Conservative Christian Party?

[Oldgamer]

NOTE TO OUR MODS: I'm hoping to have a somewhat sensible conversation about a topic that no one else seems to have covered. It's political in nature, and could stir a lot of emotion. Feel free to move it to the Mudpit, if everyone gets too rowdy!

Recently, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family has raised the possibility a third party, especially, if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee of the GOP for President. He even talked to Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas (and Presidential candidate) about running for the Presidency on the ticket of a "Conservative Christian Party". Gov. Mike wisely refused the offer.

I will give you my take on this idea, and let you discuss:

Personally, I'm frustrated that Christians have had to choose between two evils for as long as I can remember. Note that I don't include President Bush in this "evil". I was a cautious supporter of Bush in 2000, and an enthusiastic supporter of him in 2004. But for most of my life, as a conservative who is also a Christian, I've had to use one hand to vote, and the other to hold my nose, in the voter's booth.

However, I'm absolutely opposed to a third party for "Christians". This opposition has nothing to do with the frustration that I know Dr. Dobson and other Christians feel. It is a hardcase assessment that splitting the GOP means tacitly accepting a greater evil, at least in 2008. A Conservative Christian Party means that Hillbilly gets her wish to be Nanny-in-Chief of the United States, with all that means for issues that mean a lot to me (chiefly, abortion).

I realize that there's some people who believe that we should "send the GOP a message". But sending this message puts Hillary in the White House.

I realize that there's other people who believe that Christians should have a safe haven to vote in, and want the notion of a Conservative Christian Party to be permanent. But even if successful, in the long run, such a party would still take decades to get to where the GOP is, now. And, in the meantime, it would put Hillary in the White House.

And everyone should note that the political structure of the United States is purposely stacked against third parties.

So, what do you think? Discuss, and please keep it civil (or else, this ends up in the Mudpit).

[Thanatos]

Don't need it, we already have the American Independent Party which is just as good.

[Oldgamer]

Don't need it, we already have the American Independent Party which is just as good.

And the AIP's number of elected officials in America is?

The above isn't an attack on what you said, Thanatos. It's a re-statement of what I said about the decks being stacked against third parties, in the United States.

[Thanatos]

And the AIP's number of elected officials in America is?

The above isn't an attack on what you said, Thanatos. It's a re-statement of what I said about the decks being stacked against third parties, in the United States.

It's true, unfortunately. The Republicans didn't even rise to power until major events rocked the country.

And with the possibility of another Clinton in the White House, many people who are tempted to leave the Republicans aren't, simply because a vote for anything else is a wasted vote that could be used to fight againt Hillary.

[Gwendylyn]

What would be the difference between a "Conservative Christian Party" and the current GOP?

Discuss, and please keep it civil (or else, this ends up in the Mudpit).

If you want it civil, you might want to think about refraining from using terms like "Hillbilly" and "Nanny-in-Chief" to refer to Hillary.

[Oldgamer]

What would be the difference between a "Conservative Christian Party" and the current GOP?


If you want it civil, you might want to think about refraining from using terms like "Hillbilly" and "Nanny-in-Chief" to refer to Hillary.

First, when Bill Clinton was in office, they (Bill & Hillary) were referred to as "Billary", by their detractors and their supporters. Now that Hillary is on top, as it were, Hillbilly is about as close as I can get. I wouldn't want to offend the Clinton supporters!

Nanny-in-Chief refers to her enormous faith in the government to properly regulate every aspect of our lives ... the Nanny-State. And the head of the Nanny-State is the Nanny-in-Chief.

As to your question, there would be an enormous difference, Gwen. I realize that folks on the Left believe that the GOP is some sort of vast reservoir of fundamentalists attempting to impose a theocracy on the nation. I only wish we could get a little closer to theocracy!

The fact is, the GOP is a very diverse organization, and those who believe that faith ought to have something to do with one's public policies play a very small role in the party. I'm on an advisory committee to the GOP National Committee, and I can tell you for a fact that I'm the only one there who is a regular churchgoer.

The only impact that the religious Right has on the GOP is on elections. After the election is over, things go back to normal.

Okay, I have to ask. WTF is wrong with Hillary?!

Is she a Commie, or the Antichrist, or something?

