I stumbled across this Republican perspective/strategy

[baby_bear]

It's by Paul Weyrich, considered "by The Economist as 'one of the conservative movement's more vigorous thinkers.'" Whatever that means. At any rate, there were some things in here I thought that I should read, as a good Democrat, to get some idea what the "vigourous thinkers" on the other side have up their sleeves.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weyrich/041220

Preserving the coalition

Paul Weyrich
December 20, 2004


The Republican Party is really a coalition of interests. There are those who support the GOP because they are perceived to be the Party that will keep the nation safe from terrorists. There are those who give their support because, historically (although not now), Republicans were more responsible fiscally. These same people probably support Republicans as the Party that keeps taxes relatively low. Also there are those who associate the GOP with a strong national defense. Finally, there are the values voters, who mostly supported the Republicans.
...There are no excuses now. Republicans control the ballgame. They must produce. Moreover, they can't just produce for one part of the coalition while neglecting the others. Granted, it would be monumental if the President were able to change the Social Security system and revise the tax code in a major way. It would be a tremendous accomplishment. However, if it were accomplished by the President's having spent all of his capital to do so, there would be nothing left for missile defense or values issues. That would destroy the coalition.
...
I have been working with some Black pastors who are currently totally committed on the marriage issue and on the right to life but who do not agree with the President's position on Social Security. Some of these pastors swallowed hard and voted for Bush and encouraged their congregations to do likewise in support of the marriage issue. They are glad they did. If they see this President doing more on the values questions, I believe they can be encouraged to become a growing part of the coalition. If they see there is no action on values issues or only lip service, any chance to bring folks like these around is down the drain.
...
In short, it is going to be very difficult for the President and the Leaders in the Congress to arrange priorities and to see to it that all parts of the coalition walk away after the 109th Congress relatively satisfied.

In fact, it will be a political juggling act the likes of which Washington has not seen in years. But it must be done. The question for the moment is how much are the President and Congressional leaders aware of the critical importance of this balancing act? If they don't know now, they had better catch on fast.

</snip>

There's a lot more to read if you are interested. It's a tenuous "coalition." Hard to believe we could lose significant votes of people who otherwise would vote Democrat just because of the "marriage" issue. There's a lot of work for the Dems to do to in the next few years.

b_b

[SharonAnn]

1. He's a right-winger. The architect of some of their thinking.

[Lexingtonian]

2. oh, it's Paul....

Yeah, he thinks the Religious Right will get screwed again and is begging for the Bushies to understand that the RR is a hugh and fragile part of the coalition and has to be appeased far more this time around. And Weyrich is having trouble believing that he's being taking for granted.

The Bushies know, however, that the RRs have nowhere else to go. The GOP is bleeding minimally and non-religious voters over to the Democrats, that's where their real problem lies. In fact, Republicans raising a lot of 'religious' issues hands Democrats the wedges (vide Schwarzenegger raising the point yesterday).

It's 2005, not 1985. And those black religious conservatives Weyrich is touting are probably largely distributed- in a way centered on the Bible Belt and safely Democratic cities- such that they are minimally helpful to GOP calculations and vulnerabilities. In short, Weyrich is going to have to get used to getting screwed.

[baby_bear]

7. Good points, and here's a question for you

Weyrich does seem to realize that the glue, such as it is, is labile. But he mentions missile defense as being one of the important factions in keeping it all stuck together. Just who - aside from the Pentagon and Cheney insider neocons - are the ones who represent a huge - if that's what it is - faction for missile defense? Is there a mainstream part of the Republican party who are really buying into this crap? Can't be the budget balancers; or the deficit reducers; or the anti-gay marriage gang; etc etc etc. Is he right that the missile defense system has a major following who put it right up there with tax cuts for the rich?

Who are they? I didn't think the neocons had voting power within the party, only within the administration.

b_b

[Lexingtonian]

12. not hugh, but vital to them nonetheless

MD is a sop mostly to the old male voters who are stuck in time, still fighting the Cold War. It's a play really at all the people over, say, fifty and who work or have worked in the aptly named military-industrial complex. A couple of million engineers, factory floor people, retired military folks, and such- not their own votes so much, but all the ones they drag along (wives, kids, parents, friends). Without them Republicans would collapse to under 40% in California, Washington State, Michigan, Pennsylvania, upper New York State, and parts of Ohio and Florida would tip. Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona would also come close to tipping. The mythology is wierd and rooted in the '50s/'60s Red Menace.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

3. The splinter festers...........

The moderate Republicans who voted for Kerry already saw the handwriting on the wall. You can't please all of the groups mentioned in the article without alienating others. The socially liberal/fiscally conservative Republicans are already turning against the admin. from within the ranks or turning to the Democrats. This admin. has made it clear that only the far right agenda is important and it will only deepen the divide as time progresses.

