Unlike Reagan,Bush adopted policy of the Christian right. Will that cost him?

[World Order]

SORRY for the length.
About 60 million American citizens claim to have been `born again` and half of these describe themselves as fundamentalists. This largely reflects the fact that from its earliest days America provided a refuge for religious sects and movements wishing to escape persecution. The new Christian right, which emerged in the late 1970s, was therefore a novel development in that it sought to fuse religion and politics in attempting to `turn america back to Christ`.

The new Christian right is a broad coalition of groups that is primarily concerned with moral and social issues and are intent on maintaining or restoring what they see as Christian culture. Two main factors explain its emergence. One in the 1960s the Supreme court against the use of prayers in American schools (contrary to the first amendment, which guarantees religious freedom), civil rights legislation led to employment quotas and the enforced desegregation of schools through bussing, and, particularly as part of Johnsons `Great Society` initiative, there was a proliferation of welfare, urban development and other programmes. The result was that many `God fearing` conservatives felt that their traditional values and way of life were being threatened, and that the Washington liberal establishment was to blame.

Second was the increasingly political prominence of blacks, women and homosexuals, whose advance threatened traditional social structures, particularly in rural and small-town America. The new Christian right movement in the 1970s campaigned for restoration of traditional family values. A variety of organisations grew the Religious Round table, Moral Majority, Christian Voice and American Coalition for Traditional values. Anti-abortion in the 1980s was the issue that mobilised the movement.

Although Catholics were prominent in the anti-abortion movement, the movement drewfrom the Protestants who as the `Bible believers` subscibed to scriptural inerrancy, and often claimed to be `born again` in the sense that they had undergone a personal expeirence of conversion to Christ. Moral Majority provided finance for the Republican party to embrace a new social and moral agenda based on opposition to abortion and calls for the restoration of prayers to US school.

Reagan embraced Moral Majority in the 1980s that formed a key cog in getting Reagan elected as President. The new Republican coalition placed more emphasis on moral issues than foreign policy or the economy. However, although Reagan eagerly adopted the rhetoric of the Christian right  and made `pro-life` appointments to the Supreme court, he generally failed  to deliver on the moral agenda.  As George Bush sr rejected the idea of theChristian right movement, this prompted the organisation to put its own candidate for the Presidency in 1992. Televangelist Pat Robinson`s unsuccessful 1992 bid for the Republican nomination also cost the Republicans the White House. Turnout on the Christian right was low. The Christian right hit a wall in the 1990s, how could they get beyond the white evangelical Protestant community? The extreme Christian right have adopted miliant strategies such as the Christian Patriots exemplified by the Oklahoma bombing in 1995.

However, the Christian right recieved a major boost from the  election of George w.Bush in 2000. For Bush to get elected he had to mask his believes by using the phrase `compassinate conservatism` that did get him the votes form the independents and moderate conservatives. Not only are a number of members of Bushs cabinet born again Christians, but the leading evangelical John Ashcroft, was appointed attorney general. It has been argued that this has strenthened the support for Israel in the aftermath of September 11th, based upon the Old Testament  portrayal of Palestine as the `land of the Jews`. It has been suggested in Europe that the reasons for the war in Iraq isnt about Terrorism or oil but in fact to secure Israel. This mission will be complete with the invasions of Syria and Iran. Unlike Reagan, Bush has done what the Christian right have seeked from him. Unlike Reagan, Bush is not as popular. Did Reagan realise the dangers of this movement? The Christian right will come out in force to vote for Bush, but will they discover that the policy has alienated the moderate conservatives? i voted for Bush in 2000 and i am very uneasy about this movement. As a women i am a pro-choice. As a moderate conservative, i am concerned with the fiscal and trade deficits. Does this President have an agenda? or am i just paranoid.

[MODU]

If anything, it might tap into the female demographic which the Republicans have problems with (since Republicans are pro-life).  Outside of that, the only other demographic I can think of which might shift his direction is some Catholic Democrats.  But that would be slim.

[DarthKosh]

Did the troll nomorelies change his name?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't see any difference between Bush and Reagan in this area.

[JNB]

 If anything, Bush is more "moderate" than Reagan in terms of social issues. GW Bush main intrest has been with business intrests domestically, he has spendt every nickel of his political capital domestically on tax cuts, not pushing social renewal.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Did Reagan favor desecrating the Constitution to ban gay marriages?

If anything, it might tap into the female demographic which the Republicans have problems with (since Republicans are pro-life).

why would it help him with females? If anything it'll hurt him more since it'll remind them of the Republican hardline pro-life platform.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Did Reagan favor desecrating the Constitution to ban gay marriages?

No, but until the courts got involved, neither did any of the pols now supporting it.  America hadn't slid far enough into the gutter by the 80's for it to even be an issue.

