Monday, February 02, 2009

New Republican head Steele: GOP should embrace pro-choice views, "gay marriage"

The only reason I'm really posting this is to illustrate something that I and many others have screamed ourselves hoarse about during the past several years: that there is no damned difference at all between the Republican and the Democrat parties in the United States.

In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, new Republican National Committee chairman Micheal Steele said that it was "important" for the Republican Party to "reach out" and embrace candidates who are pro-abortion and pro-"gay marriage".

(Incidentally, I have my own thoughts about that and I might articulate them someday in the near future, suffice it to say it's a perspective that's neither "conservative" or "liberal"... and a lot of my fellow Christians might find it a bit surprising.)

I think that this elicits a lot of questions. Obviously, how is what Steele suggesting for his own party, any different at all from the Democrat party? Why should anyone who is, say, very much pro-life believe that his or her stance is going to be represented by the Republican Party anymore, if it is willing to compromise itself on this issue? How does this demonstrate that the Republicans are out for anything other than political capital?

And I for one would like to pose a question to certain "conservative Christians" who I know are reading this blog (yeah I'm looking at you Ron Baity, Jeff Baity and the others from Berean Baptist in Winston-Salem): how in the world, in light of this, do you still maintain that you have to owe loyalty to the Republican Party, when it clearly no longer cares at all about you and other "evangelicals" or what values you hold to?

Maybe the United States owes the old Soviet Union an apology. At least communist Russia was honest about being run by a single political party. In America, most rubes are convinced that there are two parties and that somehow, they're "making a difference" by belonging to one or the other.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Being powerful is more important than being principled. These same Christian conservatives don't care if they share a bed with abortionists because they think a little compromise will help them become more powerful later on.

Anonymous said...

If you can't detect a fundamental difference between Bush and Obama, possibly you should stick to reviewing science fiction. Neither are Libertarian, like you desire, but they are definitely different. Maybe you should just say you don't like either party and leave it at that. This "no difference" argument is a little lame.

Chris Knight said...

Both of the major parties have as their primary purpose, the acquisition and maintenance of power.

That's it. That is the only thing motivating them.

There are very minor semantic differences between the two but for all intents and purposes, in the greater scheme of things, they are indistinguishable from one another.

It's like that classic episode of the original Star Trek, where the last two members of a species fought each other aboard the Enterprise. One was white on one side and black on the other, and the other man had the white/black reversed. They seriously believed that the "difference" actually meant something, enough to try to kill each other over. And in the end, they did destroy each other. But as Kirk and the rest of the crew saw, they were both the same.

And George W. Bush was the greatest President that the Democrats could have ever hoped for. He sure increased the size of government like a "big spending liberal". What to make of him?

Monday, February 02, 2009

New Republican head Steele: GOP should embrace pro-choice views, "gay marriage"

The only reason I'm really posting this is to illustrate something that I and many others have screamed ourselves hoarse about during the past several years: that there is no damned difference at all between the Republican and the Democrat parties in the United States.

In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, new Republican National Committee chairman Micheal Steele said that it was "important" for the Republican Party to "reach out" and embrace candidates who are pro-abortion and pro-"gay marriage".

(Incidentally, I have my own thoughts about that and I might articulate them someday in the near future, suffice it to say it's a perspective that's neither "conservative" or "liberal"... and a lot of my fellow Christians might find it a bit surprising.)

I think that this elicits a lot of questions. Obviously, how is what Steele suggesting for his own party, any different at all from the Democrat party? Why should anyone who is, say, very much pro-life believe that his or her stance is going to be represented by the Republican Party anymore, if it is willing to compromise itself on this issue? How does this demonstrate that the Republicans are out for anything other than political capital?

And I for one would like to pose a question to certain "conservative Christians" who I know are reading this blog (yeah I'm looking at you Ron Baity, Jeff Baity and the others from Berean Baptist in Winston-Salem): how in the world, in light of this, do you still maintain that you have to owe loyalty to the Republican Party, when it clearly no longer cares at all about you and other "evangelicals" or what values you hold to?

Maybe the United States owes the old Soviet Union an apology. At least communist Russia was honest about being run by a single political party. In America, most rubes are convinced that there are two parties and that somehow, they're "making a difference" by belonging to one or the other.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Being powerful is more important than being principled. These same Christian conservatives don't care if they share a bed with abortionists because they think a little compromise will help them become more powerful later on.

Anonymous said...

If you can't detect a fundamental difference between Bush and Obama, possibly you should stick to reviewing science fiction. Neither are Libertarian, like you desire, but they are definitely different. Maybe you should just say you don't like either party and leave it at that. This "no difference" argument is a little lame.

Chris Knight said...

Both of the major parties have as their primary purpose, the acquisition and maintenance of power.

That's it. That is the only thing motivating them.

There are very minor semantic differences between the two but for all intents and purposes, in the greater scheme of things, they are indistinguishable from one another.

It's like that classic episode of the original Star Trek, where the last two members of a species fought each other aboard the Enterprise. One was white on one side and black on the other, and the other man had the white/black reversed. They seriously believed that the "difference" actually meant something, enough to try to kill each other over. And in the end, they did destroy each other. But as Kirk and the rest of the crew saw, they were both the same.

And George W. Bush was the greatest President that the Democrats could have ever hoped for. He sure increased the size of government like a "big spending liberal". What to make of him?