GOP Senator Danforth speaks out about hijacking of GOP

[Ratman]

I think Senator Danforth raises a lot of good points in his editorial. I have a number of "conservative" friends who feel the same way. I wonder why more "traditional conservatives" aren't speaking out like this. I liken it to moderate Muslims not condemning extremists. In the end, it is the extremists on both sides who are making the world a less tolerant, more dangerous world. [Steps down from dais.]

I look forward to reading comments on Danforth's views and/or your personal views on this topic.

March 30, 2005
In the Name of Politics
By JOHN C. DANFORTH

St. Louis — BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.
Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes.
High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.
In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes.
It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law.
I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.
The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.
Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.
During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.
But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.
The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.
John C. Danforth, a former United States senator from Missouri, resigned in January as United States ambassador to the United Nations. He is an Episcopal minister.

Full article

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html?incamp=article_popular_1

[VeetVooja]

I agree with him on the religious influences, i feel very strongly about not mixing state and religious affairs. I wonder how his editorial will be received by his own party. Hasn't Bush himself spoken out against legal gay marriage?

[priccobe]

That's funny. Last I heard, several churches were under IRS investigation for "supporting" Kerry during the last election.

[askDNA]

What I hate about the GOP is how they claim to be "conservative" and "moral". yes they do want to ban gay marriage, etc, but at the same time they don't care about half the country and show no compassion towards poor people and helping others, like Christians should do. Instead the party is also 'hijacked' by big business and extremist supply side economists who aren't "starving the beast[government] and instead spending more :slap: . Texas is soon going to be a democratic state like Cali because of the uncontrolled immigration.

[formerLT]

As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.


Key quote.


Look, I used to be a die hard Conservative, and I was a sincere supporter of the Republican party. That all changed around late 2003 when I started seeing this administration for what it is. I would consider myself a more moderate independent now, still conservative in many ways, but more of an independent now.

I used to vote for Republicans because they were for smaller government. Look at whats happened under Bush= spending spending spending. BIG intrusive Federal government.

If gay marriage is passed I'm going to wake up tomorrow and not much has changed. However if the federal deficit keeps balooning, we keep losing good paying jobs, and our standard of living erodes then yes that will change things for most of us (except the rich). IMO those issues are more important. The Republicans use the moral issues as a smokescreen in order to get elected. If the majority of Americans saw the Bush Republican platform for what it is/was, detrimental to their modest well-being, then there's no way in hades they would get elected. So they push the moral issues, because their economic and social issues are for the rich, period, the rest of us lose out. The gulf between rich and poor is growing in this nation, and under Bush we're not going in the right direction. Also another reason why I voted republican was because I felt they supported the military. Under Bush that tradition has gone south. We saw it with Rumsfeld and the armored up humvees. We've seen it on all the extensions, stop losses, and other measures .. not to mention reserve component troops complaining they were deployed without proper gear and training. Not to mention all this money they spend on defense, most of it is going to R&D, in to the pockets of coroporate America for some new techno gadget or weapons system, etc. We get the Stryker, or some sorry new battle rifle when we can get another 10 years out of our current systems. What about quality and plentiful training at the unit level? It was lacking when I was in, has it changed? Whats the rotations been looking like at JRTC and NTC prior to 9/11 or shortly thereafter? The lids off that problem, they're using the military just as carelessly as the Democrats did in starving it for money and then sending it on twinkie missions for "humanitarian" reasons.

My hope and thought is that the Republican party is current divided between the old school or true Republicans and the Bushie Neo-con hybrid republicans that have dominated since 2000 ... and when this idiot Bush is gone, his cronies will lose support and the Republican party will go back to how it was.

Thats when I will consider rejoining the party. In the meantime I'm out, solidly out and it will be a cold day in hades before I vote for another Republican.


Disclaimer: I supported the Iraq War. However every chance this adminsitration has had to stumble in doing it, they have stumbled. Their handling of it stinks.

