Tuesday, November 25, 2008

A response to Kathleen Parker

Kathleen Parker, a synidcate columnist and "self-described conservative" - a term necessary to delineate between those who are actually conservative, and those who simply enjoy the acclaim that comes with being a conservative who adheres to liberal ideological principles - has penned an article decrying the influence of evangelicals within the Republican party.

It's shallow and poorly written, and I am an evangelical conservative, so I'm going to make fun of her. You know how this works. Excerpts, responses and such below.

As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.

It's always good to begin a piece with an unsubstantiated assertion, especially when you do not intend to defend your assertion with argument.

I'm bathing in holy water as I type.

A holy water joke. That's keeping it fresh.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

Oogedy-boogedy counts as specificity? How can a narrow branch simultaneously afflict AND marginalize consituents of a broader subset? Are we just stringing together action verbs in an effort to make word count?

Nice use of "cometh" though. I didn't see that coming.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party.

A Hitler reference. How nuanced.

And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

The party intelligentsia is Catholic, babe. Real oogedy-boogedy types, them, the Catholics.

So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.

And also gigantic architectural masterpieces, which predate the aforementioned streets. But why quibble?

Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.

I hope it was cathartic for you to write that, Kath. Now, where is my machete?

Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows.

Syndicated columnists? I kid... Kinda.

In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.

Yeah, atheist Democrats are just ripe for the picking come election season.

Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.

If that's the case, I couldn't be more delighted to be wrong.

And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.

On what basis does she make this assertion? How has a public versus a private faith manifested in evangelical voting patterns? Which issues are "private" vs. "public"? I mean, as long as we're being specific...

Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion.

They are defensive because the notion is offensive. The GOP exists to serve its constituents, not vice versa. It is not our responsibility to comport our values to the political zeitgeist.

Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians.

This isn't the case, but were it so, it would defeat Kathleen's argument. It is never in a party's best interest to alienate the MAJORITY of its constituents.

Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.

A Depends joke. Does Kathleen get her material from stand-up routines from the early 90s? Stick to the script, sweetie...

With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course.

Again, Kathleen has undone her argument. The problem is that the GOP is stale. The solution comes in the form of an evangelical.

Meanwhile, it isn't necessary to evict the Creator from the public square,

That's what you have spent the last 250 words arguing. Faith can't be public and private at the same time.

Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world's architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents.

Don't forget great literary works, a category to which Kathleen will not be contributing anytime soon.

But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.

Barack Obama made an unprecedented effort to reach out to evangelicals. He was rebuffed. The lesson Kathleen learns from this is that the GOP should shun evangelicals? This has no hint of logic.

The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won't get whiter.

And, of course, blacks went to the polls in droves to oppose measures banning gay marriage... Social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and education rights represent the only bridge between conservative ideology and most minority populations. Plan B is to set those issues aside, and mimic the Democratic practice of offering (taxpayer funded) goodies and affirmative action programs.

If this is what Kathleen supports, then she should vote for Democrats, as I suspect she will henceforth. This is poison pill advice, an intellectually dishonest case for liberal ideology masked as advice to the party that rejects same.

But Ms. Parker should exercise care in her wishes. If the oogedy-boogedy crowd jumps ship, we take with us our defense of free speech, opposition to terrorism, and rejection of moral equivocation with us. And, believe me, another batch of oogedy-boogedy types will come to occupy this vacuum of zeal, one not so terribly tolerant of female syndicated columnists.

Oh, and you lose God, who is kind of a big deal.

But since Kathleen has concerned herself with the impact of demographic shifts on party identity, I should take the time to remind her of another reason to love married evangelical Christians:


Oogedy-boogedy yourself, lady.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can see why you don't like the piece by Ms. Parker- you embody what she is denouncing.

10:57 PM  
Blogger Kevin Sawyer said...

That's why I responded. You're not much for context are you, crazy guy?

12:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, except for the breeding part. Can't imagine anyone who would want to do that with you.

6:43 AM  
Anonymous John Mulholland said...

I love the "anonymous". What a gutsy move.

9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And "the anonymous" loves you, John Malhound.

4:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home