| Home > Community Forum > Political Gimmicks « Previous Entry | Next Entry » |
October 16, 2006
Political Gimmicks
by de sententia
Before I started blogging, I used to send out a daily 'quote of the day' email to friends and family with a historical quote and a link to some story or news item that made the quote relevant. It generated some very interesting discussions, with many geared toward the then looming 2004 election. Election day, November 2, 2004, had the emails flying fast and furious. In the days that followed, my conservative friends and family were proclaiming that Bush had been given a mandate by the people, an assertion the winning party makes in just about every election, and I turned my attention to that claim.
"We are a deeply divided country, perhaps more polarized than we were four years ago. We seem to be fixated on the back and forth between the republican and democratic proposals, losing sight of the big picture on what those proposals mean for our entire nation. While Bush won the election, I hope that republicans do not lose sight of the fact that they represent both republicans and democrats within their districts, and that there may be honest and meaningful opposition to their proposed solutions to the problems we face today. I hope democrats dont lose sight of the fact that their 'job' is not to obstruct, simply because a proposal came from a republican. My sense tells me that that may be wishful thinking, for both parties."Quoting Lincoln, I noted that a house divided against itself cannot stand. It was my criticism of the claim that Bush won a mandate that brought about a lengthy discussion with my conservative friends and family.
"You are entitled to celebrate, but just because some of us see great divisions in this country does not mean that we are driven by anger or resentment. Some of us also look at it more pragmatically: if Bush received the mandate you are so quick to claim, along with gains in the house and senate, then there is no excuse for failure within his administration. If however, the support was based on Karl Rove's ability to manipulate the faith of Christian voters, this is little more than a political gimmick, and the mandate is not nearly as strong as you believe." r.johnson, November 5, 2004.I was reminded of the 'political gimmick' last week when news of the book "Tempting Faith" briefly made the headlines. The book, written by former second in command of George Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, portrays the Bush administration as mocking Christians in private, only to use them at election time to bolster republican election hopes. It is a familiar story, and as I wrote back in May, the strategy is to divide people of faith and maintain a grip on power. As this election day nears, we see the division being sown, maybe even resonating with some on the right, but it is largely overshadowed by bigger issues in this election cycle.
There is a sense that change is in the air, that the fall elections will bring about a new day in US politics. Granted, I live in a blue state, and the desire for change is all around me, but I am not so sure I agree that a new day will dawn in politics in November. We still are a divided nation, and the fact that some of this fall's political races are as close as they are (given any sort of objective criteria) is a testament to how strongly some people identify with a given political party. And as the election approaches, appeals to faith in God or political party will be invoked repeatedly. In contrast to the elections of 2000 and 2004, however, the 'religious left' has been gaining ground in demonstrating that people of faith can have strong religious beliefs yet still vote for a non republican candidate. We have come far in addressing the fractures in society that have been created for political gains. We have come far, but we still have far to go, both in reaching those on the religious right with our message, and in allaying the fears of those on our secular left. Many on the secular left are particularly concerned about replacing one form of 'theocracy' with another, yet are willing, for the time being, to embrace the religious left to win this election. Kuo's book, demonstrating how the republican party has used the religious right for political gain, should serve as a warning to us on the religious left. If the republican party can use the religious right for its own political gain, the religious left must be wary of the secular left using it as a tool for the secular left's political gain as well. That day may be a long way away, but by focusing on the policies that unite us, all of us and not just a narrow segment of the religious spectrum, we should be able to avoid the pitfalls of the religious right.
r.johnson
Posted by de sententia at October 16, 2006 04:49 PM
Comments
Thank the Lord for David Kuo. He has the courage to speak the truth about the liars, warmongers, and pedophiles infesting the Whitehouse.
Posted by: Gabriel at October 17, 2006 05:32 AM
It's amazing to watch the bitter, partisan, personal attacks against Kuo by religious fundamentalists.
Their well-documented smear campaign only bolster Kuo's warnings about political seduction & corruption among the religious elite. Back in the day, the same demographic didn't like Jesus' exhortations either.
Posted by: Tenoch at October 17, 2006 06:44 PM
I think that as Christians, we have a moral obligation to work toward societal healing across the deep partisan divisions in our country. Lets focus on election day for now, and once it has happened, let us redouble our efforts to build bridges. I have long said that religion's place in politics is on the outside, maintaining its integrity and critiquing the power establishment. But let us not forget religions role as a healing force as well.
Posted by: John G at October 23, 2006 11:51 AM
I may have more of a negative view of things, but the way I see it, as long as the elites of this country (the filthy rich and "old money") are in power, there is going to be a divide between the "common people" and them, and they will use what we've seen coming out of the Republican party to keep the status quo unchanged.
If they'd stop being so greedy- then the divisions will decrease.
