Senator, Soldier, Churchgoer
Mightygodking.com » Simple Answers To Somewhat Complex Questions – I was so grateful to read this. I mean, I care about climate change and all, but the difference between a cap-and-trade and a tax, especially when the Republican side insists on calling the cap-and-trade system a “carbon tax” (even though it isn’t; I know that much)…all very confusing. This cleared it right up … and also, sho’ nuff, confirmed (again) my theory that the Republican party’s agenda can be deduced by simply looking at what will favor the rich. The carbon tax is plainly the option that’s better for the richest people in America, so–ta daaa!–the R’s are behind it.
Also, if you’re in the mood for meaningful political vitreol, don’t miss the bit where the retired Seattle police chief rails about how the “War on Drugs” needs to end, end, END. His point isn’t just that it’s bad, but that ending it should be a matter of urgency, for fiscal as well as social reasons, and he makes his point very well. Fascinating (and a tad depressing, because I sense nobody’s listening).
In other news, I have decided that my patience is waning for people who want to espouse certain values, but openly support a group that doesn’t. Examples are “environmentalist Republicans”; and the one that most sticks in my craw lately, “feminist Catholics” (or insert-sexist-religion-here).
The thinking is that there are good things about the Republican Party / Catholic Church–maybe you grew up with it, or like something else about it–and therefore that somehow means that even though you claim that fiscal conservatism, racial equality, women’s rights, or what-have-you is “important to” you, it’s somehow okay to give money and support to groups that directly oppose those values.
Is that really a fair claim? Can I say I’m all for women’s rights while going every week to hang out with and show solidarity with a group that’s opposed them at every turn, and heck, been one of the biggest causes of sexual inequality throughout history?
How about this: Could I claim that racial equality was “important to” me if I went to KKK meetups once a month? What if I begged off by saying that my family went, and I just wasn’t comfortable leaving the group I grew up with? What if I tell everyone I know, all the time, that I don’t support the KKK’s racist ideology? Does that make it okay? Can I call myself a non-racist?
Personally, I’m getting a little tired of the hedging. If you want to admit that women’s rights really don’t matter to you, then by all means, go be Catholic. If you want to shrug off the Christian value of caring for the poor, go have fun with the other Republicans. It’s your right, absolutely, to side with and congregate with whomever you please.
But do you have the right to do so while pretending you don’t agree with their sexist/classist/racist/whateverist ideologies? Sometimes the argument gets made that only (for example) Catholics can change the Catholic Church, and that women can make a stronger stand from within the organization than without. But this makes no actual sense — I mean, really? The Church is someday going to decide to listen to the yammering of the women who placidly come every week and donate their money to the cause anyway, but it wouldn’t pay attention if half (or even just a quarter) of its membership left? No, that’s a cop-out. Groups need members, and membership is, at the lower levels, pretty much all you have to give or take away; it is the way to show your approval or disapproval. Unless you’re a Senator or a Bishop, you aren’t going to shake anything up by staying and whining; they don’t care what you say because they’ve got your membership, and that’s what they need. (And arguably too, it makes an even louder splash when a Senator or Bishop leaves.) What speaks to a large organization is when people leave, and if you don’t, you’re complicit in telling them that it’s okay to keep doing what they’re doing.
Claiming you disagree with the bad guys while waving their flag is only muddying the issue, and it is — or at least it feels like — an insult to the people who really do care, and who refuse to make up with the Church or the Party until it starts doing the right thing.
4 comments
There’s a lot to that, but still. Trying to change the group from within can be a valid defense. And it can be hard to find a political party or a religious organization which you agree with on every single issue. Let’s say you have typical right-wing opinions on everything except environmental issues. Let’s say you decide to join and support the Republican party but stand up for environmental issues within it to the limited extent that you can. If you agree that people have a responsibility to pick what they think is the lesser of two evils (and I know you do, we’ve discussed that before) then can’t being an environmentalist Republican be the least bad option? It’s when this hypothetical person starts telling other environmentalists that it’s OK to vote for the elephant and it’s really just about to get much better on environmental issues (promise!) that she starts to lose integrity in my book.