[peacetalksforall]

4. I'm glad I don't have to be in the sticky situation those reverends are in

I don't understand ...to vote for a regime that condones killing of innocents by the hundreds and thousands and can't permit two people who have come together through the heart. Why are some people of the faith so tolerant and others so resistant? Guess the answer is in one word...faith.

Did you mention the distinction in political parties on the issue of peace? I wonder how many Bush supporters believe in peace. Our country is sadly divided - once again.

[quiet.american]

5. False Values

In reading about how people (especially the clergy) are voting for
Bushco on the basis of "values," it's extremely puzzling to
understand how they behold any worthy "values" in Bushco.

What planet were they on when the horror of Abu Ghraib was exposed?

"Whatever ye do unto the least of these my
brethren, ye also do unto Me."

What about THOSE values!

Do they endorse the "value" of willfully cutting out jobs from under
their fellow citizens and exporting said jobs overseas?

"Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you."

What "value" is there in the false doctrine of the Republican party
that they alone are the party of Christ?

"It is written, 'My house shall be called the house of prayer;
but ye have made it a den of thieves'. "

And where is the "value" in their judgment of those who are
different than themselves?

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye
judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall
be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in
thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own
eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, 'Let me pull out the mote
out of thine eye'; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou
hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's
eye."

How can they look at the works of Bushco and still pull the lever
for them based on their "values?"

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their
fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even
so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.... Many will say to me in that
day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prohesied in thy name? and in thy name
have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess to unto them, 'I never knew you: depart from
me, ye that work iniquity."

It would be nice to see the words of Christ truly reflected in the
actions of "the religious" for a change, instead of their
bewildering championing of the "ravening wolves" whose "fruit" is
brutal suffering, massive slaughter and horrors beyond the human
imagination.

It's true we have a lot of work to do, but it's still very unclear
the realization is there in our leadership as to what direction we
need to work in -- read: not further to the "right."

Personally I would start with two words to describe Bushco:
False Values.

[baby_bear]

6. All good points, well referenced (by the way)

I would love to send what you wrote to my SO's adult daughters, who are fundamentalist Christians, whatever that really means, but it would cause a huge rift. Yet -- what you say is exactly right. How do these people live with what is essentially a massive case of cognitive dissonance?

I don't get it.

Maybe that's my problem.

b_b

[quiet.american]

10. When "Right" is Wrong

Thanks for your comments -- and as regards your family, I truly don't
think it is you with the problem!

It is a very frustrating and sad irony that so often those who most
passionately proclaim their righteousness react as though splashed
with acid when brought face to face with the actual non-judgmental
and unconditionally loving aspect of Christ.

So many claim Jesus as theirs and theirs alone, but how many truly
strive not only to genuinely understand the Christ message, but to
become it?

Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all
thy getting get understanding.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I'm not claiming in any way to be past judging others or in any
way close to reflecting the Christ message (as my postings on DU
reveal!), however, one does not have to be a saint to understand
George W. Bush is not the second coming of Christ!

Let's hope the masses will somehow soon awaken to the true nature of
the most damaging president this nation has ever, ever known.

[n2doc]

8. The modern Pharisees

* and his ilk have much more in common with those who crucified Christ than in His believers. I have wanted to make up a bumper sticker with Bush = Pharisee or Bush = Caliphas, but down here in Texas I probably would be run off the road!

[quiet.american]

11. Jesus is my co-pilot

Um... yes, you might want to say a prayer or two before you make that move! :)

[Jason Bradfield]

9. coalition politics

Weyrich makes some good points. It is revealing to see how the right operates internally. Sure, this is fragile coalition but it has been in a more fragile state in the past and has survived to take power.

Democrats need to develop similar coalition politics. However, it shouuld be kept in mind that at the elite levels the right-wing leadership is unified under a comprehensive ideology that took them years to develop. It was only after developing this ideology that they were able to use coalition politics.

Thus it is important for Democrats to develop our THINKERS as well as our coalition.

Jason Bradfield
jaybradfield.blogspot.com