Well this is just around the corner, so there should be some discussion.
I'm obviously strongly in favour of Obama..
I have to say, I think the religious right have done a massive favour to Obama's campaign by opposing Lieberman and forcing McCain to choose Palin for VP. It's always a very strong political move to try and move your position as close to your opponents as possible while still being slightly more conservative/liberal (which ever side your on) as they are. While this is a bit of a problem for democracy, it's an election strategy that has worked around the world. Choosing Lieberman would certainly not convince anybody who would have otherwise voted for McCain to vote for Obama, but it would convince people in the middle ground between the two candidates to lean towards McCain instead of Obama. Elections are fought over the people who hold views between the two candidates, not those that hold views more extreme than the two candidates.
So choosing Palin was a terrible choice. It only gains the support of people who would have preferred McCain anyway, while it pushes the McCain ticket further to the conservative right, giving Obama more middle ground to fight over.
By all accounts Palin is a nutter. Forget the irrelevance of her children, she doesn't believe climate change is man made and she sued the Department of the Interior for classifying polar bears as an endangered species.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/enviro ... he%20Palin
Lets not forget her religious views;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k[/youtube]
US Presidential Election
Re: US Presidential Election
No, it was a smart move on McCain's part. McCain is trying to get the disheartened Hilary supporters to vote for him and his horrible VP. Oh god, I bet you didn't get the chance to see the tv coverage of people (a very small minority; I'm sure they only made it to tv because they sounded so idiotic) who were so upset by Hilary's loss that they said they'd vote against Obama. This is why Hillary is SUCH a big part of Obama's campaign now, because she's trying to keep the people who were going to vote for her to still vote democrat.Jeremy wrote:So choosing Palin was a terrible choice.
McCain is no improvement over Bush, as they have the same values on many topics.
He has the goal of abolishing legal abortion.
He's old and has had health issues.
He chose a horrible VP.
He's bad.
I feel like there's no way that McCain can win, but I felt that way 100% when George W. went up for reelection.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Emily Kulczyk
Emily Kulczyk
But surely people who wanted to vote for Hilary could not possibly agree with the policies of Palin.
Are you saying that a significant number of people will vote based purely on gender? I find it difficult to believe Australian and US voting psychology is that different, although I do concede that the US system is much more of a personality contest than the Australian system.
Are you saying that a significant number of people will vote based purely on gender? I find it difficult to believe Australian and US voting psychology is that different, although I do concede that the US system is much more of a personality contest than the Australian system.
-
Frank_Sinatra
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
No, Hillary's voters don't agree with Palin at all. If McCain did think he was making a play for some of them, it massively backfired. Probably he thought he could jump aboard the "historic campaign" train, maybe pick up some of Hillary's fundraisers/large donors, and appease the religious right at the same time.Jeremy wrote:But surely people who wanted to vote for Hilary could not possibly agree with the policies of Palin.
I do agree that a large amount of the religious right's voters would have gone for McCain anyway, by the time November rolls around they'll be thinking about supreme court justices & abortion. Many will get themselves motivated enough to vote on abortion if nothing else.Jeremy wrote:So choosing Palin was a terrible choice. It only gains the support of people who would have preferred McCain anyway, while it pushes the McCain ticket further to the conservative right, giving Obama more middle ground to fight over.
That being said, there's something of a rift between the religious right and others that make up the Republican coalition - McCain does not particularly appeal to the religious right's leaders, volunteers, organizers, etc. So he's had trouble incorporating the existing political infrastructure of the religious right into his campaign. At best, the Palin pick brings some of that infrastructure on board, and potentially maximizes turnout rather than forcing him to settle for some smaller percentage of what's out there.
That's never stopped us before...Jeremy wrote:By all accounts Palin is a nutter. Forget the irrelevance of her children, she doesn't believe climate change is man made and she sued the Department of the Interior for classifying polar bears as an endangered species.
But Palin ("our gift from the North" as I like to call her) is a terrible choice, she's got professional and family scandals, looming indictments, a campaign speech that is quickly being shredded as a web of lies, a history of controversial and divisive campaigning, etc. etc. which will dog her until November.
McCain lost the news cycle during his own campaign, and Obama's got all the momentum right now.
The religious right indeed will vote for McCain on Abortion issues alone.
