In the Name of Politics

NY Times ^ | March 30, 2005 | JOHN C. DANFORTH

[neverdem]

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

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.

[neverdem]

DANFORTH strikes me as being dense or demented. Maybe that's why Clinton had him investigate Waco.

[dts32041]

On top of that he could tell the difference between a carbine and a bar b que kid.

Do get me started on Waco and GWB, he should have ran an independent investigation after all he had the evidence the FBII's didn't want in his evidence areas.

Maybe that's why he didn't want to bust the chops of the local adulterates in FLA, afraid the hospice would have gone up in flames when the use of animal sounds would work to bring out the religious zealots.

[California Patriot]

Count on these rich establishmentarians to air their trivial complaints in the rich Establishment outlets.
Count on them to always criticize their own party, never the Democrats. Count on them always to line up against the religious right, even if they themselves are highly religious. And count on them to have nothing -- nothing -- interesting to say.

I couldn't care less what ex-Senator Danforth thinks. Dense? Demented? Who cares. He's no longer in public office, and Bush has made up for the mistake of appointing him to the UN by naming a smart, principled conservative, John Bolton, instead.

History is not made, in any way, shape, or form, by the John Danforths of this world. It is made by the John Boltons.

[Echo Talon]

and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.

OK WHICH IS IT? DID BUSH DO TO MUCH OR TO LITTLE IN THE TERRI CASE? HE'S GETTING MACLICHIE CRUNCHED.

[swilhelm73]

The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

Heck, it was only a few years ago that even the Left was arguing they didn't support gay marriage, now thanks to the ever evolving standards of the MSM, anything less then full support is "radically right wing"...

Of course since gay marriage couldn't even get majority of the populace behind it in the most leftwing of states "legalized" instead by a group of judicial oligarchs, I guess "radically right wing" includes the vast majority of the population...

[Finalapproach29er]

The blue-bloods always worry about the money first.

Danforth's are almost as old-money as the Bush family, I bet.

[Nuzcruizer]

And the alternative is to do what, sit like stoodges in cushy government positions and watch the country go to hell in a handbasket with moral decay, state ordered culling of the useless destroying the foundations of what the country was founded on and what made it successful in the first place.

Common sense tells us that stem cell research can continue along just fine with the stock we already have,and we don't need to throw billions more of taxpayers money at stem cell research which doesn't have any checks and balances to prevent mass theft of funds like California has done.

This author is no Republican, just another liberal who used teh party which was better able to provide him with a fat government pension.

[SittinYonder]

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.

I agree with Danforth that these should be the primary concerns of the GOP. However, if I'm going to have to side with the Christians or the heathens, I know I want to come down on the side of what's Right and what's Godly.

Also, I'm getting about sick of reverends and pastors telling me the Republican Party is too Christian.

[Southack]

No Dan, Republicans aren't suddenly dominated by evangelical Christians.

All that has happened is that the age old formula for getting elected was changed by two great men: President Bush and Karl Rove.

Prior to GWB and KR entering the national political scene, the common political wisdom was that to win the Presidency, you had to win at least one state of the great California/New York political power pair.

And to win either of those states meant that Presidential candidates had to appeal to the hyper-left-wing radicals that dominate the political machines in both states (e.g. gays, leftists, internationalists, unions, etc.).

But GWB and KR changed *all* of that. They said that you could win the Presidency WITHOUT WINNING New York or California.

Well, that changes everything. To win enough electoral votes for the Presidency without carrying California or New York means that you have to listen to what Joe Pickup has to say in Alabama and Kansas and Texas and Florida, et al., not what the same 200 liberal elites are gabbing about at cocktail parties in Manhattan and San Francisco.

And that's why the Republican Party of 2005 is both different as well as successful. Republicans own the House, control the Senate, hold the Presidency, occupy most state governorships, and dominate most state legislatures now.

By the way, we won't hold that much political power for long if we go back to the old days of competing with Democrats for kudos and sham articles spewed forth by the Manhattan cocktail circuit crowd.

...And *that* would be a tragedy, as the only way that we are going to see out-of-control judges reined in is if the Republican Party gains another 5 or so Senate seats while maintaining or gaining in all other categories. We are close to where we need to be; to retreat back to the days of playing nice to the cocktail and bathhouse crowd when we are *so* very, very close to taking back this great land would be a tragedy that might very well cost Freedom another 4 decades or more in purgatory.

