Christian Right VS Christian Left:

Obama VS McCain?

The conservative and liberal power brokers of American Christianity each have specific political goals. One Christianity, but two different viewpoints and two different goals. This is not a matter of theology but instead a matter of sociology: conservative Christianity is of the Republicans and liberal Christianity is of the Democrats. Understand the matter in this simple and practical manner, and be at peace; leave the theology to the theologians, for any practical person who delves deeper finds there are problems with manifesting spirit in the voting booth, and this confusion harms both their spiritual and political judgements.

I would say that those who want a true separation of church and state are at heart spiritual libertarians; but as the libertarians are a minority political party so are spiritual libertarians a minority of the American faithful. We are a spiritual people and a political people, and so the matters are intertwined in our national understanding.

On the one hand we have Obama, definitely a leadership symbol to both the Christian and political left. A member of the United Church of Christ, formerly a member of Trinity Church, the most liberal member of the Senate, a charismatic figure who routinely engages in spiritual and liberal social rhetoric; his nature is clear to all who care to see it. He is a new and savvy type of politician who epitomizes the heart of the Christian and political left, but is able to send forth this message in a manner which is palatable to a mainstream, majority audience.

On the other side is McCain, but he has not been recognized as the standard bearer of the religious right, nor does he consider himself the champion of conservative Christianity. Yet, as the Republican candidate and opponent of Obama he is by default the hope of Christian, political conservatism. Leaders of the religious right have been foolish in failing to recognize how valuable McCain is to them.

To understand the matter we must examine it in purely political terms, and on this political basis define the goals of the Christian Right and the Christian Left.

Simply, the religious right wants to outlaw abortions and ban gay marriage. Certainly they are about much, much more than this, but their main agendas in the political arena have involved abortions and gay marriage. From a political viewpoint, both of these agendas involve denying people the freedom to perform these actions. In the simplest definition, you can say that the religious right wants to deny people the freedom to perform actions that the religious right finds objectionable because of their religious beliefs.

The religious left is much more complicated, but in simplest terms their political agenda is to make the World into a better place. This in itself is easy to understand, the complexity lies in the number of activities that go into improving the World. They want to help the poor of the World, they want to help the sick, they want to reduce war, provide universal health coverage, establish global equity, establish recompense for past racism and economic exploitation, protect us from global warming, and "welcome the stranger" through liberal immigration reform.

One may look at these list of goals and consider that most of them are positive and match well with the humanitarian and charitable aims of both secular and religious Americans. So what is the problem?

The key word is charity.

Charity is voluntary. Voluntary is also a key word.

It is a great thing when people and organizations voluntarily engage in charitable activities. It is a great thing when people voluntarily exercise social responsibility. It is an entirely different matter when these activities are forced upon people by the government.

Let us consider just the issue of global warming. The liberal Christian organizations have whole-heartedly signed on the same issues as the secular green movement, so their objectives may be seen as one-in-the-same. Green political goals consist of a broad and intrusive activity of regulation upon both business and private individuals. Government mandated restrictions on how you dispose of your trash, what kind of light-bulbs you can put in your home, and what kind of cars can be built. We see a crippling of American business through increased taxes and regulation, and we see the price of energy skyrocketing, partly because of green efforts to block domestic energy exploration and gasoline refining.

It is the individuals right if they want to take on the expense and trouble of adopting a green lifestyle; it approaches tyranny when the government mandates how you shall live. It is economically foolish to continually pile on extra expense to the operation of American business. It is economic coercion to engage in activities that raise the price of gasoline; the purpose is that in the long run it will encourage conservation and the development of alternative energy, but the immediate result is to empty American wallets.

When you examine the political goals of the religious left and the secular left you see that in their eyes the cause is always more important than the cost. Know that the cost is high: higher taxes for individuals, higher prices at the pump, lower returns for those whose retirement funds are based upon stocks, and of course the price that we pay when we lose the freedom to buy and live as we choose.

It adds up. It adds up to a lot.

Consider also the mindset of the green movement, that America is nothing except a filthy, consumptive nation. They do not take into account that which we have done. Industry is much cleaner than it once was, cars get much better mileage than they once did, auto emissions are cleaner, we’ve cleaned up many of our past problems related to pollution, and the EPA is already very restrictive. From the rhetoric of the greens you would think that America has done nothing. From this mindset we can establish three axioms regarding the political causes of the left:

Compare the religious right to the religious left: the banning of gay marriages affects relatively few people, the banning of abortions has a greater effect upon a larger number of people, but does so infrequently. The political goals of the religious right seek to place restrictions on a few without raising the cost that is paid by all. The green cause that is supported by the religious left would affect everyone all the time and everyone would foot the bill. That does not seem like the American way of doing things.