Palin is a joke. I think the idea behind the decision to pick her was to jump on the minority bandwagon. Like McCain is saying "Hey we have a minority too!!! Look at us!"
Some of the Hillary stuff applies too. I wanted to see Hillary win, not cause she is a woman at all, but because she is smart. Palin has no real record to pull data from, and I am sorry but Alaska has like what 10 people in the whole state, and half of them are eskimos that probably don't live within the con finds of the government anyways. So I just find her experience a joke. Sorry if you are from Alaska, I am sure it is a very nice and cold state.
I just think the whole idea is going to backfire. Just once I'd like to see a presidential candidate that is A.) Not 100 years old, B.) Does not have some health issue, and C.) Isn't in Bush's back pocket.
Palin is a joke. I think the idea behind the decision to pick her was to jump on the minority bandwagon. Like McCain is saying "Hey we have a minority too!!! Look at us!"
Some of the Hillary stuff applies too. I wanted to see Hillary win, not cause she is a woman at all, but because she is smart. Palin has no real record to pull data from, and I am sorry but Alaska has like what 10 people in the whole state, and half of them are eskimos that probably don't live within the con finds of the government anyways. So I just find her experience a joke. Sorry if you are from Alaska, I am sure it is a very nice and cold state.
I just think the whole idea is going to backfire. Just once I'd like to see a presidential candidate that is A.) Not 100 years old, B.) Does not have some health issue, and C.) Isn't in Bush's back pocket.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
Palin came across as elitist and condescending.
People who don't know what community leaders do, can't be expected to work with leaders in the community.
For people who don't know, Community managers are people that made. People who got the fuck out of their environment long enough to better their life, and then chose to come back to help out their neighbors. They are true American heroes that provide a service to those amongst us who need help the most.
I know hockey moms are like pitbulls with makeup, but this dogs argument is all bark and no bite.
Obama up 16% in swing states as off early pols last night.
People who don't know what community leaders do, can't be expected to work with leaders in the community.
For people who don't know, Community managers are people that made. People who got the fuck out of their environment long enough to better their life, and then chose to come back to help out their neighbors. They are true American heroes that provide a service to those amongst us who need help the most.
I know hockey moms are like pitbulls with makeup, but this dogs argument is all bark and no bite.
Obama up 16% in swing states as off early pols last night.
Good to hear.
I know this does happen in Australia as well (and had pretty significant consequences yesterday, but that's another issue), but I always find it really bizarre that people vote for a political party or leader based on their views on 1 single issue. Especially one as insignificant as abortion. Another good example was Australia's involvement in the war in Iraq. If we take the view of these people, people might be getting killed, but there are a whole range of other policies that also could result in losses of life, and are far more significant (health being a good example), in that they have a far more serious effect on everybody - not just having an effect on a small minority. Vote for the best candidate. Not the best one on meaningless issues.
I know this does happen in Australia as well (and had pretty significant consequences yesterday, but that's another issue), but I always find it really bizarre that people vote for a political party or leader based on their views on 1 single issue. Especially one as insignificant as abortion. Another good example was Australia's involvement in the war in Iraq. If we take the view of these people, people might be getting killed, but there are a whole range of other policies that also could result in losses of life, and are far more significant (health being a good example), in that they have a far more serious effect on everybody - not just having an effect on a small minority. Vote for the best candidate. Not the best one on meaningless issues.
-
Frank_Sinatra
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
Most people in the US would not say abortion is a meaningless issue. In fact its such a hot topic that in a lot of social settings people don't even want to bring it up. I mean, I've been talking more politics w/my coworkers lately but I really hope nobody goes there.
I can't think of an election where I thought abortion was the most important issue. But I do think it is important. I don't want to see the supreme court tip any further to the right. Abortion is a big reason why, but there are other issues - desegregation & other civil rights issues, commerce clause interpretations, executive power decisions, etc.
Wonder how long it will take for this thread to go horribly wrong. And we will all look back fondly on these first few posts, as a kinder, simpler time.
I can't think of an election where I thought abortion was the most important issue. But I do think it is important. I don't want to see the supreme court tip any further to the right. Abortion is a big reason why, but there are other issues - desegregation & other civil rights issues, commerce clause interpretations, executive power decisions, etc.
Wonder how long it will take for this thread to go horribly wrong. And we will all look back fondly on these first few posts, as a kinder, simpler time.
