Justice Dakota
03/06/2012
It is unknown when the "Real Conservative Movement (RCM)" began. However, we do know that the Social Conservative element of the Republican Party has been around for some time. In 1976, Robertson announced that the end of the world was coming in October or November 1982. In September 1986, Pat Robertson announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for President of the United States.
After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America, Robertson agreed with Jerry Falwell that the terrorist attacks were partly a result of pagans, gays, and feminists. Oh, and the ACLU. Robertson and Falwell also suggested that lesbians played a critical role in the attacks. George W. Bush asked both men to reconsider their analysis. Falwell subsequently apologized.
So, did the Real Conservative Movement begin September 1986 with Robertson's presidential bid? Who knows? We do know that many RCM leaders love to dip into that religious well for political purposes. We also know they are attempting to re-make the Tea Party into their own image.
Many RCMs misinterpreted the Tea Party success in 2010 as a revival of the Social Conservative Movement in America. Their reasoning for such a revival was -- and is -- critically flawed and damaging to the larger universe of Conservative Republicans and Conservative political and economic theory in general.
Interestingly, what was unique about the success of the Tea Party in 2010 was its almost exclusive emphasis on free-market economic principles and a smaller federal government. In general, Tea Party voters wanted less taxation and less spending -- knowing that those two things would result in greater freedom and prosperity.
In 2010, the Tea Party, at its core, was a Constitutional movement. Its supporters mostly avoided social issues. As a result, they were successful.
Unfortunately, the original rationality of the Tea Party was hijacked by the religious interventionist. The "old" (emphasis on "old") Social Conservatives moved in to exploit, manipulate, and mold the Tea Party into something akin to Pat Robertson's 700 club in an effort to promote their social, "moral," and religious agenda. These "Body Snatchers" consider themselves "Real Conservatives (RCs)." They have been promoted and supported by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and numerous other social conservative reactionaries. How many times have you heard well-known conservative pundits talk about finding a "real conservative"?
When they say, "real" do they mean Evangelical or Christian Fundamentalist? When Rush Limbaugh focused on the sex-life of a college student, and called her a slut and a prostitute on his nationally syndicated radio show -- was he morally condemning her personal, legal, life-style choices?
I listened to Rush obsess over how to calculate the number of times per week this student has sex. Granted, Rush was addressing the issue of government subsidized birth-control. Still, is it interesting that RCs appear to be irrationally focused on peering into the private, "social" lives of Americans?
Must the RCM continue to reinforce the stereo-type that Social Conservatives are focused on what people are doing in their bedrooms? Rush even said he wanted the student to post videos of her sex acts so he and other RCs could watch! Creepy Alert!! (I wonder if Cotton Mather suffered from these types of internal contradictions?)
We all know that Senator Rick Santorum is not reluctant to talk about sex (and Satan). We know that Speaker Newt Gingrich loves to talk about his salvation, redemption, conversion, etc ... (I forget all the various terms he uses to to avoid the reality of his previous non-socially conservative lifestyle: affairs, divorces, support of open marriages?) Despite his "socially hot" background, Newt came up with a way to say, "I am now a true social conservative!" Luckily for Newt, he changed his ways just in time for his 2012 presidential bid ...
What is interesting about the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary is that Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Ron Paul have avoided exploiting religion for political purposes. Romney's strong, sincere religious convictions have never been questioned. He is universally considered a man of faith; a moral and ethical family man; and a man who lives a socially conservative life-style. Is Romney the epitome of a socially conservative, family-values guy? How does Romney manage to do this without telling the rest of us how to live our private lives?
How can Romney be so non-judgmental given his strongly held religious views? How can he so easily delineate the roles of church and state? And, why is it so difficult for other candidates to separate their personal religious convictions from their public policy pronouncements?
Could it be that because Romney is confident and secure in his faith he does not feel the need to lecture people about their own religious or non-religious world-views? Could that skill make him the ideal conservative candidate for President of the United States?
No comments:
Post a Comment