Posted by: Bob Bowers at November 3, 2006 04:07 PM
When I look at the behavior of the religious right, with their attempts to legislate other people's morality, and their condemnation of any
one who does not agree with their agenda, I am
reminded of Jesus and his conflict with the scribes and Pharisees of his day. He said they were hypocrites and full of dead men's bones.(coruption . Sound familiar?
Remember it was the religious leaders and the
politicians who killed Jesus. God help us all.
Rev. Leonard D. Adams
Posted by: Leonard D Adams at November 5, 2006 06:33 PM
[I agree that a new day will dawn in politics in November. We still are a divided nation, and the fact that some of this fall's political races are as close as they are In contrast to the elections of 2000 and 2004.] Could it be the love of money, meaning that the Religious leaders all fell in love with MAMMON and forgot about God. No one can say the welfare program of 60 and 70 was not a Christian way to take care of the poor. Social security and Medicare are Christian ways of taking care of the elderly and disabled. The Democrats have always been for them and the Republicans have always been against these programs. The only thing that changed was the Religious leaders love and want of money and power. Luke 16:13: “No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
Lets not forget it was you Religious leaders who led your flock to the door steps of hell by trading the welfare program for a gay marriage amendment or was it some other word that the Republican Party dictated to the Religious leaders like the moral majority maybe it secular may be it was ABORTION killing the un born if you believe in the Bible then you should believe in the breath of life. All of the above or wedge issues that the republicans created for Religious leaders to use to divide our Country; and so far a little money you the Religious leaders for the most part have chosen to lead your flock to the door steps of hell
[, however, the 'religious left' has been gaining ground in demonstrating that people of faith can have strong religious beliefs yet still vote for a non republican candidate.] The word is Democrat the representative of the poor, lame, retarded, old, women, disabled veterans, minorities and all who believe in God and those who don’t believe in God this could go on for ever.
[ If the republican party can use the religious right for its own political gain, the religious left must be wary of the secular left using it as a tool for the secular left's political gain as well.] The Democrats never abandoned the Religious Folk; they abandoned the Democrats. How ever just as Jesus said in LUKE 15: 11 to 32 we welcome you back.
The Democrats never tried to pass any laws restricting any Religious rights or rites I truly believe that it was the religious leaders trying to get an extra dime in the collection plate pushed the following issues; abortion gay marriage moral majority or maybe the dumb word secular being applied to the Democrats.
For fun what meaning is it?
Definition of Secular
Sec´u`lar
a. 1. Coming or observed once in an age or a century.
The secular year was kept but once a century.
- Addison.
2. Pertaining to an age, or the progress of ages, or to a long period of time; accomplished in a long progress of time; as, secular inequality; the secular refrigeration of the globe.
3. Of or pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy; relating to temporal as distinguished from eternal interests; not immediately or primarily respecting the soul, but the body; worldly.
New foes arise,
Threatening to bind our souls with secular chains.
- Milton.
4. (Eccl.) Not regular; not bound by monastic vows or rules; not confined to a monastery, or subject to the rules of a religious community; as, a secular priest.
He tried to enforce a stricter discipline and greater regard for morals, both in the religious orders and the secular clergy.
- Prescott.
5. Belonging to the laity; lay; not clerical.
I speak of folk in secular estate.
- Chaucer.
Secular equation
(Astron.) the algebraic or numerical expression of the magnitude of the inequalities in a planet's motion that remain after the inequalities of a short period have been allowed for.
Secular games
(Rom. Antiq.) games celebrated, at long but irregular intervals, for three days and nights, with sacrifices, theatrical shows, combats, sports, and the like.
Secular music
any music or songs not adapted to sacred uses.
Secular hymn
a hymn or poem composed for the secular games, or sung or rehearsed at those games.
n. 1. (Eccl.) A secular ecclesiastic, or one not bound by monastic rules.
2. (Eccl.) A church official whose functions are confined to the vocal department of the choir.
3. A layman, as distinguished from a clergyman.
Posted by: Monte Schlarman at November 5, 2006 09:27 PM
Our slogan is: you can talk when you need!Thare is no problem what we can not solve.game
Posted by: wowgold at November 22, 2006 07:14 AM
I am not a game, I am not a world, I am WOW
http://www.wow-gold-list.com
Posted by: FFXI at November 30, 2006 02:50 AM
We promise sincerely to sell the US and EU gold to you by the lowest price . Welcome to interact with us whatever you are the big union or single.
http://www.wow-gold-good.com
Posted by: WOW at December 1, 2006 12:45 AM
rbnpzkga http://vyvezzbn.com pvdungch pucuexjw [URL=http://svlqptgw.com]cgrtqrqs[/URL] owsnmiqa
Posted by: picfllaw at April 5, 2007 04:49 AM
