Is this controversial?: The GOP social policy is aimed at white Christians

[BurtWorm]

I don't think so.

Anti-choice is a (mostly) right-wing (mostly) Christian position. It's certainly a religious position, and it is not predominantly a Jewish or Islam or Hindu position. The Republicans don't put it on their platform to please the corporations.

The Republicans social positions (anti-gay marriage, "pro-family," anti-evolutionist, anti-science, anti-feminist) are all in place to keep right-wing (vastly white) Christians avidly going to the polls for them every election. They made a conscience decision to sell their souls to that particular devil 30 years ago. This is not controversial.

What gives Dean's remark to this point its special little frisson is his use of the term "white" to characterise the breed of Christianity he's referring to. It would certainly have been correct to use "right-wing" instead of "white," but it seems clear he was intending to underscore a central fact about the GOP: its lack of diversity. This just is not controversial to anyone who has eyes and can see what kind of party the Republicans have consciously and purposively built for themselves since passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.

[LaurenG]

1. Exactly, Dean was truthful. They don't like it I love it n/t

[acmejack]

2. Remember what Truman said

Something along the lines of: "When they quit telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them!"

[eallen]

3. I wished Dean had said "religious right" instead of "white Christians"

Look, it has nothing to do with race. While the religious right might lean right, there are plenty of blacks, orientals, and other races in it. There are plenty of white Christians who are liberal.

Why the hell are we looking to recast the religious right as some other kind of demographic group? Let's name them for what they are, point out that they now control the agenda for the GOP, and make explicity that everyone who doesn't favor that agenda should vote Democrat.

[BurtWorm]

6. That would certainly have been less noticeable.

He didn't say "white Christians," by the way. He said the GOP was "pretty much a white Christian party." As far as I can tell, if his message was that the party is not very diverse, he nailed it with a little more truthfulness than Americans are used to having to handle.

[Dhalgren]

7. "Democrat"? Ok

That there are a small percentage of blacks and other minorities in the "White Christian" block does not alter the fact that it is a White Christian block. Any minorities who join with the Christian Right are accepting the White Christian view of American society and government - their individual ethnicity is subordinated to their greed for power sharing.

[eallen]

11. But why not go after the religious right directly?

[Dhalgren]

14. But how is calling the religious right "White" not going after

them directly? The Religious Right's agenda is a white agenda; the Religious Right's leadership is a white leadership. There is a fairly sizable Christian Right organization called, "The Southern Baptist Convention". Although they do not bill themselves as a "white" organization, they are, indeed, a white organization. Is it wrong to say, openly, that the SBC is a white organization? Telling the truth is not missing the mark.

[eallen]

16. I think there are several problems with that...

First, the religious right's ideology is not specifically white, no more than fundamentalist Islam is specifically Arab. Yes, it is an ideology that has been used by white groups, especially in the past. But it is about fundamentalism, not racism. When you say it is "white," that just invites the many non-white members of the religious right to stand up and say, "what about us?" I can already here Alan Keyes dusting off his speaking shoes.

Second, when you say the GOP is a white Christian party, that in effect tells white Christians they should be Republican. There are many, many liberal white Christians. Why is Dean trying to alienate them? Well, OK, I know he isn't. But that's the way the remark will be spun. Watch.

I think there is a perfectly good term for the kind of Christianity that controls the GOP. It is "religious right." Let's call it that. The GOP is the party of the religious right. The religious right is the American version of fundamentalist Islam. Both are a danger to liberal democracy.

[BurtWorm]

19. "what about us?"

When you say it is "white," that just invites the many non-white members of the religious right to stand up and say, "what about us?"

That's his point, isn't it? It's to drive a wedge between the non-white and or non-Christians in the GOP and its base. If Dean riles up black Christian Republicans who are already voting Republican to vote Republican, what harm has he done? Isn't it more likely that if they're thinking "what about us?" their question is really directed to the RNC?

[eallen]

23. I'm not sure those are where the social fault lines lie today...

I think the non-white members of the religious right are rapidly moving to the GOP. That makes so much sense for them -- to the extent that one can talk about something making "sense" for such a person -- that I think there is little to do about that. Someone whose agenda is driven by fundamentalist Christianity, who wants to stop gay marriage, or gay anything, who wants to ban abortion, etc., is going to find themselves at home there.

It seems to me the fault line we ought to exploit is between liberal Christians and the religious right. There are many Christians who are distinctly uncomfortable with the religious right's social agenda. We need to be saying, "if you're still in the GOP, for reasons that no longer make sense, you need to be with us instead."

[BurtWorm]

24. Any fault line we can find we ought to exploit.

Do you think liberal white Christians will be more likely to vote Republican after Dean's remark?

[eallen]

25. He told them they belong with the GOP.

There are some voting GOP, who I'd like to see voting Democrat. I think Dean's remark gives them no encouragement to do so. He essentailly said, "yeah, you stay over there where you belong."