[© tweed]

Reagan's social conservatism was more rhetoric than action...

[Josh/Devilman88]

hurt him!! HAHA yea right, if will just make more christian vote for him.

[Beet]

Reagan talked far right but in reality he was moderate right. He appointed to the supreme court two moderates, O'Connor and Kennedy, though granted the latter came after Bork. Both of those later voted to uphold the right to choose on abortion. The years 1982-1984 were marked by big tax increases. He didn't try to change the federal reserve's policy inherited from the Carter administration. Under his administration, the number of new federal regulations remained the same about every year, contrary to myth. His star wars program was a bluff--abeit successful one-- but he maintained America's treaty credibility by not repealing the ABM treaty with Russia. He didn't order the kind of wide scale military intervention without allies, in Grenada there were even American civilians living inside the country who might be threatened. In the later 80's he embraced Gorbachev and detente with the Soviets and began to cut military spending. Overall I think he was a flexible politician despite his rhetoric, he knew how to make America feel good.

I think Bush contrasts with Reagan on all these points. Although both represented conservatism, Bush acts as if conservatives are the only ones left in America, Reagan knew he was a conservative representative in an ideologically diverse America.

[Josh/Devilman88]

That is why Reagan is better then Bush, but Bush is better then Kerry, because Kerry thinks that there are only people in the USA that don't believe in God.

[© tweed]

That is why Reagan is better then Bush, but Bush is better then Kerry, because Kerry thinks that there are only people in the USA that don't believe in God.

I'm not getting that...

[Nation]

That is why Reagan is better then Bush, but Bush is better then Kerry, because Kerry thinks that there are only people in the USA that don't believe in God.

Watch your tongue, boy. Kerry may not be a very good Catholic according to the Pope, but he's certainly not an atheist.

[PatadyBag]

It's clear that Bush was going to win the Religious Right percentage of the vote anyways- the only ones who might (read: might) break from that are a few Catholic voters.  Bush's shift to the RR certainly isn't making him any friends in the camps of people for whom religion doesn't play a big role (i.e., agnostics/atheists, Christians with more left-leaning social views, etc.)

[Schmitz in 1972]

Funny you should mention it Spinning Crackpots. On the radio this morning I heard that statistics show increasingly there is a gap between religious and non-religious conservatives. In 2000 Bush received the votes of almost 25 percent more of religious conservatives than non-religious conservatives. In the Almanac of American Politics 2002 Barone states in his opening essay that increasingly Americans vote as they pray (or don't pray)

[Beet]

Unfortunately religion is being used as a wedge issue. Just like libertarians, of which there are a great number of moderate ones but who won't vote that way because the party is not competitive, a lot of Americans are Christian left. That is, conservative socially but are more passionate about being liberal economically. Yet they see the Democratic party has not religious enough so feel they must vote Republican, even if they dislike Bush. I see plenty of people like this. They too have no party to go to. It might explain why Kerry hasn't been able to capitalise on Bush's low numbers or discontent over the direction this country is headed too. So the 2-party system is really hurting. Personally I feel the right emphasizes the wrong points of Christianity, turning many people off to it. I am a Christian. I do not think it is primarily meant to be used as a tool for social control, or to impose shallow and semi-sincere religious laws.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

hurt him!! HAHA yea right, if will just make more christian vote for him.

you are making two foolish assumptions:

1-All Christians in the country support the Christian Right
2-Most Christian Right supporters aren't already voting Republican.

By doing this, Bush would turn off moderate libertarian minded Republicans. Meanwhile he won't gain anything, since almost everyone who agrees with Pat Robertson now is voting Republican anyway.

I am a Christian, and I'm as socially liberal as they come.

[JohnFKennedy]

Did the troll nomorelies change his name?

DarthKosh, don't forget to vote in the North East Gubernatorial Run Off.

The voting booth is here:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=13;action=display;threadid=4613

The choices are:

.Andrew (UAC-NY) (Former YoungRepub)
Siege40 (UL-ME)

[© tweed]

Slick plant, slick.

[JohnFKennedy]

Slick plant, slick.

Nothing against it, I believe the issue of reminding people to vote is allowed, only campaigning isn't. (Although despite that I seem to recall harry campaigning off of the fantasy forums).

[??????????]

hurt him!! HAHA yea right, if will just make more christian vote for him.

you are making two foolish assumptions:

1-All Christians in the country support the Christian Right
2-Most Christian Right supporters aren't already voting Republican.

By doing this, Bush would turn off moderate libertarian minded Republicans. Meanwhile he won't gain anything, since almost everyone who agrees with Pat Robertson now is voting Republican anyway.

I am a Christian, and I'm as socially liberal as they come.

