« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Risks And Rewards: Rick Perry The Favorite Of Christian Right

By: marcuscarey (Diary)  |  July 6th, 2011 at 08:19 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

History teaches that the Christian Right has played an important role in politics.  The coalition of various family and faith related organizations has been able to raise money, communicate with its members and deliver votes on election day.  But what about today’s TEA party vs. Establishment culture within the GOP?

No doubt many of those who identify themselves as members of the TEA party share the sentiment expressed by Ronald Reagan that “Once we forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”  But also beating within the hearts of many TEA party members is a desire to return to the conservative philosophy of Barry Goldwater, who once said “I don’t have any respect for the Religious Right.” and “Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell’s ass.”

Texas Governor Rick Perry has caught the attention of a number of folks lately and as time goes by he may be pressed into service as a candidate for the presidency.  According to this report, he is the favorite of the Religious Right:

In early June, TIME has learned, a group of prominent figures on the Christian Right held a conference call to discuss their dissatisfaction with the current GOP presidential field, and agreed that Rick Perry would be their preferred candidate if he entered the race. Among those on the call were Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; David Barton, the Texas activist and go-to historian for the Christian Right; and John Hagee, the controversial San Antonio pastor whose endorsement John McCain rejected in 2008. [Swampland]

Perry might do well to curry favor with these groups in so far as votes are concerned, but holding one’s self out as a representative of the “Religious Right” doesn’t come without risks.

There are still a large number of people in this country who think Bill Clinton’s escapades with Monica Lewinsky were purely a private matter. Gay marriage, philandering, pornography, smoking pot, drinking alcohol, cursing, gambling and pre-marital sex are behavior’s which send the hard core Religious Right into conniption fits. But those are life choices which many of the more libertarian members of the TEA party think ought to be beyond government control.

Running for the republican nomination is a perilous game these days. And it is made more perilous if one pretends to be something he or she is not. If Perry is a born again Christian with deeply held religious beliefs regarding social behavior and for that reason he appeals to the Religious Right, then so be it. If he is truly more libertarian and might thereby appeal to that segment of the TEA party movement, so be it.

But, if the GOP begins to choose its candidates by the litmus tests imposed by the Religious Right, Katie bar the door.

Not only will the libertarians go ape schtick, but the liberals will peer between every set of curtains and into every cracked closet door they can find, not only to take down the social conservative, but to further advance the notion that Christians are nothing more than a bunch of do-gooder hypocrites.

There are rewards to be delivered by the Religious Right, but there are significant risks that go along with them as well.

Perry would do better to remember the words of the man who won the Presidency 20 years ago and stay on this one message: “It’s the economy, stupid.”  On that one we all agree.

Cross Posted from BluegrassBulletin.com

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

    You’re sure right about that. In 2008 Morton Blackwell sent a questionnaire to prospective GOP Chairman candidates. Among a host of other questions he asked:

    4. Have you read the 2008 Republican National Platform? Do you agree with it?

    5. In particular, do you agree with and fully support the 2008 pro-life plank, which is essentially the same language as was in the Platforms of 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004?

    The candidate’s religion is not the issue. It has to do with the core beliefs of the party and the candidates it nominates.

  • aesthete

    First of all, while the Tea Party has libertarian elements (and socially conservative ones, for that matter), it is not a platform for social issues. It is, as a movement, agnostic to changes in the Republican status quo regarding social issues. Characterizing it as antagonistic towards the religious right is both overplayed and incorrect.

    Secondly, the article in question asserting that Perry has become a religious right favorite is itself a bunch of fluff: it lists a few b-listers on the social conservative list (who live in or near Texas), appoints them representative of the movement, and characterizes their support as typical, despite the fact that it may be just as based in regionalism as in their socially conservative beliefs. Nothing is more annoying than political reporters’ bad habit of making up stories out of nothing more than hearsay.

    I’m not a social conservative, so I am by no means speaking for them, but they are not nearly the boogeyman that you make them out to be. 30 years after their emergence on the scene, and we have no truly horrific legislation: yes, we have them to thank for some irritating or stupid laws like online gambling bans, but on the whole they have been a positive force within the Republican party, and are generally for economic liberty.

    • rightwingmom52

      but I can tell you that in my local Tea Party, most members are not at odds with Christians or social conservatives. I’m willing to bet that’s likely true across the South.

      As for the GOP, having gotten involved with the local party this year, what’s frightening is the subgroup of Ron Paul supporters who are working to infiltrate and take over the party. That’s a lot scarier than my fellow Christians in the party, including those of us who are clinging to our religion and guns, in that order.

      • rightwingmom52

        .