[Nuzcruizer]

"Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights"

Changing God's laws to legitimize sin are not the actions very "religious" person. It's an exaple of a bad actor.

[California Patriot]

"The blue-bloods always worry about the money first."

This is more true than we'd like to think. It's remarkable how little thought these supposedly well-educated people give to the values and the culture that underly and support all their wealth and everything else they value.

The answer to this riddle, perhaps, is that precisely because these people are "well-educated," they have absorbed more of the Left's propaganda than most of the rest of society has. Also, being in high social position, they have a phobia of saying anything that might be unpopular. If you go year after year, decade after decade, without saying that is truly unpopular with the Establishment (whose opinion matters most to you), you may actually lose the ability to think unorthodox thoughts.

[Nuzcruizer]

It makes you wonder just what kind of a "reverend" this man is. Cirtainly not one who takes God's law very seriously.

Plus, judges are not supposed to interpret law as they see fit, they are supposed to apply the law as it was written with it's origional intend. Lawmakers make the law, judges apply it. What ever happened to that simple and effective concept?

[California Patriot]

Danforth is an Episcopal priest -- that is, he's a cleric in the church that has rightly become known as "the last bastion of not very much."

This is not in any way to demean the many sincere Episcopalian worshipers. But the hierarchy and priesthood of the main Episcopal church in the United States is completely saturated with the sorts of views expressed by Mr. Danforth. Indeed, he is a mild case. Most are undoubtedly much worse.

It's a real shame. This once-great church has enormous resources, in every sense of the world. But the critical faculties of its clergy are all but extinct.

[bahblahbah]

"We Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives."

The libertarians and paleocons have nobody to blame but themselves. They don't have near the political drive of the social conservatives. Too bad because we could use some of their influence.

[neverdem]

And to win either of those states meant that Presidential candidates had to appeal to the hyper-left-wing radicals that dominate the political machines in both states (e.g. gays, leftists, internationalists, unions, etc.).

I believe it is the et cetera that counts. Both Reagan and Al D'Amato won in 1980. Al D'Amato lost in 1998 by about 11 percent. Consider the effect of the Motor Voter Act and illegal immigration.

[SoDak]

Agreed

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Under our system of government, people can predicate the laws on mayonnaise if they so desire.

[Malesherbes]

Danforth has had a varied career as trust-fund-liberal, Episcopal priest, Senator, Ambassador and RINO. Worth more than anything on his resume is the single action of the 10 year old North Carolina boy who was arrested for trying to carry water to Terri Schaivo.

[driftless]

Neither my wife nor I are religious. Neither is Nat Hentoff or Ralph Nader. And both Hentoff and especially Nader are non-conservatives. But we're all aghast at the decision of the courts to kill Terry Schiavo. Danforth ought to ashamed of himself spewing such brazen lies that the people trying to save Terri are all religious fundamentalists.

[ken5050]

Welll stated....ECUSA is totally screwed up..but scism is coming..we're on the right track..BTW are you on our ECUSA ping list?

[alwaysconservative]

As usual, you are one of the rarified few astute enough to observe the real landscape of what happened in Election 2004: President GW Bush and Karl Rove. While many would LIKE to (or in the case of Danforth, claim they are afraid to) give credit to the "evangelicals" for this newer, stronger Republican party, this isn't the case at all. Conservatism is the fresh, progressive voice on the political scene today, while the former progressives, leftists, and so-called liberals are REALLY the stodgy reactionaries without new ideas or orthodoxy. Thanks for the ping!

[q_an_a]

Danforth is an example of the failure of the Episcopalian faith to follow the words found in the Bible. As a member of that faith I see people like Danforth all the time making arguements for many secular ideas that should be added to the faith. Here a former priest makes an argument for leaving faith at the door of government. He would not think the same if talking with William Wilburforce and slavery.

[Drango]

We believed in limited government,

Not anymore....

[SuziQ]

The Country Club Repubs have always been suspicious of the Religious Right. They are just not comfortable with all this 'Jesus talk'. They think it also helps them look sophisticated to their Dem friends.