Let us consider the cause of global charity, that America must do more to eliminate global hunger, disease, and poverty. Consider that the American government already sends huge amounts overseas to fight hunger, disease, and poverty, and provide economic development, more over time than any other country. Consider that not only do many American businesses engage in charitable activities, the outsourcing of jobs has resulted in incomes for a multitude of workers in foreign lands. Consider all the foreign missions carried out by American churches and how much money is send overseas by secular American charities.

You would think that we have done nothing. If it becomes a government mandate that we do more, it will be the taxpayer who bears the cost for this cause.

The Christian reformer Martin Luther once said "it is enough that the poor live, it is not necessary that they live well." Is it not enough that we be a charitable nation, enough that we already extend a helping hand to so many across the globe? How much more can we be expected to do, how much more will we be expected to pay? When does America become a good nation rather than the scourge of the Earth?

Examine other goals of the religious and secular left regarding war and see that they involve degrading American sovereignty and military power. Examine their goals regarding immigration; if fully enacted they will ultimately result in dramatic changes in American society as we slowly transform into an Hispanic nation. In these things too, it will be the American taxpayer who will pay all bills and suffer all consequences.

Forget religious values; the religious left spits in the face of all secular values regarding freedom, representation, patriotism, and capitalism.

We see that Obama is the hope of the religious left, and that all on the left have endorsed him. What about McCain? Why hasn’t he been endorsed by the religious right?

The problems that McCain has with the religious right are partly a matter of personality conflicts with leaders of the religious right, and partly a matter of how McCain has presented himself. Much of it goes back to 2000, when McCain was running for the Republican nomination. Simply, the religious right backed Bush over McCain, and McCain made some negative comments about this. This has led to some deep wounds and lasting resentment on both sides. There has been a reluctance by leaders of the religious right to endorse McCain, and little effort by the McCain campaign to reach out to religious conservatives.

The matter was further complicated by the Huckabee campaign.

Mike Huckabee, former Baptist minister who won the Iowa Caucuses by marketing himself as a "Christian Leader." Mike Huckabee, the hope of so many evangelicals, who after a surprise victory in Iowa wasn’t able to win another state until Super Tuesday. Mike Huckabee, who many social conservatives credit with splitting the conservative vote and making McCain the inevitable winner of the Republican nomination.

I was never impressed by Mike Huckabee, neither do I understand how it can be that in a race where every candidate is a Christian that it makes much difference to anyone that one candidate is "more" Christian than the others. Yet, a significant number of evangelical voters did consider Huckabee to be their candidate.

How is it that Huckabee was never able to garner support from leaders of the Christian right, in particular the support of Dr. James Dobson?

I consider Dr. Dobson to be the most influential member of the Christian right. The reason I make such a judgment is that Focus on the Family has substance that goes beyond Christian beliefs in that is deals with basic issues of family and society. Dr. Dobson is one of the most well-known Christian leaders, and unlike many others he has not disqualified from public discourse by making outrageous statements. Perhaps most importantly, Focus on the Family has many offshoots that operate all across the nation as PACs promoting traditional American values.

Dobson has huge gravitas. Yet, for some reason he did not support Huckabee? Why not?

To give some background, back in 2007 there was a great deal of dissatisfaction among evangelical leaders regarding the Republican Presidential candidates; they just didn’t feel that any of their choices represented religious conservative voters, and there was some talk of the religious right building a campaign around an independent candidate. That was probably just talk; I haven’t heard of any viable independents running for president, so I guess that the grumbling came to nothing.

We will return to the subject of independent candidates and third party candidates in a moment.

In this environment of evangelical discontent emerged Mike Huckabee. He filled a void and a number of people voted for him, not all of them evangelicals. Yet, he did not immediately receive the Dobson endorsement.

I can only speculate as to why Dr. Dobson failed to endorse Huckabee. It could have been because, like myself, perhaps Dobson was not impressed with Huckabee and did not consider him to have any chance of winning the Presidency. He might also have considered Huckabee to be a little too liberal; this is pure speculation on my part, but I have seen Huckabee praised in the pages of Sojourners, this could be an indication that even though Huckabee is a Baptist, he might incline more towards the "emerging church" than towards old-line Baptist dogma.

Dobson withheld his endorsement until it became clear that McCain was going to win the Republican nomination. If I recall correctly, even at this point Dobson was reluctant to fully endorse Huckabee, and only did so after Romney dropped out of the race. At this current time there is still reluctance to fully support McCain, though there is some talk of leaders of the religious right talking to each other about the possibility of supporting McCain for president. There is also a movement among some evangelicals urging McCain to pick Huckabee as his vice-presidential candidate.