But lets keep a sense of perspective. What percentage of people are directly effected by abortion laws, whatever they are. To be generous to the significance of the issue, wikipedia tells me that there are 1 million abortions a year in the US (actually 0.85 million, but the numbers will be easier if we round up 
). That means that 1 to 2 million people are directly effected, and we could count their parents as well if we like, and say that between 1 and 6 million people are directly effected. If, again, we're generous and go with 6 million, and a presidential term is 4 years, that means that a maximum of 24 million people are directly effected per term. It's important to note that when I say effected, I mean effected enough for it to have an impact on their voting. I am sure plenty of people are effected without knowing about it, and this means they wouldn't know to vote on it.
Now 24 million sounds like a lot (although we have to remember the real number is lower, and that it represents 4 million actual abortions), but it represents 8% of the population, and that's being generous again in assuming that none of those 4 million abortions are conducted on the same person during this time.
So in the Presidents full term their abortion policy is going to impact on the lives of up to 8% of their constituents. On the other hand, if we look at an issue like tax policy, carbon emission reduction policy, fuel price policy etc. the number of people directly effected is very close to 100% (talking about the direct economic effects within the Presidential term, not necessarily the flow on effects for introducing those policies). Even an issue like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has an effect on a much larger percentage of people than abortion.
This is especially noticeable when you do an economic cost/benefit analysis of the abortion issue for society.
People may care about the abortion issue, but that doesn't mean that voting in a pro-life or pro-choice president will have any impact on their lives (of 92% of people). On the other hand, voting in a person who sets a carbon reduction target of 20% by 2020 or 40% by 2020 will have a massive effect on anybody who isn't already 100% self sufficient, which is almost everybody.
Especially given the state of the US economy at the moment, economic policy would be by far the most important issue I would be paying attention to when deciding who to vote for (intertwined with environmental policy, since climate change is an economic issue and only government driven economic responses will be able to have a serious impact).
). That means that 1 to 2 million people are directly effected, and we could count their parents as well if we like, and say that between 1 and 6 million people are directly effected. If, again, we're generous and go with 6 million, and a presidential term is 4 years, that means that a maximum of 24 million people are directly effected per term. It's important to note that when I say effected, I mean effected enough for it to have an impact on their voting. I am sure plenty of people are effected without knowing about it, and this means they wouldn't know to vote on it.Now 24 million sounds like a lot (although we have to remember the real number is lower, and that it represents 4 million actual abortions), but it represents 8% of the population, and that's being generous again in assuming that none of those 4 million abortions are conducted on the same person during this time.
So in the Presidents full term their abortion policy is going to impact on the lives of up to 8% of their constituents. On the other hand, if we look at an issue like tax policy, carbon emission reduction policy, fuel price policy etc. the number of people directly effected is very close to 100% (talking about the direct economic effects within the Presidential term, not necessarily the flow on effects for introducing those policies). Even an issue like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has an effect on a much larger percentage of people than abortion.
This is especially noticeable when you do an economic cost/benefit analysis of the abortion issue for society.
People may care about the abortion issue, but that doesn't mean that voting in a pro-life or pro-choice president will have any impact on their lives (of 92% of people). On the other hand, voting in a person who sets a carbon reduction target of 20% by 2020 or 40% by 2020 will have a massive effect on anybody who isn't already 100% self sufficient, which is almost everybody.
Especially given the state of the US economy at the moment, economic policy would be by far the most important issue I would be paying attention to when deciding who to vote for (intertwined with environmental policy, since climate change is an economic issue and only government driven economic responses will be able to have a serious impact).
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
As far as the signifigance of picking Palin; I think America has already made up its mind on who they're going to vote for. At this point it might just be voter turnout and who can get it done on November 7th that wins this election. Palin is going to help Mccain do that. Obviously it is also a cheap ploy to score angry Hillary supporters. However as far as the notion that moving to the center wins elections, I wouldn't disagree broadly, but George Bush won the last two elections by energizing his base and picking for his VP a figure from the old conversative right. Even going back to Clinton's 96 win, it was done around bringing out the left and a certain amount of leaners in to vote for him through energizing his base.