[szr]

There are a lot of reasons why many traditional conservatives have been doing double-takes at the direction the Republican party has been going in recent years. For me, it was the movement away from fiscal conservatism and away from smaller government at the federal level. It feels like Washington is trying to impose its will and its policies on individual States more than any time I can remember. I feel like my party has been hijacked by extremists and lunatics of several flavors, who have less in common with me than common democrats do. This is why I voted Democrat last November.

It should be noted that Republicans at the state and city level [here in New York] seem to atleast know what they should be trying to do as conservatises, even if it isn't always feasible. National Republicans, on the other hand, are acting like drunken teenagers who have the keys to their parents' car--they're trying to see how much they can get away with before they get busted.

[KB]

Jesus called the religious hypocrites of his day "white washed tombs"; pretty and neat on the outside, decaying within. They're still around.

[Durandal]

He is not the only one saying stuff like this and I agree completely.

Rock on!

They need to make a new party.

[hank]

What I hate about the GOP is how they claim to be "conservative" and "moral". yes they do want to ban gay marriage, etc, but at the same time they don't care about half the country and show no compassion towards poor people and helping others, like Christians should do. Instead the party is also 'hijacked' by big business and extremist supply side economists who aren't "starving the beast[government] and instead spending more :slap: . Texas is soon going to be a democratic state like Cali because of the uncontrolled immigration.

Why do you think a Christian wants the government to help the disadvantaged. i am a Christian and I don't want my Govt to do something I should do myself. All the govt does is skim off the top of money I could give to help the people in my community. FDR has rotted your brain.

Don't look to govt to help. Govt is not the solution, its the problem. A tru Republican can't really love W or Reagan because they both grew the Fed' Govt. A tru Republican shudders at the thought that we need Social Secutiry and welfare.

I gladly give more to the United Way than I pay in SS tax every year.

Think about it.

I agree about gay marriage. IMO a true Republican cares not what someone does in their bedroom regardless of their religious belief. They certainly don't want the Govt coming into their bedroom.

hank

[wholagun]

what wow wait a sec. I remember everyone all gun ho all pro BUSH - he is the saviour. I totally agree with you guys even though im not america, but I agree on the principle even as a Catholic I don't like where the American system is heading. But it just seems as though some people (not necessarily those up you above, but others on this forum) may have taken a 180 degree turn on Bush. Wow, good stuff.

I think i will like this thread. If a European or Canadian or non American posted this it would get a differnt reception then the one recived thus far, im certain of it - so in light of that good post.

[Frogg]

I think the majority of Americans are in the center. The Republicans cater less to the Christian Conservatives; than the Democrats cater to the Looney left.

I actually agree with most of the Republican stands on the moral issues; and, I don't even go to church.

However, I did sign that petition a couple of years ago against government spending and was very disappinted in the Republican leadership for its wasteful pork barrel and loose spending. But, keep one thing in mind....if you look at the proposed spending items in Congress.....the Democrats would have spent tenfold what the Republicans did if they were the majority.

That being said......I long for the day when both parties put up a candidate that the opposite side feels they could live with in the end.
And I think all of us would like to see "money" and "special interest groups" out of our politics.

[wholagun]

I think the majority of Americans are in the center. The Republicans cater less to the Christian Conservatives; than the Democrats cater to the Looney left.

I actually agree with most of the Republican stands on the moral issues; and, I don't even go to church.

However, I did sign that petition a couple of years ago against government spending and was very disappinted in the Republican leadership for its wasteful pork barrel and loose spending. But, keep one thing in mind....if you look at the proposed spending items in Congress.....the Democrats would have spent tenfold what the Republicans did if they were the majority.

That being said......I long for the day when both parties put up a candidate that the opposite side feels they could live with in the end.

Well Clinton was a democrat and he was economically conservative - Alan Greenspan was his man and continues on being Bush's. My US foreign policy prof, who is a guy I respect very much and is American from DC, he said that alot of Americans don't understand that there is no such thing as a pure conservaive or democract. Clinton was not totally left by any means, his economic policies were right, but foreign policy more left. Look at Arnold, he more a left social conservative. So the point Im getting at is that just by having democrats in office doesn't neccessairly mean that you will have 10 times spending.

