This was my favorite line- As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around. In the Name of Politics By JOHN C. DANFORTH St. Louis — BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube. Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party. Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes. High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs. In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes. It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law. I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations. The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement. When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another. Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick. During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans. But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around. The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots. John C. Danforth, a former United States senator from Missouri, resigned in January as United States ambassador to the United Nations. He is an Episcopal minister. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html
Man....that gives me hope that we can at least lower the rhetoric of debate between Dems and Reps and go back to being gentlemen/women advasries again.... I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting worn out defending my Americanism/Faith/Values from ultra conservative christian zelaots on the right wing as I'm sure moderate Republicans are tired of the "Bush Sux--down with American Society" left-wing contingent. It's ALL cyclical....the Republican, ultra-conservative-christian-activist arm is going to strecth to it's apex and then coming screaming back at an exponential decline--count on it Maybe somewhere in between we can reach common ground again--I TRULY hope so for the sake of this country. Thanks for the article, gives me some hope
As I said before without the 9/11 and the War on Terror the Republican party would tear itself apart between social and fiscal conservatives.
SURELY you mean that in a rhetorical or sarcastic sense? What's real about his conservatism is: -Concern for the National Debt -Less government intrusion on personal privacy/freedom -Smaller Federal government -Less Federal government involvement in social matters and or less Federal Government power trumping that of the State. The NEW conservatives have shown, on the whole, to now represent the OPPOSITE of these ideals. They want government to legislate morality, trump State's right's, judicial activism in favor of THEIR moral values, blatant disregard for the soaring national debt and fiscal conservatism while spending money at a break-neck pace, government intrusion into a private citizen's life and a general partnering with far right Christian groups to promote the Republican party platform. He didn't say it's WRONG to look for Christian groups to participate in government and advance their causes. I took from his argument that the Republican Party/Conservatives shouldn't let the fundamental Christian movement be another arm of the party that dictates their will through a Republican legislative/Executive majority. I could be wrong, I'm trying NOT to be inflamatory...however, with my limited intelligence I could be doing the opposite!
When you say "Real Conservatives Begin To Speak Out," it has an implication that other so-called conservatives are somehow less legitimate as political agents or otherwise inferior than the "real" ones, such as Mr. Danforth. It suggests there is some archtype of what a conservative is, one that is static and never changes over time -- a Platonic conservative. It doesn't make much sense. The nature of conservatives in America will change over time, just as the liberals change. They are, after all, defined by their relationship to one another and the political landscape itself. So, conservatives aren't quite the same as they used to be. OK. On a separate note, I sense some sort of idealized nostalgia for the conservatives of old. They were not any more honorable, gentlemanly, wise, prudent, or otherwise palatable than the current crop. They are only different. That's all I meant by it.
Call them "traditional" rather than "real" then...I think you are really arguing semantics to be a foil to a blanket statement--which I applaud you in doing so. In either case, there certainly is a propensity for nostalgia towards traditional conservatives of yore. I disagree with your statement that the Republican party of the past compared to the current crop of hard-liners whom represent the Republican party are, in your words, "not any more honorable, gentlemanly, wise, prudent, or otherwise palatable than the current crop. They are only different.". When the Vice President of this Country tells another Senator on the Senate floor to "F*ck-off", then Washington, we have a problem. Cheney is emblematic of the Republican attitude towards discourse and differing opinions I'm afraid. I don't excuse the far left for being any less combative, but they don't control almost every level of government either. I mean, Rove/Bush and cohorts attacked one of the Republican party's brightest leaders, John McCain, UNMERCIFULLY. Calling in to doubt his patriotism and service/captivity in Vietnam. Not to mention the call drive asking voters in South Carolina(correct me if I have the wrong state) if they would be more/less likely to vote for John McCain if they knew he had fathered a child of a black woman out of wedlock. Sorry Juan, I can't accept your arguement.
Can someone enlighten me? My knowledge of US history leaves much to be desired. Just how did the Yankee-dominated GOP of old "win" the South - and subsequently become dominated by the newly-won constituents? In 1860, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the Southern states - and I think JC Breckinridge won every southern state. Breckinridge even became the Confederate Secretary of War(?). I suppose the 60's civil-rights movement caused a lot of chaos and upheaval amongst the ranks of both parties. "Reagan Democrats" (socially conservative Dems) probably started swelling the GOP numbers later on. I suppose the Bible-thumpers had the numbers at some point to start controlling the GOP platform. Hopefully someone here can elucidate further. As a Republican I can only hope some prominent social-moderates carry the torch in 2006/08.
Quite simply the migration was the result of the "Southern Strategy", by the Republicans in the late 60's, early 70's - pick off disaffected Democrats (or Dixiecrats) who left over the civil rights movement when LBJ irrevocably put the Dems in that corner. It took time but the Solid south is now solidly republican - and the population is growing there too, so natuarlly their influence has been waxing. As for the moderate hope, well, the last election showed the new strategy as defined by Rove: why scrap over the middle when I can simply enhance my base? It's precisely what he did, and it precisely worked - much better than fighting for the middle in 2000. If the recent (2008 contenders) Frist-Jeb dueling banjoschiavo match means anything, you're going to be waiting a long time for moderation to come back into vogue. On the plus side, the sanctity of your marriage is unlikely to be threatened, and your feeding tube is safer...
Thanks Sam- That's a good point. The Bush-Kerry election strategy only further validates that strategy. I suppose what we have now is a socially-conservative, fiscally-ambiguous GOP. In your opinion, do you see a McCain or Guiliani candidacy coming to the fore?
Danforth is out of step politically with the current electoral dynamics of the GOP. The real base of the GOP remains the higher income folks. They can be counted on to hold their nose and vote Republican as long as their tax rates are lower with the Repubs. Hence you find many well off Repubs who have nothing against gay marriage and might even be gay themselves, voting to lower their taxes while the GOP professes to hate gays. A classic case was ol Ronnie Reagan who pretended to be religious. Ronnie had to be told to go to church occasionally after he got elected in large part to the religious working claass folks. The reason why the GOP keep the emphasis on side show interests like gays, god, guns, and death and dying is to keep the poor simple minded working class Repubs from thinking about which party is really in their favor economically. Hence you have these folks, who often pay very little in taxes, voting to cut the taxes of the $300k per year plus crowd and voting to raise their own sales taxes, college tuitions etc.
McCain has a much better shot since he talks the pro-life talk and generally walks it too. Pro-Choice, pro-gay rights Rudy would have to have a miraculous conversion, perhaps he will be saved!
Are you saying that the Republican "base" is that special <1% of the US population who make anywhere near $300,000 or more? Man that's a narrow base-- should topple over any day now. How does the GOP "profess to hate gays?"
Not as long as they continue to help out with efforts like the Swift Boat Liars. You mean aside from putting forth the idea of a discriminatory amendment to the Constitution?
Yes, the Constitution has 200+ years of tradition behind it. 200 years where it has detailed the rights we have and (with only one exception that I know of) has only had amendments that broaden our freedoms. The GOP actually proposed an amendment that would override states' rights (nothing new for this administration) and specify that certain people could not form a family. This is powerful discrimination indeed. This is discrimination so powerful that some people actually supported codifying said discrimination into a document that is supposed to protect, not diminish, our freedom to live our lives as we see fit and to form a family with the person we love. Discrimination plain and simple.
What's ironic, or hopeful, about this is that John Danforth isn't considered a moderate on both fiscal or social issues. That a politician like him is speaking out about this is a HUGE warning sign to the Republicans about the strenght of their coalition. All things being equal in 2008 the party could fragment between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives as they realize that many of the stances they take are diametrically opposed to each other.