Oh, what to do?

I didn’t vote for McCain in the primary, but I will vote for him as president. Every vote for McCain is a vote against Obama. Conservative religious people need to buckle down and admit that if they don’t support McCain then they are more likely to get four years of Obama. That’s four years of plans to raise taxes, restructure American society around liberal values, dismantle our military, and support the Christian left through a restructuring of the Faith Based Initiative.

Is that what you really want? Is McCain so offensive to you that you that through pride you would allow someone more offensive to win the office of president?

It is not that McCain is anti-religious, or that he is a religious liberal, it is just that he is middle-of-the-road on issues that concern religious voters.

Isn’t that enough?

John McCain goes to church, he does not oppose any issues of the religious right, this should be enough for you. In a sense McCain is the average Christian in that while he has the right beliefs he does not constantly witness regarding his beliefs. He is running for President, not pastor, he is Christian enough. Vote for him. He is your only viable choice, and the more you waffle the more likely it is that you will get Obama.

Now a word about third-party candidates.

I am a registered Republican. Even though I don’t always agree with party leaders on all issues I have always voted Republican. This fall I am considering voting for some independents in the county elections, but in the national race I will always vote Republican because even the worse Republican candidate for President has been far superior to the Democratic alternative.

Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama: the Republicans could run almost anyone and I would still give them my vote just to vote against the Democrats.

There are two major conservative third-parties in America, the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. There are many similarities between these parties, and I generally consider the Constitution Party as being a Christian version of the Libertarians. As an example of this, the Constitution Party opposes abortions, while the Libertarians say government has no right to deal with a personal issue. I incline more towards the Constitution Party, but I find that disagree with them on too many issues, and while I am not always happy with the Republicans I agree with them on more points than I do the Constitution Party.

I mention this because there is a generalized split among Republicans in this election, and I feel that there will be a larger than normal number of votes for Libertarian and Constitution candidates. Neither of these third-party candidates have a chance of winning the Presidency, they can only take votes away from Republicans. As I have said before, if you don’t vote for McCain you are more likely to get Obama. It is the right of the American citizen to vote as they choose, but I would urge everyone who is considering a third-party vote to thoroughly examine not just the candidate they are considering, but also the platform of their party. If you are like me, you will find that while you might agree with the third-party on some issues, you are in greater agreement with the Republicans on a range of issues.

Don’t vote out of spite. Neither should you decline to vote; compare McCain to Obama, while you might dislike McCain you will find that you like him more than Obama.

Beyond all else, there is no doubt in my mind that John McCain loves America. I don’t feel this way about Obama. He began his campaign as a liberal, he now seems to be wandering towards the middle, but I think if elected he would be much more of a leftist than even moderate Democrats could stomach.

Vote Republican.

I am not against the conservative third-parties, I just know that they have no chance of winning a national election and every vote they receive is a vote taken away from Republicans, and in the end this only favors the Democrats.

If you want to vote third-party, do so locally, you have a much higher chance of winning and you won’t help put a Democrat in the Oval Office. However, there is a problem with casting a ballot for a third-party in a local election, the problem being that in most cases there is no third-party to vote for. I read of this problem recently on the Constitution Party website, that even though they do get a great deal of grass-root support, they don’t have many people step forward to be candidates for their party.

If you like a third-party, I suggest that you run as their local candidate. Don’t fret about a third-party president because that effort is only going to backfire. It’s not that hard to run as a candidate. In my county you have to either collect 1% of the electorate in signitures or pay a fee to be on the ballot; failing this you can be a write in candidate for a modest fee and filing the right papers. Considering how easy it is to run for office, I don’t understand why more people don’t do it. Your chances of winning as an independent or third-party might be pretty slim, but you can’t win if you don’t play. If independents start winning counties and states, it might have the effect of reforming the Republican party: instead of trying to be more liberal, more like the Democrats to appeal to a larger electorate, if they see great support for conservative third parties they might become more conservative.

Now a quick word regarding Huckabee.

In 2007 there was talk of the religious right backing and independent candidate. Huckabee stepped up to run for the Republican nomination, and all the talk about a Christian independent ceased.

The way I look at it, not only did Huckabee spoil Romney’s chance at the nomination, he spoiled the chance of the religious right to support a candidate that they found acceptable.