[Frogg]

I think the majority of Americans are in the center. The Republicans cater less to the Christian Conservatives; than the Democrats cater to the Looney left.

I actually agree with most of the Republican stands on the moral issues; and, I don't even go to church.

However, I did sign that petition a couple of years ago against government spending and was very disappinted in the Republican leadership for its wasteful pork barrel and loose spending. But, keep one thing in mind....if you look at the proposed spending items in Congress.....the Democrats would have spent tenfold what the Republicans did if they were the majority.

That being said......I long for the day when both parties put up a candidate that the opposite side feels they could live with in the end.

Well Clinton was a democrat and he was economically conservative - Alan Greenspan was his man and continues on being Bush's. My US foreign policy prof, who is a guy I respect very much and is American from DC, he said that alot of Americans don't understand that there is no such thing as a pure conservaive or democract. Clinton was not totally left by any means, his economic policies were right, but foreign policy more left. Look at Arnold, he more a left social conservative. So the point Im getting at is that just by having democrats in office doesn't neccessairly mean that you will have 10 times spending.

I agree. However, fiscally centrist Democrats seem rare to me (there are some, like Bill Richardson etc). I strongly think Bush should have gotten that "veto" pen out more often. I hope it sees light this term.

[hank]

I think the majority of Americans are in the center. The Republicans cater less to the Christian Conservatives; than the Democrats cater to the Looney left.

I actually agree with most of the Republican stands on the moral issues; and, I don't even go to church.

However, I did sign that petition a couple of years ago against government spending and was very disappinted in the Republican leadership for its wasteful pork barrel and loose spending. But, keep one thing in mind....if you look at the proposed spending items in Congress.....the Democrats would have spent tenfold what the Republicans did if they were the majority.

That being said......I long for the day when both parties put up a candidate that the opposite side feels they could live with in the end.

Well Clinton was a democrat and he was economically conservative - Alan Greenspan was his man and continues on being Bush's. My US foreign policy prof, who is a guy I respect very much and is American from DC, he said that alot of Americans don't understand that there is no such thing as a pure conservaive or democract. Clinton was not totally left by any means, his economic policies were right, but foreign policy more left. Look at Arnold, he more a left social conservative. So the point Im getting at is that just by having democrats in office doesn't neccessairly mean that you will have 10 times spending.

I'll take issue with this, Clinton wasn't economically conservative. He lacked a position whatsoever. He did nothing. Reagan appointed Greenspan. Clinton is an ananmoly that really did nothing and enjoyed the fruits of his predecessors (they all do but most at least leave a mark). Clinton just sat up there and failed miserably at every initiative and kept listening to Carville say , "its the economy stupid". He did nothing so the status quo wuold let ride into a second term and then rode off into the sunset.

Truly and amazing guy. Got a lot of limeage out not much intellect or ability. And gets remembered fondly to boot!

hank

[molly747]

Wow, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I was raised in a staunchly Republican family. I can't think of one Democrat in my family. Hell, I'm a direct descendant of Hannibal Hamlin, the "Father" of the party.

My mother (who is president of a local women's Republican club) went to benefit last month for the Shelby County GOP. The entertainment was all Christian musical acts and speakers. My mother got home and said, "I don't think I heard any mention of the government or politics during the entire event. But I sure heard a lot about Jesus."

[Frogg]

Here is the rebuttal to Sen. Danforth's article. Food for thought, also.....




Hating the "Religious Right"

Should people of faith also be allowed a say in the law-making process?

by Hugh Hewitt
03/31/2005 12:00:00 AM

THE TERRI SCHIAVO TRAGEDY has been seized on by long-time critics of the "religious right" to launch attack after attack on the legitimacy of political action on the basis of religious belief. This attack has ignored the inconvenient participation in the debate--on the side of resuming water and nutrition for Terri Schiavo--of the spectacularly not-the-religious-rightness of Tom Harkin, Nat Hentoff, Jesse Jackson, and a coalition of disability advocacy groups.