Being socially liberal on issues such as gay marriage and abortion are completely contrary to Christianity. Why be a member of a organization if you can't even have respect enough to follow its' guidelines? It'd be like playing football with a baseball bat.

[© tweed]

It was slick because you did not go against the letter of the law, only against the intent of the law.

[dazzleman]

SORRY for the length.
About 60 million American citizens claim to have been `born again` and half of these describe themselves as fundamentalists. This largely reflects the fact that from its earliest days America provided a refuge for religious sects and movements wishing to escape persecution. The new Christian right, which emerged in the late 1970s, was therefore a novel development in that it sought to fuse religion and politics in attempting to `turn america back to Christ`.

The new Christian right is a broad coalition of groups that is primarily concerned with moral and social issues and are intent on maintaining or restoring what they see as Christian culture. Two main factors explain its emergence. One in the 1960s the Supreme court against the use of prayers in American schools (contrary to the first amendment, which guarantees religious freedom), civil rights legislation led to employment quotas and the enforced desegregation of schools through bussing, and, particularly as part of Johnsons `Great Society` initiative, there was a proliferation of welfare, urban development and other programmes. The result was that many `God fearing` conservatives felt that their traditional values and way of life were being threatened, and that the Washington liberal establishment was to blame.

Second was the increasingly political prominence of blacks, women and homosexuals, whose advance threatened traditional social structures, particularly in rural and small-town America. The new Christian right movement in the 1970s campaigned for restoration of traditional family values. A variety of organisations grew the Religious Round table, Moral Majority, Christian Voice and American Coalition for Traditional values. Anti-abortion in the 1980s was the issue that mobilised the movement.

Although Catholics were prominent in the anti-abortion movement, the movement drewfrom the Protestants who as the `Bible believers` subscibed to scriptural inerrancy, and often claimed to be `born again` in the sense that they had undergone a personal expeirence of conversion to Christ. Moral Majority provided finance for the Republican party to embrace a new social and moral agenda based on opposition to abortion and calls for the restoration of prayers to US school.

Reagan embraced Moral Majority in the 1980s that formed a key cog in getting Reagan elected as President. The new Republican coalition placed more emphasis on moral issues than foreign policy or the economy. However, although Reagan eagerly adopted the rhetoric of the Christian right  and made `pro-life` appointments to the Supreme court, he generally failed  to deliver on the moral agenda.  As George Bush sr rejected the idea of theChristian right movement, this prompted the organisation to put its own candidate for the Presidency in 1992. Televangelist Pat Robinson`s unsuccessful 1992 bid for the Republican nomination also cost the Republicans the White House. Turnout on the Christian right was low. The Christian right hit a wall in the 1990s, how could they get beyond the white evangelical Protestant community? The extreme Christian right have adopted miliant strategies such as the Christian Patriots exemplified by the Oklahoma bombing in 1995.

However, the Christian right recieved a major boost from the  election of George w.Bush in 2000. For Bush to get elected he had to mask his believes by using the phrase `compassinate conservatism` that did get him the votes form the independents and moderate conservatives. Not only are a number of members of Bushs cabinet born again Christians, but the leading evangelical John Ashcroft, was appointed attorney general. It has been argued that this has strenthened the support for Israel in the aftermath of September 11th, based upon the Old Testament  portrayal of Palestine as the `land of the Jews`. It has been suggested in Europe that the reasons for the war in Iraq isnt about Terrorism or oil but in fact to secure Israel. This mission will be complete with the invasions of Syria and Iran. Unlike Reagan, Bush has done what the Christian right have seeked from him. Unlike Reagan, Bush is not as popular. Did Reagan realise the dangers of this movement? The Christian right will come out in force to vote for Bush, but will they discover that the policy has alienated the moderate conservatives? i voted for Bush in 2000 and i am very uneasy about this movement. As a women i am a pro-choice. As a moderate conservative, i am concerned with the fiscal and trade deficits. Does this President have an agenda? or am i just paranoid.

I don't think Bush has gone any further than Reagan in adopting the policy of the Christian right, whatever that is.  He stands for traditional family values and it's very hard for me to find something wrong with that, or to understand the hysteria and hatred behind the people who do.

The idea that Pat Robertson cost George Bush the 1992 election is a new one on me.  It is certainly true that lack of enthusiasm for
Bush among his base was a big part of the reason for his defeat.  But that was based on more than just "Christian right" issues.  In fact I don't think that the "Christian right" issues played a big part on their own.  It was more the economy and the general directionlessness and lack of ideas projected by Bush.

One thing I don't understand about the liberals is that if they are so sure their stance on social issues like abortion is so popular, why are they so hysterical about court appointments.  Courts exist to force unpopular ideas (such as busing) down people's throats.  If something is popular and approved by the legislature, court backing is not necessary.