Coverage of the canidates in the media does influence the people as well, and two months of Mccain getting bashed from the right for picking Lieberman on the news cycle would create a malaise in his supporters. Who is energized and who is malaised when its time to vote is what is going to determine this election. Right now it seems to me that Obama has been in a malaise since the "world tour" debbacle and we'll see if he gets out of it after a seemingly sucessful convention. I wonder if the said 16+ bounce he got in some states (If true) will last.
Right now, Obama needs Hillary and Bill. They are the only two Democrat's who can go out and attack the Republicans without America hating them for it. American men like Bill for being a playboy and women like Hillary for being the survivour. To a certain American middle/left niche they are immaculate for what they represent (The new American 20's/50's take your pick I'm not sure). I hope Obama has had both of them on the phone since the Palin pick in order to discuss strategy. Unleash the hounds.
This election seems like one never (Or more likely, rarely) before seen in American history. Looking passed the race/age/gender bullshitism's that have swarmed around the entire thing, this is possibly the most important election in American history considering EVERYTHING that is at stake. It's kind of too late to reverse the big government trend that has been escalating since the dawn of civilization (More rapdily in this particuliar era that is haha), so atleast we should do our best to have the most decent people running it. Considering, like I said, everything at stake, we might need a strong central government to get us through whatever's next, but a limited and focused fiscal policy is going to be the only thing to get us through. I hope Obama understands that and I'm voting for him because I think he does so more than Mccain, who I think truely has no economic philosophy and is willing to say and do whatever it takes to win.
My prediction? Obama by 4-5 points in the popular.
Coverage of the canidates in the media does influence the people as well, and two months of Mccain getting bashed from the right for picking Lieberman on the news cycle would create a malaise in his supporters. Who is energized and who is malaised when its time to vote is what is going to determine this election. Right now it seems to me that Obama has been in a malaise since the "world tour" debbacle and we'll see if he gets out of it after a seemingly sucessful convention. I wonder if the said 16+ bounce he got in some states (If true) will last.
Right now, Obama needs Hillary and Bill. They are the only two Democrat's who can go out and attack the Republicans without America hating them for it. American men like Bill for being a playboy and women like Hillary for being the survivour. To a certain American middle/left niche they are immaculate for what they represent (The new American 20's/50's take your pick I'm not sure). I hope Obama has had both of them on the phone since the Palin pick in order to discuss strategy. Unleash the hounds.
This election seems like one never (Or more likely, rarely) before seen in American history. Looking passed the race/age/gender bullshitism's that have swarmed around the entire thing, this is possibly the most important election in American history considering EVERYTHING that is at stake. It's kind of too late to reverse the big government trend that has been escalating since the dawn of civilization (More rapdily in this particuliar era that is haha), so atleast we should do our best to have the most decent people running it. Considering, like I said, everything at stake, we might need a strong central government to get us through whatever's next, but a limited and focused fiscal policy is going to be the only thing to get us through. I hope Obama understands that and I'm voting for him because I think he does so more than Mccain, who I think truely has no economic philosophy and is willing to say and do whatever it takes to win.
My prediction? Obama by 4-5 points in the popular.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
Good point about mobilising the extremes. Because we have compulsory voting in Australia, it's easy to forget about having to convince people to vote at all.
re: abortions. But the President is only elected for 4 years, not 35 years. I understand that people think it's a serious issue, what I'm saying is that it isn't actually a serious issue.
It's like in the lead up to last years Australian election a massive issue was David Hicks (an Australian who fought for the Taliban and was locked up in Guantamano Bay). The longer he was locked up the bigger an issue it became until eventually the Howard government folded to pressure and asked the US government to give him back. Despite how passionate people were about this issue, and probably would have voted on it, it was really a non issue. Now that he's back in Australia and free, my life hasn't changed at all. I don't feel any more or less safe and my standards of living haven't changed at all.
This is the same as the abortion issue (but more extreme). If the next President bans all abortions, or makes all abortions legal for any reason, the vast majority of people's lives aren't going to change at all. People thinking something is important isn't the same as it actually being important.
re: abortions. But the President is only elected for 4 years, not 35 years. I understand that people think it's a serious issue, what I'm saying is that it isn't actually a serious issue.