The attack has also been hysterical. After Congress acted--ineffectively, it turned out--Maureen Dowd proclaimed that "theocracy" had arrived in the land. Paul Krugman warned that assassination of liberals by extremists was not far off. And the Internet frenzy on the left was even more extreme.

Into the fray came former Missouri Republican Senator John Danforth, an ordained priest, and much admired man of integrity. In yesterday's New York Times, Senator Danforth blasted the control that he asserts is now held over the Republican party by religious conservatives. Danforth specifically criticized the congressional action on behalf of Schiavo, a proposed Missouri bill that would halt stem cell research, and concerns over gay marriage.

All of these charges--from the most incoherent to the most measured--arrive without definition as to what "the religious right" is, and without argument as to why the agenda of this ill-defined group is less legitimate than the pro-gay marriage, pro-cloning, pro-partial-birth abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda of other political actors. Danforth's position is, apparently, that the agenda of the left on these matters ought not to be resisted, which means that it will

be enacted. "For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group," Danforth intones, "is often to oppose the cause of another." That is inescapably true. To come to the defense of the unborn, as Senator Danforth correctly notes he always did during his legislative career, is to oppose abortion on demand. To come to the aid of the Christians in Sudan is to oppose the wishes of the Muslims who sought their destruction. Every political conflict is a choice between competing moral codes.

So Danforth's essay is really a poorly-camouflaged complaint that his positions on stem-cell research, gay marriage, and Terri Schiavo are not the positions of the Republican party. It is fair for him to try and persuade people to endorse his positions but it is wrong and demagogic to attempt to question the right of people of faith to participate in politics. That is certainly what Dowd, Krugman, and others want to accomplish, and although Danforth asserts that "I do not fault religious people for political action," the intention of his essay is to encourage the Republican party to reject the efforts of religious people to influence the party's agenda.

There is little chance that George W. Bush and **** Cheney, Bill Frist or Dennis Hastert are going to heed Danforth's advice. But a strain of thought is developing that the political objectives of people of faith have second-class status when compared to those of, say, religiously secular elites. Of course, not only would such a position have surprised all of the Founding Fathers, it would have shocked Lincoln and Reagan, too.

The speed with which issues that excite the passions of people of faith have arrived at the center of American politics is not surprising given the forced march that the courts have put those issues on. It was not the "religious right" that pushed gay marriage to the center of the public debate; it was courts in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts. It wasn't the "religious right" that ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed; it was a Florida Supreme Court that struck down a law passed by the Florida legislature and signed by Governor Jeb Bush which would have allowed Terri Schiavo to live. And it isn't the "religious right" that forced the United States Supreme Court to repeatedly issue rulings on areas of law that would have been better left to legislatures.

These and other developments have indeed mobilized new activists across the country, many of who see a vast disparity between what they believe ought to be public policy and what is becoming that policy by judicial fiat. They have every right to participate in politics, and they can be expected to refuse to support elected officials who ignore their concerns.

Attempts to silence them, marginalize them, or to encourage others to do so are not arguments against their positions, but admissions that those positions represent majorities that cannot be refused a place at the law-making table.


Hugh Hewitt is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show, and author most recently of Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That is Changing Your World. His daily blog can be found at HughHewitt.com.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/419dpncw.asp

[Seiyuuki]

Too bad I am not buying into all this paranoia of fundamental Christians boogeymen who have a grip on the U.S. government. My opinion is simply that the Constitution does not mention gay marriage, stem cells research, abortion (though argumentative due to Wade vs. Roe), etc. then it is up the state to decide. To change it otherwise would require either the involvement of the Supreme Court or an amendment process, both of which are extremely ardious task. Attempt at anti-gay marriage amendment, failed, Wade vs. Roe still in place and still no federal religious laws last time I checked.