[SuziQ]

the church that has rightly become known as "the last bastion of not very much."

LOL!! Brutal, but too true.

[guitarist]

Danforth has gone wacko. Why does he slander people who want to protect embryonic human life? Does he not care about marriage? Single, divorced, shacking-up, same-sex, multiple partners, who cares? Last night on Dr. Laura a caller was 21 and said she'd had 8 partners already. Is that what you want for your daughters????

[Ditter]

By George (and Karl) I think you've got it!

[nunya bidness]

Did somebody say Danforth?

[Askel5]

bookmarked, thanks.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Unhinged cultural relativist:

(Life-long subscriber to the New York Times.)

You see, you've got it all wrong! The right wing, Christian theocrats are taking over this country. Just look at these fundamentalist Christian lunatics thumping the Bible, like Nat Hentoff, Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Ralph Nader, and Lanny Davis! CHRISTIAN THEOCRATS!!!! THEY'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE!!! And Oregon, with all those Christian, right wing, Republican theocrats, trying to deny homosexuals their Constitutional right to marry one another, and live in a two bedroom apartment on Castro Street. RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS!!! ALL OF THEM!

(Prolonged eye roll.)

-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)

[California Patriot]

I'm not an Episcopalian, but good luck to you.

[Cyber Liberty]

Sorry. Could not get past the first howeler:

BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the chance to read about William Wilberforce.

[The Shrew]

This is an absolutely outstanding analysis. Thank you for keeping me on your ping list.

By the way, we won't hold that much political power for long if we go back to the old days of competing with Democrats for kudos and sham articles spewed forth by the Manhattan cocktail circuit crowd.

You are so on target I was wondering if you give "fire commands" to your Word.doc? Impressive.

Regards,

TS

[rcocean]

"Count on these rich establishmentarians to air their trivial complaints in the rich Establishment outlets.
Count on them to always criticize their own party, never the Democrats. Count on them always to line up against the religious right, even if they themselves are highly religious. And count on them to have nothing -- nothing -- interesting to say."

LOL. The RINO's never change. Did Danforth ever critique Clinton or does he just reserve his scorn for those nasty right-wing Christians who don't belong to the right country club?

[California Patriot]

No, they never change. By and large, they are rich people who are very satisfied with what they think they've accomplished in life. Such people rarely see a need to change, or even a need to think. Therefore, they're also very poor listeners. In addition, they are political dinosaurs. While they hold the balance of power in Washington right now because they hold the balance of power in the Senate, they are doomed to political irrelevance in the long run. Anyone who takes them seriously, however, is prolonging their devoutly-to-be-wished-for political extinction.

Frankly, I'd rather read something by a halfway-intelligent leftist. At least a few of these people think. The RINOs almost never do. Whether they are stupid or not (they probably are), they certainly never say anything interesting.

The best approach to this particular crowd, which certainly includes Senator Danforth (he is one of them psychologically, even if his Senate voting record was more conservative), is to IGNORE THEM.

Let me add that not all moderate Republicans are part of this category. The question isn't ideology, but one's ATTITUDE toward the social right and the Rats. I'll take a Rudy Giuliani, who isn't with us but doesn't seem to despise us -- and who has been willing to take lots of grief from the Rats because he's been willing to do the right thing. I won't take a Jack Danforth.

[nightowl]

According to Mr. DAnforth, Republicans need to rediscover our roots? If Republicans took his advice, they would be where they were for 40 years, wandering in the wilderness as the MINORITY party.

[Smartaleck]

If the fire and brimstone of religion worked in politics, Alan Keyes would be a congressman?

[neverdem]

If the fire and brimstone of religion worked in politics, Alan Keyes would be a congressman?

It's like real estate, location is everything. A good message also helps.

[q_an_a]

you are welcome. - how do you create links? I can do it in my normal editor but nojt here at FR. Is their a page of instructions I am missing?

[neverdem]

you are welcome. - how do you create links? I can do it in my normal editor but nojt here at FR. Is their a page of instructions I am missing?

Try HTML Sandbox, although I'm not sure if it has info on how to link. Alternatively, right click on the body of an article with only one link near the middle of the article, then click "view source", and look at how they did it. Look for weird stuff it the middle of regular English text. That's the way you do it.