What she truly is? She's the Democrat who will be President of the United States in January, 2009, if the GOP doesn't get its act together. The purpose of this thread is to express my personal alarm that people like Dr. Dobson would be actively promoting a third party.

Possibly, he wants to send a message to the party. But "sending a message" at the cost of 4-8 years of the second Clinton Administration is a little extreme, in my way of looking at it.

I thought the Constitution Party already filled the conservative Christian niche.

The CP's beauty is its love for the faith, and its primary failing will be the word "faith", and its definition. It already has been. Quick example, in Illinois, several years ago, the CP Chair expelled the northern Illinois group of CPer's. Why? Primarily because they were Catholic. He was Assembly of God.

The idea that there will be a Conservative Christian Party, with unity between the faithful, is a chimera. Catholics and Protestants can work well together on single issues like abortion, but get them to agree and work together on almost anything else.

I think it would be Ross Perot II ...

[Gwendylyn]

As to your question, there would be an enormous difference, Gwen. I realize that folks on the Left believe that the GOP is some sort of vast reservoir of fundamentalists attempting to impose a theocracy on the nation. I only wish we could get a little closer to theocracy!

The fact is, the GOP is a very diverse organization, and those who believe that faith ought to have something to do with one's public policies play a very small role in the party. I'm on an advisory committee to the GOP National Committee, and I can tell you for a fact that I'm the only one there who is a regular churchgoer.

The only impact that the religious Right has on the GOP is on elections. After the election is over, things go back to normal.

I ask again, what would be the difference between the GOP and a Christian Conservative Party?

Specifically, what is the difference in platforms of the two parties? Hearing that not all Republicans are church-goers isn't the slightest bit surprising, but it also doesn't tell me anything about why a Conservative Christian Party would be different, except in universal religious affliation. Even then I have to ask why you would assume (or if you do) a Conservative Christian Party would fix the factional strife you see in the GOP considering how many different brands of Christianity AND conservativism that exist.

[Oldgamer]

I ask again, what would be the difference between the GOP and a Christian Conservative Party?

Specifically, what is the difference in platforms of the two parties? Hearing that not all Republicans are church-goers isn't the slightest bit surprising, but it also doesn't tell me anything about why a Conservative Christian Party would be different, except in universal religious affliation. Even then I have to ask why you would assume (or if you do) a Conservative Christian Party would fix the factional strife you see in the GOP considering how many different brands of Christianity AND conservativism that exist.

Since I am not trying to help organize, nor am I endorsing such an effort, I'm the wrong person to ask about this. I would suggest an email to Focus on the Family for specifics.

My problem with such an effort is that it would result in the election of Hillary as President (the two terms you found offensive left out, in deference to you! ). Since 1972, the DEM party has been controlled by a distinctly socialist wing. I can remember a time when most Democrats were like Joe Lieberman. The McGovern Revolution of 1972 changed the DEMs, and changed them forever, quite likely.

The one thing that the DEMs do skilfully is to frame every debate as their attempt to help "the people" versus the GOP's attempt to pander to "the corporations". The current SCHIP debate ... for the children, of course ... is just the most recent example of this.

Make no mistake about it, Gwen, the Democrat Party stands for as much government interference in the private lives of individual Americans as the system will stand. The GOP, for all of its faults and failures, champions individual versus collective rights.

The Collective against the Individual. That is the difference.

Once again, a Conservative Christian Party would solve nothing at all. It would make the GOP a minority party, once again. It would send the wrong message to the GOP leaders, whom I debate with on a weekly basis. That message would be: We've got to be more like the DEMs if we're ever to recover the majority.

Wrong message, at the wrong time ...

[Gwendylyn]

Since I am not trying to help organize, nor am I endorsing such an effort, I'm the wrong person to ask about this. I would suggest an email to Focus on the Family for specifics.

I am not asking about a Conservative Christian Party's organization or about if such an effort would divide the GOP too much to grant the Dems a presidency.

I am simply asking what is the purpose of a Conservative Christian Party. If you don't like the idea of one, then why did you lament the fact that you are the only churchgoer on your committee? If you do like the idea of one (but not the practicality of a 3 party system), then how would it be different than the GOP?