[BurtWorm]

31. Are you a liberal white Christian, if you don't mind my asking?

If so, then I think it's fair to also ask you if that is really what you think Dean was saying to someone like you--or to liberal white Christians--that the GOP is *the* party for all white Christians? Is that really how you heard it? Because that is not what he said. If you heard him say it, you misheard him and you need to go back and look at the quote (and context) again. Democrats do not need to do the Republican dirty work of turning a Dean quote around so it benefits Republicans. They need to be faithful to what Dean actually said, not to how Republicans are reporting it.

If you are worried about how other people heard it, you'll need to provide better evidence that that's how they misheard it.

[eallen]

33. No, I'm a white non-believer. My view of this might be skewed....

I think I know what Dean meant, and I'm not upset at him for saying it. I'm just wondering about other ways to cast this kind of thing. It occurs to me I don't often hear Democratic leaders name the religious right. And I think we ought to do so. They are the enemy. They control the GOP's agenda, they are the enemy of liberal democracy, and they are a reasonably well-defined group.

But let me be clear, I'm not criticizing Dean for what he said. He spoke out, and more power to him for that. I'm just wondering if that message can be better targeted. Since everyone else seems to think I'm wrong on this, the answer seems to be "no."

[BurtWorm]

34. Not in this particular instance.

In this instance, Dean said what needed to be said. And it can be said again and again. The GOP is pretty much a white Christian party. In other words, the party serves the interests of white Christians at the expense of every other demographic in the US. This is a message about the GOP's lack of diversity. It is a separate issue from its extreme right-wing ideology (though of course they're related).

This is the point that the media should be focusing on, not that Dean supposedly puts his foot in his mouth. And Democrats need to insist that the substance of Dean's charge--which is true--is heard. The Republicans need to be put on the defensive, not Dean. Dean just spoke the truth. It's the Republicans who have something to answer for: Why aren't they more diverse?

We're just so used to our second-class citizenship in the US and in the media that we don't feel entitled to have a DNC chair who can speak the truth and who should be defended--not scolded--by members of the party. The Dems in Congress are fucking IDIOTS for not getting that.

[Dhalgren]

22. I guess I just don't understand the "taboo" nature

of simply telling the truth about this issue. If you have a group and 95% of its members are white and all of its agenda is white-oriented and 99% of its leadership is white (and the one % that isn't still works for the white agenda), then why must you never point this out? Why is this particular "elephant in the room" so sacred? And to say that if I say that a particular group is a "white Christian" group, that means all white Christians must be part of it, is wrong. The Boy Scouts are a boys group, but all boys are not members. The KKK is a white group, but all whites aren't members. AIM is a Native American group, but all Native Americans are not members. The Republican Party is a White Christian Party - that is a fact; just by the numbers, the leadership, and the agenda. What does it serve to pretend otherwise?

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Well put. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. "invites the many non-white members of the religious right to stand up"

And our reply to them should be -- You don't matter. You are a side-show to your own party, and the first time you say anything that doesn't follow the party line you will be slapped down.

Like Colin Powell, you are window dressing and will NEVER be allowed real power in your party. You will be trotted out onto the stage in the name of 'diversity' for special events, and completely marginalized for the remaining 98% of the time.

Eventually, the white christian conservative movement will exactly reflect the demographic of the KKK, from which it sprung.

[Village Idiot]

18. No offense meant, but I believe you do not "get it:"

Take a look at the CORE Religious Right supporters of *. They are predominently WHITE, PROTESTANT, and MALE-DOMINATED.

I believe in calling a spade a spade - Do you HONESTLY believe that groups like the "Concervative Citizens' Council" (CCC, or KKK?) give a shit about African-American issues, other than to merely HIGHLIGHT them as issues during an election cycle?

If you do not see the Religious Right as a POWERFUL, GOP-dominated demographic, you appear to have learned nothing from the (fraudulent) results of the past two Presidential elections...

[eallen]

27. No offense taken. But I remember it being pointed out that had Kerry...

I remember it being pointed out that Kerry did not get as much break from Catholics or women as Democrats had in past elections. Maybe it was just him. But I see the religious right doing a lot of grass-roots organizing that crosses gender, race, and sectarian lines. I think the Democrats have more hope of swaying a white man who is not entirely comfortable with religious right's ideology, than we do of swaying a black woman who is thoroughly fundamentalist and whose big political issues are opposition to abortion and not wanting evolution taught to her children.

I could well be wrong about that. It's hard judging how social fault lines are changing. So I take no offense at all in everyone here who's saying different. I'm just putting up an alternate possibility.

:hippie:

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Don't kid yourself.

The white christian conservative movement will happily use other ethnicities and other religions to get what they want, and when they get it they will purge the blacks, the Asians, the Catholics and the Jews.

