blue bits. red rocks.


ininterestingtimes said: From post; against stupidity, it states that the 'average everyday evangelical Christian is not simply itching for his chance to take over the government and impose theocratic law'. It is here I come to you asking what you think a reasonable interpretation of; average every day evangelical Christian, might be. Taking evangelical christian to mean the Christians interested in evangelizing, and given the strength of the social conservative vote, how do you square any type of support for this post?

A response to this quote post.

First, I would self-describe as an evangelical — the word, in its purest form, means believer of the Gospel (actually, “good news”), from the Greek word ευανγελιον. And I can certainly attest that in no way or manner do I “itch” to “take over the government and impose theocratic law upon a nation of vile unbelieving reprobates”.

I realize the connotation of this word evangelical can invoke a wide swath — from those in more of a neofundamentalist mold to the theologically liberal (another word with a vast range of connotation). Understood, that you’ve refined the definition to “evangelizing” (which I believe falsely precludes non-conservatives) “social conservatives”. And yes, I can see how some tenets of the social conservative block, especially the religious right, would strike you as in alignment with imposing “theocratic law”. However, while there certainly is a segment of religious conservatives that wish for some variant of theocratic legal imposition, most dress their case with “natural law” appeals and find abhorrent any mode of governance that coerces followers or punishes apostasy or heresy with the sword (literally or figuratively).

While I don’t see eye to eye with the author on many political aspects, I am sympathetic to the points driven by the article author — the dismay of the prevalence of culpable ignorance, in an age with so much knowledge just a finger tap away. And no political group is immune to this infection, even if I acknowledge that the level of culpable ignorance is significantly higher in the current “conservative” circles online.

Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing to happen to the nation since slavery. And it is slavery, in a way. Dr. Ben Carson

Political conservatives today are not at all conservative. They are radical utopians who treat corporations and their owners as if greed had been bred out of them. Government regulation only hinders the good they can accomplish. As for evil, only others — foreign or political — are prone to it. Our wars are benign, others’ malign. If people suffer from market forces, well, that is how the strong guide the weak. By embracing this radical worldview, today’s conservatives have abandoned the moral heritage of the West. They do not heed its warnings about the arrogance of the self-made man. Where Climate Change and Real Conservatives Meet

☼   ☼      ☼   ☼

You know conservatives love to vilify anyone who doesn’t want to immediately throw down as appeasers. But when you are dealing with terrorists, whose aim is to bait us into overreaction, and you oblige them, aren’t you the appeaser? Bill Maher

The minimum wage is mostly people who failed at life and high school kids. Seriously, look. I don’t mean to be ugly with you people. … If you’re a 30-something-year-old person and you’re making minimum wage you probably failed at life. Erick Erickson

I voted against George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004, and I spent most of his presidency actively working against his administration with every tool at my disposal, but I never said or wrote that I would prefer that the country be led by a foreigner or a foreign leader. Not so, for many pundits on the right. Ann Coulter wants Benjamin Netanyahu to be our president, Erick Erickson wants David Cameron to be our president, and Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle would be okay with either Netanyahu or Vladimir Putin being our president. Someone needs to explain the right’s adoration for Vladimir Putin because it’s creeping me out. Booman Tribune

This conservative fetish for “local government” has always stemmed from their desire to reclaim the “freedom” those southern towns used to have when they were allowed to handle their race “problems” as they saw fit. Any citizen who’s ever been exposed to local and state government knows very well that the idea it’s un-corrupted with greed and petty ambition is ludicrous. The fact that Ryan doesn’t understand that the mantra of “local control” in this situation is ridiculous is yet another sign that he’s so ideologically programmed he honestly doesn’t know how to think in any other way. Hullabaloo

…conservatives should not be naïve about sin. We are moving from a world dominated by big cross-class organizations, like public bureaucracies, corporations and unions, toward a world dominated by clusters of networked power. These clusters — Wall Street, Washington, big agriculture, big energy, big universities — are dominated by interlocking elites who create self-serving arrangements for themselves. Society is split between those bred into these networks and those who are not. Moreover, the U.S. economy is increasingly competing against autocratic economies, which play by their own self-serving rules. Sometimes government is going to have to be active to disrupt local oligarchies and global autocracies by fomenting creative destruction — by insisting on dynamic immigration policies, by pumping money into research, by creating urban environments that nurture innovation, by spending money to give those outside the clusters new paths to rise. The New Right

Misguided conservative notions of moral hazard and cosmic justice are some of the greatest sources of harm in our politics. We could solve most of our problems. It’s just that there are a lot of nasty, selfish people who don’t want to see them solved. Hullabaloo

☼   ☼      ☼   ☼

The fact is, policies that work in one era may not work in another. One reason is that success can’t be repeated ad infinitum. When Reagan came into office, top federal income tax rates were 70 percent. By the time Obama arrived in the White House, they were half that. You can’t cut taxes forever; eventually, you stop being able to fund programs that the voters want. And the economic boost from cutting taxes gets smaller and smaller as taxes get lower. This comes directly from economic theory, but you can sort of see it by looking at a graph of federal tax revenue as a percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Reagan’s tax cuts didn’t reduce revenue very much — as Arthur Laffer might have predicted. But when George W. Bush cut taxes from a much lower base, revenue plunged. Do Conservatives Have Any New Ideas?

A GNT creation ©2007–2014