Personally, I'm frustrated that Christians have had to choose between two evils for as long as I can remember. Note that I don't include President Bush in this "evil". I was a cautious supporter of Bush in 2000, and an enthusiastic supporter of him in 2004. But for most of my life, as a conservative who is also a Christian, I've had to use one hand to vote, and the other to hold my nose, in the voter's booth.

That implies you want reform in the GOP to further match conservative Christian values. What are those values and how do they differentiate from the GOP?

Make no mistake about it, Gwen, the Democrat Party stands for as much government interference in the private lives of individual Americans as the system will stand. The GOP, for all of its faults and failures, champions individual versus collective rights.

You don't need to lecture or preach to me about the difference between the Democrat Party and the GOP. I didn't ask you about the Dems. I asked you about a Christian Conservative Party.

[Gaidin]

I don't want religion indirectly involved with the government as it is with the GOP right now. Why in hell would I want anything to do with a CCP?

[Cluny the Scourge]

Special third parties just for radicals to vote for have the advantage of acting as a lightning-rod to draw away their contaminating influence as interest groups for mainstream parties. If Republican officials realise that there's no point in trying to fudge their policies to appeal to Christian Conservatives as much as possible while still keeping a hold on their mainstream voters, then they will stop campaigning on the promise of religious fundamentalist-inspired ideas. This will effectively keep Christian radicalism out of politics altogether - they can safely be ignored.

[El Brujo]

I thought the Constitution Party already filled the conservative Christian niche.

[Daovonnaex]

I thought the Constitution Party already filled the conservative Christian niche.

Since most "conservative Christians" in America these days favor global warmongering (just look at Oldgamer, an alleged Christian who supports a war criminal and torturer as President), they do not fill this role at all. Blessed are the warmakers.

[Oldgamer]

Since most "conservative Christians" in America these days favor global warmongering (just look at Oldgamer, an alleged Christian who supports a war criminal and torturer as President), they do not fill this role at all. Blessed are the warmakers.

Propagandizing tonight, are we?

[Daovonnaex]

Propagandizing tonight, are we?

What a delightfully dismissive comment!

The vast majority of self-described Christians in America, including yourself, are on record as supporting an aggressive war. Blessed are the warmakers.

Personally I'm baffled as to how anyone who accepts Christ's message of peace can support military aggression, but, you know, maybe St. Augustine wasn't the best theologian, eh?

Bah, the Bible Belt just needs to secede. That'll solve the problem.

If you can't separate government from religion, you're too stupid to vote.

How nice to dismiss all people who feel that religion has a role to play in government as "stupid".

I probably should have elaborated.

A Christian Party would muddy the waters. It would bring religious beliefs to the table, where they shouldn't be. It isn't illegal, it's just stupid. Religion can't hold itself up in the modern political climate.

Why? Do you think that all people who disagree with you are stupid? Is something about religion inherently unmodern?

The Bible preaches death to homosexuals, not to mention genocide, incest, and a whole range of other things.

Religion is part of your moral system, so of course it's a part of your decision-making process. I just think that the government (and the parties) should be secular. Just because 89% of Americans believe in a God, doesn't mean they want a government subservient to their religion (which any Christian party will be.)

Almost all of these things are in the Old Testament, in the Mosaic Law, which Christians are not bound to at all. Furthermore, the Bible was written by many people over a long period of time, and its words need to be taken in context for its time. While there are a very small number of Christians who take the Bible to be the literal word of God, most do not.

Casually dismissing the Bible because of some things you find disagreeable is arrogant and disrespectful.

America is a democracy, and by that standard why should those who want religion in government not have a say?

That still doesn't explain the irrational hatred most of the board members have against her.

Hillary Clinton has a very shady past and is well known as being an exceptionally deceitful opportunist. As such, she inspires strong loathing in many Americans, myself included.

[Mythos]

Conservative Christian Party?

That would be the Church, no?

[Last Roman]

This party sounds like a violation of church-state separation.

[Joker85]

This party sounds like a violation of church-state separation.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

like that part of the connie has EVER been applied, to anything, the US is more christian that the UK which has a state religion.

the connie means nothing

[Feliks]

I was reading a statement by a rather influential evangelical leader, I forget exactly who, but he said something to the effect of. "We [Christian Conservatives] need to show the rest of the GOP that they can't just call Hillary and expect us to fall in line." He wanted to vote for a candidate that he could fully support, choose what he felt was right over what he felt was easy.