    • gpclaw

      Barry Goldwater made his comment about religious right, towards the end of his career in the senate, and is not reflective of the brand of Conservatism that Goldwater established when he wrote “The Conscience of a Conservative”.

      A better example of Goldwater Conservatism, and what I feel embodies the Tea Party movement, comes from Goldwater’s 1964 acceptance speech:

      And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom — freedom made orderly for this Nation by our constitutional government; freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature’s God; freedom balanced so that order lacking liberty [sic] will not become the slavery of the prison cell; balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the license of the mob and of the jungle.

    • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

      I think you have mostly hit the nail on the head here.

    • Finrod

      I’d add the War on Drugs after online gambling bans in what you said, but other than that you’re right on. Pretty much the things I think SoCons are wrong on both parties are wrong on.

      • gpclaw

        Prohibition and legalization of drugs both have substantial down sides. As with any form of prohibition, the illegal drug market has produced another vehicle for organized crime, and gang violence, both in the United States and Latin America. On the other hand, legalizing drugs would be no picnic either, especially considering that every who proposes drug legalization wants to treat addiction as a public health issue. I can only imagine the massive new department at DHS that would be created to wage the “War on Addiction”.

        • Finrod

          IMHO federal involvement in the War on Drugs in any form violates the Constitution. With the exception of defending the borders, all drug laws should be up to the states alone, as per the Tenth Amendment.

      • aesthete

        there are plenty on the left and in the squishy middle who support the drug war fully. I.e., if social conservatives disappeared off the face of the Earth, we’d still have the quite frankly authoritarian regime vis a vis drugs that we have today. The same goes with anti-pornography and anti-prostitution laws, as well (which have a good deal of support among feminists). Although social conservative support of the WoD is infuriating, esp in light of SoCon priorities that could be advanced by ending it (single motherhood being a big one), it’s not the deciding factor as it is with a lot of dumb stuff, though it is arguably the issue on which the American right in general and Socons in specific are probably most unreasonably authoritarian.

  • Gandalf

    “…[I[f the GOP begins to choose its candidates by the litmus tests imposed by the Religious Right, Katie bar the door.”

    You apparently know nothing about Republican or American politics for the last 30 years. Since Nixon, no Republican candidate has ever won the presidency without specifically courting the Religious Right. Dole might have been the only candidate to have even won the nomination without courting the Religious Right, though he certainly wasn’t antagonistic toward us. Your use of the word “begins” is based in a fantastical alternate reality.

    But your basic assertion, that a conservative coalition doesn’t need social conservatives, is also based on ignorance of these individuals (of whom I am one). Let me be clear: I will not vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage (GM) Republican candidate for president. Ever. I WILL vote for a pro-choice, pro-gm Democratic candidate for president if the alternative is a pro-choice, pro-gm Republican. Back in the days of everyone thinking that Giuliani would win the nomination in 2008, I was fully prepared to volunteer for the Hillary campaign.

    The reason is simple: I view the Republican Party as the last bastion of the pro-life, moral part of our political system. If I ever allow the Republican Party to be hijacked by immoral Democrat-lites or godless libertarians, then we have completely lost the war. I will actively do my best to sabotage the chances of any pro-choice, pro-gm Republican nominee (just as libertarians actively sabotaged McCain’s chances in 2008). Better to lose with a pro-life nominee and be able to fight another day than win with a pro-choice one and lose the war altogether.

    You seem to be proposing a candidate doing to the Republican Party what Margaret Thatcher did for the Conservative Party – making it a secular, amoral party based on economically conservative only principles. Religious voters fled to Labour, and the Conservatives have never been able to claim a majority in Parliament since. I warn you, if you take social conservatives/religious voters for granted and expect us to line up behind the Republican nominee “just because”, you’re living in a fantasy world. Almost none will volunteer (which will cause most of the Bush GOTV network to disintegrate). The vast majority will just stay home. Some of us will even actively work for the Enemy.

    Oh believe me: if the GOP ever ceases to choose its candidates by the litmus tests imposed by the Religious Right, Katie bar the door.

    Disclaimer: I’m not for or against Perry. At this point, I’m not FOR any of the candidates. I’m opposed to Johnson and Paul and (to a lesser degree) Romney, but I haven’t selected a favorite.

  • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

    I suggest you take some time to read through the past several GOP platforms and report back. I think you may be surprised to find that you’re not actually a Republican!

  • acat

    .. it appears to this cat that the sole point to keeping the platform around is to placate the social conservatives by letting them write it, while the gutless D.C. wing of the party run – as far away from the platform as they can get!

    No offense intended, Paula, but .. the platform is – currently – about as important to the GOP leadership as their appendices.