It's like in the lead up to last years Australian election a massive issue was David Hicks (an Australian who fought for the Taliban and was locked up in Guantamano Bay). The longer he was locked up the bigger an issue it became until eventually the Howard government folded to pressure and asked the US government to give him back. Despite how passionate people were about this issue, and probably would have voted on it, it was really a non issue. Now that he's back in Australia and free, my life hasn't changed at all. I don't feel any more or less safe and my standards of living haven't changed at all.
This is the same as the abortion issue (but more extreme). If the next President bans all abortions, or makes all abortions legal for any reason, the vast majority of people's lives aren't going to change at all. People thinking something is important isn't the same as it actually being important.
Jeremy,
Abortion is just one issue, America is going through is a takeover by Christian fundamentalist.
Nothing less than the freedom to live our lives free from government intervention in our personal lives is at stake.
Supreme Court justices don't change with administrations. They are on the bench till they retire. Giving up three more seats to the religious right means America will be frozen in time for 40-50 years.
This election is huge, and terrifying.
Abortion is just one issue, America is going through is a takeover by Christian fundamentalist.
Nothing less than the freedom to live our lives free from government intervention in our personal lives is at stake.
Supreme Court justices don't change with administrations. They are on the bench till they retire. Giving up three more seats to the religious right means America will be frozen in time for 40-50 years.
This election is huge, and terrifying.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
President's appoint supreme court justice's, who infact stay in said court for life. Only 2 justices on the court have been installed by a democrat. 4-8 more years of a Republican could certainly shift the decision considering the age of some of the judges currently serving.
However I think your attempt to tie abortion in with other nonsense issues (David Hicks, flag burning, gay marriage, smoking bans, pledge of allegiance [Vice or verse]) is a misguided one. If you feel on any level that abortion is wrong, or atleast the last best option, then I don't understand how you could think it is a minimal issue. I get your point that abortion might not effect a huge number of people (Which it has in common with the other issues I listed above) but those people it does effect, it effects on a deeper level than whether two people can legally fuck in the ass or whether I can or on the contrary cannot blow smoke in your face while walking infront of you in a metropolitan area.
All of these issues, though, no matter how trivial, send shockwaves into society based on whether or not they are legally/socially allowed ect ect; and abortion is the one that reverberates most. Nothing in society stands on an island and if we're going to address why society is in the state its in we'll have to look at what transgressions we as a society have allowed ourselves to allow, but on a individual scale. Transmodernism 101?
However I think your attempt to tie abortion in with other nonsense issues (David Hicks, flag burning, gay marriage, smoking bans, pledge of allegiance [Vice or verse]) is a misguided one. If you feel on any level that abortion is wrong, or atleast the last best option, then I don't understand how you could think it is a minimal issue. I get your point that abortion might not effect a huge number of people (Which it has in common with the other issues I listed above) but those people it does effect, it effects on a deeper level than whether two people can legally fuck in the ass or whether I can or on the contrary cannot blow smoke in your face while walking infront of you in a metropolitan area.
All of these issues, though, no matter how trivial, send shockwaves into society based on whether or not they are legally/socially allowed ect ect; and abortion is the one that reverberates most. Nothing in society stands on an island and if we're going to address why society is in the state its in we'll have to look at what transgressions we as a society have allowed ourselves to allow, but on a individual scale. Transmodernism 101?
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
As far as people being worried that America is being "taken over by the religious right", I'm frankly sick of people being so terrified of thinking the other side is "taking over". Puritanism is something that has infested itself in both the right and the left, sometimes in name of a God and sometimes in name of other things. It is an ugly side of our American heritage. Each country in the world has had it's group who lefted their negative mark on a society in a permanent way.
-
Frank_Sinatra
- Avenging Disco Godfather
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
- Location: Chicago, IL
Its always hard to pinpoint exactly how many people hold extremely out-of-the mainstream ideas, and what kind of influence that group has on others who are somewhat ideologically similar.
There are most definitely some people out there with scary, authoritarian/fundamentalist religious & cultural ideas, who feel that it is their mission from god to take over the levers of power & basically turn the US into a Christian theocracy. But how many of them are there? How influential are they, really? I'm talking about Rushdoony et. al. - I believe the current term is Christian Dominionists. There have been a lot of efforts to tie different religious leaders or groups or movements to Christian Dominion theology, or to point out similarities in language and messaging. I can definitely see echos of Dominion theology in some of the churches my parents had me attend. But again, how much of an impact do they really have?
