The Republican Party's Identity Crisis

Quite simply, I think the author of this article betrays a complete lack of understanding of the viewpoint of most Christian Republicans: the "religionists" he describes are far from the norm for that group. To be specific, I will answer his questions regarding the reconciliation of the capitalist and the Christian viewpoints on specific issues:

How can one unite the religious demand to selflessly help the needy through welfare state agencies (such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) with the capitalist insistence that an individual... Read More... Read More’s primary responsibility is achieving his own well-being?
Quite simply, I believe it is the job of the Church—NOT the state—to provide for those who need assistance. Unfortunately, the Church today doesn't do a good enough job with this, so governmental programs are made necessary in certain circumstances. Ideally, though, these needs would be taken care of by voluntary contributions and help from members of the Church, not compulsory taxation. Additionally, things would be handled at lower levels (in specific communities), rather than by a bloated, inefficient, ineffectual government bureaucracy.

Where is the compromise between the religionist... Read More’s call to force children to pray in school and the capitalist’s call to maintain a barrier between church and state?
I don't know that I've ever met a Christian who wants to FORCE anyone to pray... in school OR anywhere else. We simply want our children to have not just the right to pray in school if they so desire, but also the freedom to not have to hide our faith for fear of being labeled "intolerant." This country was formed on Christian principles by Christian men. No, they didn't want to force everyone to pray, either... but even having a teacher-led prayer in school doesn't equate to proselytization. When the majority has to suppress their freedom of expression for the sake of political correctness and to avoid "offending" the oversensitive few, there's a big problem. Prayer was removed from school by the judicial branch, in one of the first rulings that was not decided on PRECEDENT but instead on PREFERENCE.

How can one bring together the principle that a woman... Read More’s life is her own (the morality of rational self-interest), with the edict that a woman has a duty to protect the growth of an embryo (the morality of religion)?
Certainly, I believe that a woman's life is her own... but these rights end short of granting her the right to murder another human being. The author has bought into the "pro-choice" semantics—even the term "pro-choice" is a misnomer, implying that those who are against abortion are against women having the right to make choices—of describing a living human being as an "embryo." Formerly, I was a Christian who was personally against abortion but didn't believe that I should force my moral conviction on someone else through legislation. My belief changed when I started to really delve into the subject, and realized that there is really no rational point at which you can differentiate between a developing child in the womb, and a child outside the womb. And therefore, granting a woman the right to choose to end the life of her child while she is still pregnant is tantamount to allowing her to murder a newborn or a toddler, simply because she doesn't want him or her, or makes the arbitrary decision that the child would be "better off dead." For me, there is no "gray area" with this issue, because ... Read Moreeveryone subscribes to the absolute moral law against murder... any ambiguity can be found only in the misleading labeling of a child as nothing more than an object (an embryo or fetus).

John,

The revolutionary insight that Ayn Rand - through John Galt - brought to the field of morality (and thus to the field of politics) was the discovery that one's moral stature was not primarily dependent upon his treatment of others. Instead, Rand argued, what determined if a man was moral or not was how well his actions served his life and his happiness.

This served as Rand's basis for her rejection of Jesus Christ as a moral exemplar. Unlike Galt, Christ is praised primarily for his willingness to sacrifice himself to his moral lessers. Rand regarded this as obscene. If Christ was in fact the most morally upright man of his time - as evidenced by, for example, your correct observation that he advocated the peaceful coexistence of men - then why was he made to pay? It may be argued in good faith that Christ was a victim of his time - and that his murder was beyond his immediately ability to avoid, but for him or anyone else to regard such an event as good - as the capstone of his moral superiority - is truly grotesque.

This is the attitude that Rand rejected; and this is what she correctly identified as the altruism at the root of Christianity. The same altruism which makes it incapable of mounting an effective defense of free enterprise and individual rights.

I read your recent article on capmag.com on Jesus Christ or John Galt. I think there is a basic misunderstanding by Christians and non-Christians alike in that Jesus didn't teach his followers to steal from some people to do acts of benevolence on others, but that good works as Christ defined them are voluntary. Theft is theft whether it is done by a group under the false moral authority of democratic consensus or an individual. There are many Christians such as I that abhor all government spending that is extra-constitutional.

Thank you very much for this interesting article! I agree that there is a deep intellectual divide within the party; however, I wonder whether the divide is truly between different *factions* of the party? What I mean by that is, I suspect that for a great number of Republicans, the philosophical divide exists within their own minds….

On the one hand, they want to see less taxation and more freedom in the economy; on the other hand, they are wedded to religious beliefs that would curtail freedom in other arenas of life. You mention, “the line between economic and social policies has become increasingly blurred.” And your examples primarily point to a group of religionists who are willing, for example, to institute greater financial strangulation in exchange for greater controls in places such as public school curriculum.

I guess my question is, where is the faction of Republicans who oppose these measures on principle? Is there really such a group who can and does so in the Republican party? If so, they seem to have been awfully quiet. Or to what extent has the party been irredeemably stained by an infiltration of the Christian-altruist mentality, so that the so-called defenders of capitalism are actually *apologists* for it, those who say a little entitlement bloodletting is okay, but let’s not go overboard. (And we see how well that approach has worked….)

That is why I suspect that for the most part, the “two opposing ethical systems” exist not primarily in separate factions, but in most Republicans’ own divided minds. You indicated very strongly and clearly that the opposing beliefs at work within the Republican party and also the underlying ethical basis that makes this opposition unavoidable. I agree with your identification. I just wonder, are there really are a significant number of current Republicans who are principled defenders of capitalism and who are simply struggling to find a voice in an increasingly theocratic party? Or is it rather the case that the “pro-capitalists” also need to be shown from the ground up how and why they need to support capitalism on principle, and thus, they too require a substantial realignment in their understanding of the underlying ethics?

I’m curious—I really don’t know if there are pockets out there who would be open to a party that eschewed the altruist-religious aspect all together. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Anyway, thanks again for the article and best regards!

Dear Undercurrent Staff:

The notion that Republicans ought to become the party that promotes capitalism—*real* capitalism—is too often overlooked. Academics equate right wing politics with the free market, regardless of reality. When the economy crashes they call it a “market failure.” Meanwhile the rest of us are stunned—the market failed? What market?

No—it’s all too clear that Republican policy has steadily increased government control over the economy for many years. From healthcare to education we are faced with omnipresent big brother babysitting. It’s time that we take a stand. If they’re going to betray the principals of a secular capitalistic economy then, gosh darn it, they better know how many Americans are prepared to jump ship. Big brother be damned.

sorry, that should be "disastrous foray," although fray has a nice sound being both ragged and confrontational.

Also particularly telling is that the two closest runners-up to McCain were Huckabee and Romney, a Southern Baptist and Mormon, respectively. Huckabee has advocated socialist policies (particularly, the notion that one's food intake should be govt monitored based on his own experience with weight loss) and Romney should be given all the credit he deserves for Massachussetts disastrous fray into socialized medicine. Secular candidates in the Republican primary finished a distant 4th and worse last year.

A great addition to our carnival--thanks!

Who is John Galt?

;)