I have just finished saying that people should not vote for third-parties, and I know that a religious right candidate would virtually guarantee a Democrat win, yet I can’t help but feel that the addition of a Christian candidate in the elections would have opened up a new dialogue about conservative, American religious values. I would prefer that such a candidate attack Obama, then drop out of the race in October and endorse McCain, but that cannot be. What we are left with is Obama as the canndidate of the Christian left, McCain as a Republican candidate who would never dare attack someone on the basis of religious beliefs, and Dobson as the mouthpiece of the religious right who seems to be the only one willing to take Obama to the mat on religious issues.

What I would tell any conservative is that not only should they vote Republican, they need to take a good look at Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family. They also should examine the Focus on the Family affiliate that operates in their state. Conservatism starts at home, religious and social conservatism are very closely related on the matter of issues, and in this election the religious battle against the left is being waged by Dr. Dobson.

Vote Republican, support Focus on the Family.

                                      New Direction

I began this website with the purpose of making a commentary upon the interplay of religion and politics in our society; the focus being to decry liberal efforts to change the nature of politics, religion, and society. I have strayed from this effort from time to time because a blogger likes to blog and often I have written about what was on my mind. I hope that those few people who have viewed this site have found these articles interesting, or at least have been moved to question their point of view.

Now playtime is over.

I am nothing if not a social conservative, and have such have come to embrace and find my identify within the Republican Party. It is an election year and not only is the Presidency on the line, so are all the seats in the House and a number of seats in the Senate. A big win for the Democrats would give them enormous power to change laws and in consequence change the nature of American society. This potential Democrat power is especially frightening considering the extreme liberal natures of the two leading Democrat candidates and the liberal views of some members of the House and Senate. It is alarming to consider what types of judicial appointments could be made by a liberal President who had the full support of a Democrat dominated Senate; conservatives have long decried liberal "judicial activism," in the Federal Courts, but they haven’t seen anything yet. An extreme liberal in the White House coupled with a liberal majority in Legislature could change the nature of the American legal system in just a few years.

What I fear most is the possibility that if the Democrats have a really, really big win and gain a legislative super-majority they would have the votes to propose changes to the Constitution.

Liberals are bad enough with only a little bit of power, I would hate to see what they would do if their powers were greatly increased.

So, as a social conservative and as a Republican I have decided to use my small voice to support my Party, to do what I can to motivate Republicans to victory.

With this goal in mind I will be presenting several issues that relate directly to the elections. In most instances these issues will be presented from a religious, socially conservative perspective, but the goal will be to address Republican issues that keep us from victory.

IS THE RELIGIOUS VOTE SHIFTING TO THE DEMOCRATS?

     Since the days of Reagan we have become accustomed to the "religious voter" and the "values voter" casting their vote for the Republican candidate.
     I think that there is a change in the air, that there is a shift taking place.  The nature of this shift is that American Christianity is being redirected, and the nature of this redirection is to emphasise aspects of Christian belief and practice which correspond with liberal social and liberal political beliefs.  Some of the leaders of this effort have political motives, some have religious motives, and this activity of redefinition is taking place in large and small degrees in a number of spiritual and political venues.  
     It is difficult to judge to what extent American Christianity has been transformed because liberal preachers are much the same as liberal politicians and journalists in that they report only that which they want to be known, they present their opinions as truth, and they parade their preferences as objectivity.  Most importantly, they believe that they make the reality, that if something is reported and repeated enough times it will become the belief and so becomes the truth of self-fulfilling prophecy.              
     The Republicans have become accustomed to the stamp of the "religious right" and the "values voter," and indeed, in 2004 the conclusion was that people voted for their values and reelected a Republican President.
     The obvious danger is that if public sentiment shifts so that it is believed that the religious vote should go to the Democrats that this would be devestating to the Republican Party.  

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION
     Way back in 2007 there were concerns from religious conservatives that none of the Republican candidates were concervative enough or sufficiently epistomized tradidtional religious values.  This created a void that was filled by Mike Huckabee in which he painted himself as a "Christian Leader."  This Christian Leader won Iowa and garnered a considerable percentage of the vote in South Carolina, but did very poorly in all the other early states.  While Huckabee did well on Super Tuesday, McCain did much better and had ammassed an insurmountable lead over all other candidates.
     McCain is the Republican candidate; the only choice that Republicans have is to either vote for him or don't vote for him.  There is no point in crying that many would have preffered either Huckabee or Romney, that game is lost.  Neither is there any point in crying that Huckabee be VP, because McCain doesn't seem to be entertaining that idea.  
     So we are faced with some uncertainties.  Evangelical Republicans don't seem to be satisfied with McCain, could this cause them to stay home?  Could some be so disillusioned that they might even vote Democrat?  This does seem to be a possibility considering that Obama is the likely Democratic cadidate and seems to have all the support of the media and the liberal churches.  
     The liberals keep telling christians that they should not support a certain party but should instead support christian issues, which incidently in their definition also happen to be liberal issues.  With the impetus of the media and liberal christian organizations could a significant number of those who are currently religious conservatives be influenced to switch sides?
     We need the Huckabee vote to elect McCain, just as we need the vote of all the other candidates.  Will we get it?