I mean, supposing a sub-population (lets say X number of people) within the large and vague Religious Right umbrella agree with some of the sentiments of Dominion theology. Maybe a student of Rushdoony travels around to different churches and over time X number of people basically agree with his sermon. Does this really translate into X number of people wanting to implement a Christian authoritarian government? Not really. They may feel moved by the sentiment of 'reclaim the nation for God' but apply it to their political behavior in a different manner than the Dominionists. In practical terms I do not think even a significant minority of people in the "Religious Right" truly want to live under a theocracy, see their differently-believing neighbors oppressed, stop voting, etc.
They think that certain policies are immoral and ought to be changed. They may think that a certain policy is morally correct and should not be changed, and resist arguments that the policy amounts to discrimination or violates the separation of Church and State. Some may think that the only way to truly improve society is for everyone to have a strong Christian faith - but I don't know how many (if any) would want to make it the law of the land for everyone to be a Christian.
That being said, the idea of 'reclaiming the nation for God' may sound innocuous but I wish more of the conservative evangelicals I know (most of my Dad's extended family) would think critically about exactly what that would mean, taken to its logical conclusion, and re-evaluate whether that is a sentiment they want to agree with. Of course that may be difficult to do because magical thinking will allow them to formulate some kind of compromise where God makes everything perfect.
On an individual level, most conservative evangelicals I know are under some misconceptions about what separation Church and State means, and they basically find ways to dismiss it. I think in the next 10 to 20 years many people on the "Religious Right" will need to reevaluate what separation of Church and State means for them.
They've gotten close to the levers of power in the past eight years, and what have they accomplished? Do Republican leaders really want to ban abortion & take it off the table, and de-motivate so many of their voters? Are they just being used? Have they made the State more righteous, or the Church more corrupt? Will the Republican party have to choose between the Religious Right and other segments of its coalition?
Alright, enough rambling for now.
There are most definitely some people out there with scary, authoritarian/fundamentalist religious & cultural ideas, who feel that it is their mission from god to take over the levers of power & basically turn the US into a Christian theocracy. But how many of them are there? How influential are they, really? I'm talking about Rushdoony et. al. - I believe the current term is Christian Dominionists. There have been a lot of efforts to tie different religious leaders or groups or movements to Christian Dominion theology, or to point out similarities in language and messaging. I can definitely see echos of Dominion theology in some of the churches my parents had me attend. But again, how much of an impact do they really have?
I mean, supposing a sub-population (lets say X number of people) within the large and vague Religious Right umbrella agree with some of the sentiments of Dominion theology. Maybe a student of Rushdoony travels around to different churches and over time X number of people basically agree with his sermon. Does this really translate into X number of people wanting to implement a Christian authoritarian government? Not really. They may feel moved by the sentiment of 'reclaim the nation for God' but apply it to their political behavior in a different manner than the Dominionists. In practical terms I do not think even a significant minority of people in the "Religious Right" truly want to live under a theocracy, see their differently-believing neighbors oppressed, stop voting, etc.
They think that certain policies are immoral and ought to be changed. They may think that a certain policy is morally correct and should not be changed, and resist arguments that the policy amounts to discrimination or violates the separation of Church and State. Some may think that the only way to truly improve society is for everyone to have a strong Christian faith - but I don't know how many (if any) would want to make it the law of the land for everyone to be a Christian.
That being said, the idea of 'reclaiming the nation for God' may sound innocuous but I wish more of the conservative evangelicals I know (most of my Dad's extended family) would think critically about exactly what that would mean, taken to its logical conclusion, and re-evaluate whether that is a sentiment they want to agree with. Of course that may be difficult to do because magical thinking will allow them to formulate some kind of compromise where God makes everything perfect.
On an individual level, most conservative evangelicals I know are under some misconceptions about what separation Church and State means, and they basically find ways to dismiss it. I think in the next 10 to 20 years many people on the "Religious Right" will need to reevaluate what separation of Church and State means for them.
They've gotten close to the levers of power in the past eight years, and what have they accomplished? Do Republican leaders really want to ban abortion & take it off the table, and de-motivate so many of their voters? Are they just being used? Have they made the State more righteous, or the Church more corrupt? Will the Republican party have to choose between the Religious Right and other segments of its coalition?
Alright, enough rambling for now.