| | James,
Very well written piece. I hope you're right! I would like to comment on your last paragraph which reads:
James says: The Republican right will insist on some social legislation regarding gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, or some other position that will split its uneasy coalition between its religious right and its more libertarian moderate center. True political realignment has only occurred a few times in our history. We may be approaching one of those times, and that is a possibility that I hope to visit in detail after the election.
To the above quote I would say: That realignment has already taken place.
As I have stated before in other discussions, what you have discribed here has already taken place - albeit, incrementally. Just as the Democratic party has had to 'begrudgingly' accept quite a bit of 'free market' economic policy, the Republican party has had to change as well. The American people never cease to astound me in their ability to discern the more trashy aspects of both parties, and force change. Below are 3 quotes from some exchanges I had that I believe address those issues you raised.
Abortion:
Even the abortion issue, a staple of Christian fundamentalism, is no longer in the forefront – at least not in the same manner as before. Culturally speaking, the position of the anti-abortion advocates today is hugely watered down from just 20 years ago. Although the issue is presented in either-or terms (legalized abortion-on-demand at any point in pregnancy, or the banning of abortion at all times and without exception), the majority of Americans who once counted themselves among the ‘total banning’ group are insignificant in number. Today, unlike a mere 20 years ago, the majority of anti-abortion advocates have a slew of caveats for when an abortion should be legal. Many have moved to, ‘only during the first trimester, or if she’s raped, or if her life is endangered’ as the basis of their argument. The recent debate over partial-birth abortion is not indicative of the triumph of religious fundamentalism; on the contrary, it is indicative of how peripheral and narrow the extremist arguments have become - needing to appeal to the psychological impact the image of a 9-month fetus being ripped apart in order to be taken seriously even to a small degree. This is quite a step down from no abortion beginning from the moment of conception!
Gay Marraige:
100 years ago many homosexuals were imprisoned or sent to insane asylums. 50 years ago every state in the union had laws on the books against various homosexual practices. 30 years ago the concept of ‘civil unions’ for homosexuals would have met with derision. We have now reached a stage in America's development where the argument against homosexuality is not whether it should be a crime (the majority of Americans reject this), not whether these persons are perverts (the majority of Americans reject this), and not whether they should be banned from adoption, military service, political office, and in some cases even high positions within the church itself! The argument is now whether this group should be granted the title of ‘married’ from a legal standpoint, while still retaining ALL of the fundamental rights of people who are married. "....to even couch this argument is these terms is an implicit recognition that homosexuals should have the same inalienable rights as all other Americans? Now, of course the gay marriage amendment is wrong and biased, and we should fight it and proclaim it as a blasphemy to the spirit of our constitution. But the gay marriage amendment is a peripheral attack on homosexuality by a group of people who no longer are capable of launching a frontal attack against the very concept of homosexuality itself. The Republican Party, by accepting the idea of civil unions, has moved to a position that is a leap forward in safeguarding the individual rights of homosexuals, and a tacit admission that the extremist homophobes have lost the battle of ideas.
Religious Fundamentalism:
The primary reason for the increase (in Church attendence) is the greater secularization of the mainstream churches. As I stated in a related discussion with Chris Sciabarra, people continue to thirst for a sense of direction in their lives - ie a philosophy. The decline of the church was a direct result of Americans having reached a level of education and knowledge in which the more 'fundamentalist' aspects of church doctrine were no longer acceptable to them. The current upswing is due to a quiet, unreported, but visible reformation that has taken place among the mainstream churches. By any objective standard they have become far more secularized and ecumenical in their approach and doctrine than a mere 20 years ago. The result is that a great many people that formerly felt unwelcome within the church or could not reconcile certain doctrines, no longer feel that way.
It feels odd to quote myself! At any rate, I certainly hope that the prediction of your article comes to pass. Unfortunately, I do NOT see the 'landslide' that you do. I believe it will be frighteningly close.
George
(Edited by George W. Cordero on 10/18, 3:00pm)
|
|