    Mew

  • Aaron Gardner

    nt

  • acat

    …

  • Aaron Gardner

    Poor victim. How dare someone ask you to participate in your own governance.

  • acat

    Got some mote in your eye there, Aaron.

    Mew

  • Aaron Gardner

    And I have yet o begin berating you. It isn’t my fault you choose to not take part in your own governance. You can only blame yourself for that.

  • Aaron Gardner

    First up is an anti-furry plank. You know us crazy socons.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    and Reagan Won

  • acat

    I’d like to see that happen. Until that point, it’s nothing but a crumb from the table.

    Mew

  • Aaron Gardner

    Stand up and challenge those you call corrupt. Engage in your own parties governance.

    Or just complain about socons and the platform and everything else you have no intention of lifting a finger to change.

    Makes no difference to me, I am just here to call you on it so everyone can see what a poor example you are. The man who seeks liberty but can’t be bothered to actually do anything for it… what a tragic tale.

  • acat

    Clearly, as you write the platform, you are much wiser than I.

    Mew

  • gpclaw

    or for that matter, no Conservative movement either.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    …

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    The conservative movement existed before and after Goldwater. In fact, you could say that the conservative movement prospered in spite of Goldwater and the 1964 rout.

    The beauty of the conservative movement is that it does not need a messiah figure in order to survive.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    First of all, if you actually pay attention to Goldwater, he was more Libertarian than Conservative. And after LBJ’s rout, he moved further from C and much closer to L.

    If you want to find a “father” for the conservative movement, there are a couple of dozen names that would trump Goldwater.

    And, Goldwater’s nomination and rout is arguably what gave the Democrats super-majorities in both houses of Congress and the reason that the Great Society and the War on Poverty passed.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    I like and respect Goldwater but there are clear reasons why he lost in 1964. Reagan did not make those mistakes. He united the branches of conservatism in a way that Goldwater never did.

    I am not so sure that Reagan would not have risen to the top without Goldwater.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    exposure. But remember he was very well known before 64. Goldwater didn’t help Reagan get elected Governor of CA, if anything, his support for Barry hurt him.

    Reagan’s real national exposure and his rise in the Republican Party came from the fact he was governor of CA. At the time, CA had something like the fifth largest economy in the world and Reagan did a good job as governor. Don’t forget, he ran against Gerry Ford in the primary in 76 and that got him tons of exposure in the Republican ranks, and at the time Republicans were desperate for a “fresh face” and Reagan understood that and made the most of it.

    In addition, Reagan knew how to work the media and the Democrats in ways that Goldwater never could, and frankly no Republican has been able to since, including ALL of the current crop of both declared and “maybe” candidates. The man was an absolute genius with the language and he really knew how to define his audience and work the other side to sharpen his appeal to them.

    Arguably, Reagan would have been President in 80 with or without Goldwater, and the country would have been better off without Dem super-majorities to pass LBJ’s signature programs.

  • aesthete

    Though I would say that there really wasn’t a third rail proper of conservatism until ’76, and I would add the caveat that JFK’s assassination weighed heavily on the minds of voters in ’64. I think it’s fair to say that one can disagree with either of those men without diminishing their well-deserved status in the conservative movement.

  • BigRedConservative

    If he had appeared today, he would have been welcomed into the Tea Party with open arms.

  • aesthete

    that the dead man with the Boston accent had more to do with Democratic super-majorities than the man running for office with the Arizonan twang. I would also say that nominating the man with the New York accent who cheated on his wife and had a child out of wedlock cluttering up newspaper space wouldn’t have done any better.

  • gpclaw

    Reagan’s television address, on behalf of Goldwater, was the reason the California GOP approached Reagan to run for Governor.

    At the time of the ’64 election, LBJ had been president less than a year, and benefited from JFK’s assassination.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    What I meant to say with my “not…not” language is exactly what you said in your post. I agree completely.

    Reagan stood a good chance of rising to the top without Goldwater.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    didn’t exactly have a deep bench. And aes, you’ve made an excellent point relative to 64.

  • gpclaw

    Didn’t emerge until late in his career. Also, the issues that Goldwater can be criticized on, such as abortion and gay “rights”, had not yet emerged as conservative issues, because his candidacy was 10 years before Roe v Wade, and homosexuality was something left in the closet.

    At the time of the ’64 election, assuming that you believe that limited, constitutional government; less regulation; decentralized government; private property rights;personal responsibility; school prayer and individual freedom are, while maintaining social order, as Conservative principles, then Goldwater was solidly Conservative. Of course, these principles were also shared by Reagan.

  • gpclaw

    nt