they claim are endangered religious freedom rights in the face of the new marriage equality reality.
No matter how dubious one might find those religious freedom claims—notably, claims for exemptions from serving same-sex marriage celebrations, and, in other contexts, covering reproductive health care in a company insurance plan—it’s a mistake to ignore how that conversation is driving the evangelical world. Will Lane’s single-minded Christian nation demagoguery carry the day with evangelical voters? Or will they be looking toward a candidate who has thus far avoided making Lane appearances but can nonetheless satisfy their religious and political concerns?
While there are a multitude of reasons why Huckabee and Perry didn’t get their party’s nomination in 2008 and 2012, Lane’s evangelical voter mobilization certainly didn’t deliver what was necessary to win. If that pattern repeats in 2016, we’ll likely see some of the candidates (say, Perry, Huckabee, Jindal, Ted Cruz) scrambling to get in front of Lane’s vaunted audiences of pastors. But that doesn’t mean one of those candidates will get the nomination. The next step to watch: will the candidates who thus far have tied their fortunes to Lane feel compelled to do so, or will they be confident they can win over evangelicals without him?
The more divided the Christofascists become and the more its leading demagogues fight among themselves for power and control, the better. It will make it easier for Republicans to ignore that demographic and perhaps begin a drift back to sanity. It will not happen over night, but I hope the infighting among the "godly folk" intensifies.
No comments:
Post a Comment