No More Ugly Chicks

Charles Krauthammer's latest column shows he's scared. Krauthammer is scared of two things:  (1) that the Fundamentalist Christian Right will actually get from the Republican Party the agenda items they've earned over the last two decades, and (2) worse, that the rest of the country will notice and reject the power that the Fundamentalist Christian Right has established over the Republican Party.  Krauthammer tries, feebly, to argue that the Nov. 2 election was not actually decided by "moral values", aggregating the various non-"moral values" exit poll categories to weigh against the single "moral values" exit poll category.

Sorry, Charlie.  You owe the FCR, and they own you.  I'll even spot you your weak argument, and still, 22% of your voters voted based on "moral values", which in this case means a toxic brew of Social Darwinism, Calvinist theology and cherry-picked Old Testament taboos supporting sexism and bigotry, a mix peculiar to the FCR (near as I can tell, even Islamic Fundamentalists can't quite stomach the Social Darwinism).  The FCR has supplied huge numbers of loyal Republican foot soldiers and voters for the last three decades.  It doesn't matter whether they were the first voters convinced or the last voters into the polls -- by any measure, it's a stone guarantee that they provided Bush's margin of victory in this most recent election, both nationally and in the battleground states.

And Charlie, don't pretend your candidate and party didn't court them:  Bush's 2000  campaign speech at BJU (now that's an ironic TLA, isn't it?),  the refusal to cashier Jerry Boykin, larding Bush's speeches with evangelical and anti-choice references, the tent-revival style of those speeches and rallies, Ralph Reed's high profile,  supporting DOMA,  the Office of Faith-Based Programs and on and on.  The Republicans married the FCR, and what God has joined, let no man put asunder.  Messr's Dobson, Jones, Falwell, Robertson, and the rest of their ilk are the Republicans' problem  now.

And that problem is real.  The FCR toiled long years for the Republican Party, and received only Leah:  trivial amounts of money for faith-based programs, administrative bans on abortion counseling or birth control in programs which receive any federal aid, NCLB's tepid support for charter schools, an Attorney General (but not a Supreme Court Justice).  But the FCR was patient, and again worked long years for the Republicans, and now they damn well want Rachel:  Roe v. Wade overturned (and abortion made unconstitutional if possible), a constitutional amendment preventing gay people from receiving the same rights as straight people, full government funding for religious schools,  and who knows what else.   Not many noticed when the FCR got Leah, but a lot of people, including most non-FCR Republicans, like Rachel, and they won't want to give her up.  And until last week, nobody outside of the FCR and those of us on the left who watch the FCR understood that Rachel was the intended price of FCR support.

So Krauthammer (and I'm sure, a number of other propagandists in the pay of the financial wing of the Republican party) is busy trying to convince himself  and the country that the FCR isn't really responsible for Bush's victory, that today's non-FCR Republican platform is something more than a thin narrative of patriotism shielding a hollow core of jingoism, pork, fear and greed. No such luck.  Leah was easy to hand over.  Rachel will cost the Republicans almost everyone who's not in the FCR, and I don't think the FCR will settle for another ugly chick.

Comments

[eRobin]

I happened to catch a rerun of C-SPAN's coverage of some coaltion of clergy people demanding that Specter not be given the chair of the Judiciary Committee. Behind the mic, I saw a jewish person, an apparent Catholic priest, fundies and people I couldn't identify by sight. This group that feels like it's owed something may be much larger than the Xtianists - they'll just be the ones that benefit the most. With BushCo working so hard to rope in the minority Christian groups, who seem to have a lot of members willing to be wooed, I think he'll be willing to hand over Roe and go after Griswold - why not?

[Edward James]

Nicely written diatribe. Something I have grown to expect from someone whose belief system is entirely devoted to self promotion and self infatuation.
So in your intellectually superior self inflated minds, where exactly does life begin? The law has determined that brain activity is the determining factor in death, so tell me, in your unquestionable wisdom, where does it begin. And please, don't give me opinion. Give me indistiputable fact.
Maybe in the process you can re-define murder so that it fits in to your nicely outlined idea of life that all of us underlings should just learn to follow. That is of course what you want, isn't it?

[sennoma]

The analogy might stretch even further: Leah was kind natured and had six sons, but Rachel bore two sons, died young and was conniving, demanding and deceitful the whole time. If they do insist on -- and get -- their Rachel, may she pimp them out for a couple of mandrakes and steal all their images!