And no one will be more surprised than the conservative Jews, conservative blacks, conservative Hispanics, conservative Catholics.

The movement is in truth not christian or conservative, but it is undeniably, fundamentally white. It may take a few years, but ultimately the white christian conservative movement will exactly match the profile of the KKK, from which it sprung.

[Dhalgren]

4. You're right. This is not a controversial statement.

It is a statement of fact. It isn't divisive to point out that someone or some group is being divisive. It isn't class warfare to point out that someone or some group is engaged in class warfare. The Republican/Neocons have by policy established divisiveness as a method of operation and has been engaged in class warfare for decades. This isn't news, it is just that for some reason we are not permitted to talk about it - ooooohhh, taboo...

[LightningFlash]

5. Don't even bother with that point. Blackwell's black.

And he is even blacker in the heart than Condaleeza Rice!

Just say extremist religious hacks, they distorted the christian message.

[BurtWorm]

8. His point was about lack of diversity.

And he has a point. We make it here on DU all the time.

[northzax]

17. what, just because there were more

'people of color" on the stage of the GoP convention than in the stands?

[BurtWorm]

20. And because they have a knack for finding fascist black judges?

Yeah. Believe it or not. ;)

[Fovea]

9. Kevin Phillips

It seems to me that Phillips has spent most of his life dealing with his part in the 'southern strategy' and the horrible effect that welding the former dixiecrat faction of the Dems to the Republican party.

He has watched his beloved Republican party, former bastion of conservative intellectuals become the no-nothing party. More than any other American, Kevin Phillips has created the Amerikan taliban. Listen to his words to the Democratic party before the last election, where he begged us to pull the trigger on the satanic beast he created.

2004 represented the last gasp of American democracy. The only smart strategy now is exodus. The 'fillibuster compromise' shows just how impotent the Dems are to stop even the most blatant attempts to turn Amerika into a white Xtian theocracy. Game over.

Anyone who stays in Amerika now, must either be part of the greater evil, or spend their lives in Gitmo or a similar facility. There is no democracy in the federal government. Our choices are to flee to a civilized nation, or stay and fight a civil war. Phillips knows this, obviously from his books and statements. He just wishes devoutly that it was not so. It sucks to be him...

But then again, it sucks to be any lover of democracy in the days of plutocratic theocracy, even if you are not a Republican Economist and former Nixon strategist.

Nota Bene to any freeper reading this: No one would hate you more, and with better reason than Nixon,the quinessential moderate Republican. You have killed America, possibly beyond even White Jesus's ability to resurrect.

[BurtWorm]

13. I think you meant "George Bush has created the US Taliban?"

[Fovea]

36. George Bush**

inherited the Amerikan Taliban, aided it, exploited it, and will be consumed by it. But Kevin Phillips, as the architect of the Southern Strategy welded the party of business to the party of backward, snake handling, jim-crow Dixiecrats.

The Amerikan Taliban has been ascending since 1980, and the Helms amendment which would have taken tax exempt status away from non-Xtian religions.

It was defeated in 81, but I expect to see it back with a vengence any day now.

[Karenina]

10. I wonder...

had he said, "The NAACP is pretty much a black Christian organization," would there be such a frenzy... ;-)

[BurtWorm]

12. Good point.

:think:

[aden_nak]

15. It is unthinkable in politics to tell the ugly truth about your opponent.

[Just Me]

21. I'd take it one step further: white religious extremists.

The reason why I would characterize the GOP social policy as aimed at white religious extremists is that there are white people and religious people who suffer as a result of such extremist-generated policy.

[KittyWampus]

30. It's Not Controversial, It's INCORRECT & Half Baked

The GOP Agenda Is ProCorporate

pro military industrial complex
pro petroleum industry
pro pharmaceutical industry

It doesn't really give a shit about Christians and only uses the rhetoric.

If Dean really wanted to say something on point he'd bring THAT up... but he didn't.

And only DU'ers desperate to make a silk purse out of Dean's comment can possibly interpret what he said to touch on the REAL GOP agenda and methodology.

The rhetorical gymnastics required to make Dean's comment relevant and really meaningful to average Americans of all races/faiths is ridiculous.

He didn't bring up the GOP's manipulating Christians nor did he bring up the divisiveness nor did he say a thing about their corporate whoredom.

[BurtWorm]

32. So the GOP is NOT pretty much a white Christian party?

Who are we going to believe? You or our lying eyes?

[mondo joe]

35. "Manipulating christians" my ass. The social policies are 100% aimed at

appeasing the white christian base - even if they're not YOUR kind of Christian.

[Karenina]

37. Gotta start somewhere, eh?

To get what's going down OUT THERE. The U.S. is being subsumed by Christian Reconstructionists. They are LOONY TOONS, Sau Reich and a serious threat to the survival of anyone not in their circle. They are USING the organization of the white Christian right to push their agenda.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE KIDS!!! Pretty please...