McCAIN, HUCKABEE, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

     It is obvious that in practical terms, that as far as religion is concerned there would be very little policy differece between McCain and Huckabee.  Bush is religious and talks about his faith, but I can't see that his presidency has contributed to any laws that have significantly moved America to become more Christian.  Definition of marriage, faith based initiative, judicial nominees, all Bush has really done is hold a line against the advance of liberalistic values; he's done all he could, but it really hasn't been enough, social conservatives are in a losing battle.  
     Even if Huckabee had won the nomination and went on to win the presidency, it is not like he would preach all the time and support every initiative of the religious right; fundamentalists might prefer this but it would alienate the rest of America and would quickly become unworkable.  I don't see any way that Huckabee would make more of an impact than Bush.  
     Besides, let us not pretend that McCain is a heathen.  He goes to church, he is as Christian as the majority of Americans.  
     So, what is the difference?
     Religious people think in somewhat supernatural terms. To illustrate, back in 2004 I went to a reelect Bush rally at Altell Stadium.  One of the speakers actually stated the opinion that Bush, as a religious leader helped secure God's blessings for America.
     I had a problem with this sentiment because to me it cast Bush as being messianic, and I consider messianic beliefs to be dangerously close to idolatry and being i the nature of taking the Holy Name in vain.  However, I can see that many people might share this type of view, that they want a blessed messiah to be their political leader; some see this in Obama, some saw it in Huckabee, no one sees this in McCain.  
     It is the supernatural aspect which is the difference.  I consider this to be foolhardy, "give to Caesar what is Caeser's, and to God what is God's: the President is not supposed to be a religious leader.  Yet, the sentiment is what it is. 

TO SELL McCAIN

     I have become somewhat disillusioned with the Republican Party.  The reasons?  Weakness, a lack of leadership, a lack of unity, and a lack of principle.  On the Congressional level, the Republicans were blocked even when they had a majority and have become totally ineffective after losing their majority.  Now the expectation is that they will lose even more seats, but no one has step forward to be a leader of their party.  It is like everyone is trying to stay quiet and compromise conservative values, and hope that if they are vanilla enough they won't lose too badly.  In the level of local politics it just seems that everyone is just running their own elections and doesn't care about the party as a whole.  Regarding the nomination process I feel that we chose foolishly ad Republican leaders gave endorsements based upon their own personal political gain rather than core beliefs.  On the Presidential level I did not vote for McCain.  He says too many things that seem like they should have been said by a Democrat, and while he is supposed to be such a great leader he doesn't seem to be leading us anywhere; is he proposing something new and innovative?  I only thing I like about him is that he seems like he would be a good war-time president, and in my opinion he has many more negatives than positives. For all his talk about the "Straight Talk Express" I consider him to be dishonest and think that he will say or do anything to get elected.  For all this I prefer McCain to Obama or Clinton.

SELL McCAIN

     The next president will be either McCain or Obama.  Unless you want Obama, McCain is your only choice.  Perhaps you are not that enthused with McCain; yet, voting for him is the only way to vote agaist Obama.
     The problem is a matter of motivation.  While McCain did win the nomination he does not seem to have that many fans.  In many cases it is not just that McCain is not conservative enough or religious enough, for many it is just that he has not inspired us to consider him as our leader and place our trust in him.  Worse, he talks like a Democrat: every time I try to get excited about McCain he ruins it by saying something.

ENOUGH CRYING, IT'S TIME TO GET ANGRY

     We could lose our county.  I do not exaggerate, if the Democrats win it all they will have the power to change our county so much that by the time we are able to vote them out of office we won't be able to recognize America.  
     All we have to do is motivated; stupidly motived, if that's what it takes.  What this means is that we have to ignore the manufactured political reality that is being placed before us.  This is the reality of the mass media and the political experts that tell us that McCain is going to lose; that is what they want to happen.  Besides these liberals we also have to deal with conservative figures that don't like McCain; criticise his politics and character all you want, and these criticisms might be valid, but when you do so publically know that you are supporting Obama.  
      Vote, get your friends to vote, all we need to win is to get more votes.