Are Social Conservatives "Deluded"?

Recess Supervisor, AKA Playground Politics, is an interesting critter. He sits in a Wisconsin legislative office and provides interesting little tidbits--mostly personal snarkiness--about the vagaries of our fine Capitol representatives. Now and then he essays with more than a little animus about "social conservatives."

...So many of them can't believe that there are actually a lot of fiscally conservative individuals out there who have no desire to let rural voters and their Bible-thumping populist preachers determine the direction of the party. At least not without pointing out what a travesty they've turned the Republican Party into.

That's the Libertarian line. In the real world it's a false dichotomy. He takes the position that "bible thumpers" cannot be "fiscal conservatives." Leave aside the pejorative shading of the terms--his analysis is faulty.

But there are millions of people out there just like me, whether social conservatives want to accept it or not. We're college educated, we have good jobs, we believe in fiscal responsibility, we believe in limited government, we have gay friends, and we don't care about abortion as a political issue. We attend church, we believe in God, and we have absolutely no problem not letting our religious beliefs dictate public policy.

Oh, wow. More of the same, by negative inference--the "bible-thumpers" are, perhaps, NOT 'college-educated,' NOT in possession of 'good jobs,' DON'T believe in 'limited government,' and 'DON'T have "gay" friends'. I guess Obama was right; they're just 'bitter clingers.'

Sure. That's refined and sophisticated poly-sci analytics so long as you think Al Capp was a brilliant political analyst, and Dogpatch was a real town.

There was a time when a real conservative, someone who believed in government staying out of people's lives, would've opposed amendments that discriminate against homosexuals because it was government intruding into things it didn't need to intrude in. Remember that even the political messiah of social conservatives, Ronald Reagan, publicly opposed a California ballot initiative in 1978 that would have prevented homosexuals from teaching in public schools.

Reagan was right, then. But he didn't consider the possibility that a State or Federal Supreme Court would be majority-populated with individuals who would re-define Natural Law, as would Screechin'Shirley and as did the MassSupremes.

Changing times require different tactics, RS. So sorry. You may recall that the Founders thought slavery was kinda OK. So by your logic, Lincoln was...what? Just another rube fundamentalist, enforcing HIS view of morality? God save us from those folks, RS!

...what President Bush has taught these people is that they should depend on the federal government to legislate their own religious mores as matters of public policy.

BUSH? Here's a fellow who claims to have a "college degree" and doesn't recall the words of G. Washington, A. Lincoln, and other folks, including the notoriously Deist Jefferson who opinined along the lines that only a 'moral people' could keep the Government they handed to us? And this fellow would overthrow several thousand years of understanding for what he terms 'equality'?

Yah.

RS then 'proves' his case with some numbers. I don't think they hold up too well, but you be the judge. Here he takes numbers from Fundrace.com.

"Lawyer": 65% Dem - 35% GOP
"Realtor": 62% Dem - 38% GOP
"Doctor": 52% Dem - 48% GOP
"Physician": 62% Dem - 38% GOP
"Small Business Owner": 50.5% Dem - 49.5% GOP
"Investment Banker": 52% Dem - 48% GOP
"Minister": 64% Dem - 36% GOP
"Pastor": 53% Dem - 47% GOP

I can't explain the "Doctor/Physician" numbers--nor the difference between the two.

As to lawyers, think PI's. DOH. Realtors? Think Fannie/Freddie=real-estate sales. Investment bankers seek tax advantages and information. Both parties dole that out all the time. Ministers/Pastors: think "social gospel." Also remember that while they're preaching the 'social gospel,' less and less people actually show up to listen every year...

When you come right down to it, it is the Libertarians who are deluded. First, because they characterize people inaccurately, and condescendingly. Secondly, because they actually think they can win elections. I will provide a space here: (see it?) for the list of Libertarian election-winners. RS can fill in the blanks.

Finally, Libertarians are deluded because they think that politics is separate from culture. For openers, the word "culture" is a direct derivative of the word "cult." Maybe RS could start there in his next analysis of electoral politics.