Sorry for offtopic but I didn’t find any contact on you. I just started everyman sleeping schedule and I am courious if there are any researches about everyman. I find only on Ubersleep.
Got to agree with Haukur here PD. I see your point to an extent but since I often have to term myself a “moderate conservative” I think it’s tough to find any large-scale organisation you can agree with on all the issues. I simply have to compromise.
I’m pro-business, a staunch capitalist, support lower taxes and actually supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (it’s just that the execution of both has been abysmal and caused more issues).
However I support the legalisation of drugs. I’ve been saying the same sort of stuff about prices being inflated by prohibition as is in that Norm Stamper article for a long time now. I support gay marriage, heck, I think people should be allowed to marry their cats if they want. I’m pro-choice, pro-gun control and anti-death penalty. For me those are the only pragmatic positions to hold.
If I could agree with the Democrats on issues like the wars, taxes or the environment (I do support taking action to lower our use of hydrocarbons but as a matter of scarcity rather than Climate Change) I’d probably support them. Hell, I loved Clinton.
Granted, I think your argument holds more weight with religion. One can be spiritual without needing an organised religion. Yet if we’re talking politics, I’m simply no longer idealistic enough that I believe it’s feasible to change the system from the two-party (it is largely a two-party system here too) one that we have.
I’ve struggled for years to define myself. Libertarian sounded a good fit but my support for the wars would probably rule that out, and it never quite fit entirely. Conservative works when I talk to English people since our brand of Conservatism is less extreme than yours, but it’s still not a perfect fit.
“Moderate” does fit but doesn’t really explain much. One can be a moderate with totally different views to the ones I hold. I guess “Pragmatist” suffers from the same problems too.
Anyway, I think a certain amount of compromise is acceptable, and the analogy of the KKK is a bit of a red herring. The current Republican Party is in the back pocket of the Christian Right yet Christianity is clearly not the core tenet of Republicanism.
Racism is the core tenet of the KKK. An anti-abortion stance, for example, is core to Catholicism, so to be a Catholic who’s had an abortion would be the height of hypocrisy. To be a Republican (which I guess, if I lived in the US, I would be) and oppose the Christian Right, however, isn’t, I don’t think.
I think Haukur’s right on where the line has to be drawn too. For you to make a compromise for yourself is fine. When you start to then lobby others without really acknowledging the compromise you’ve made, however, you lose all credibility.
The key is you must remain quite vocal about your compromise, and about the issues you disagree with. If I was the hypothetical in Haukur’s comment I’d say to someone “Although these are the things I agree with the Republican Party on, it’s important that I make it clear that these are the policies I disagree with”
That way you respect that person’s ability to make a choice for themselves that suits their values, not yours.
It is not uncommon to find women among the Catholic or Orthodox Christian churches who grit their teeth at an all-male priesthood. It is because they get something else more valuable out of these churches than what aggravates them about how they are set up. Belonging to these groups does not mean allegiance to its practice, especially in the Orthodox Church which endorses local cultures expressing religion in their own way and language (Orthodox Christian Aleuts, for example).
Coming from an Orthodox local church which saw a whole quarter of its faithful and clergy leave over a purely political change of stand by the bishops (ROCOR union with Moscow), I can tell you that you tremendously underestimate what drives the direction of these organizations. In the Orthodox Church, precedent is a major factor, which trumps money and membership. We have female deacons, but never, ever has there been ordained a female priest or bishop. There SHOULD have been, since the pagan Greeks had priestess’, but we don’t have one example in 2000 year history that we can cite. Not even among crazy break-away groups.
The difference between a traditional organized religion and a social organization is that members have a sense of belonging to a truth that is greater than themselves, even if they don’t understand how that is. How do you shape something like that the way you want? Boycott it?