Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Daily Beast: Will Franklin Graham Lead an Evangelical Exodus From the GOP?


Jumbo

Recommended Posts

I don't read this site--this popped up on my MSN page. It features the Planed parenthood controversy as part of the premise, but I have been wondering as a general thing with the sate of the GOP  these days, if there will be a real split in unity from the more rightside Christians ahead. That's what I intend as the topic in this thread---not PP and there's a thread for that as we know).

 

I realize that as focused as the terms "fundamentals" and "evangelicals" might be, they are also not simply large demographics of people in unwavering lock-step on all issues. But what else could they do if there's a widespread increasing attitude that they are being alienated or their concerns are not being properly attended to by the GOP? 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/22/evangelicals-consider-exodus-from-gop-over-pp-funding.html

 

 

 
Franklin Graham announced this week he was leaving the Republican Party as a result of the inclusion of Planned Parenthood funding in the spending bill that sailed through Congress last week. While he’s the first to formally bail, he might not be the last.

 

Franklin Graham, who heads the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, posted on Facebook yesterday that he plans to leave the Republican Party. His growing frustration highlights growing (and sometimes paradoxical) anger that pro-life and evangelical Christian leaders have for Republican Party leadership.

 

Graham took to Facebook to rip Republicans in the wake of a spending bill the House passed last week that maintains federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

 

“Seeing and hearing Planned Parenthood talk nonchalantly about selling baby parts from aborted fetuses with utter disregard for human life is reminiscent of Joseph Mengele and the Nazi concentration camps!” Graham wrote, referring to videos that showed Planned Parenthood officials discussing their fetal tissue donation program. “That should’ve been all that was needed to turn off the faucet for their funding.

 

“This is an example of why I have resigned from the Republican Party and declared myself Independent,” he continued. “I have no hope in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or Tea Party to do what is best for America.”

 

<edit>

“This Planned Parenthood sponsorship in this bill further confirms what many evangelical Christians believe about the Republican Party establishment, and that is, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republican establishment and the Democratic establishment,” he said.

 

 

more at link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a two-horse race if you refuse to back either horse you aren't going to be supporting a winner.

 

Sure as hell, the current two-party Congress isn't working.

 

Maybe it would be better for US politics if the two monoliths were blown up and you could have parties dedicated to their single-issue ... Bernie could lead a party for the working poor; Hillary or Jeb could pander to corporate interests while claiming to serve everyone; Paul/Cruz/Rubio could cater to the crazies :) ; Trump to the overt racists, Huckabee/Santorum to the evangelicals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really is hard to imagine any big lasting change in the two party dominant landscape, but it would be fascinating to watch more intensive and successful attempts to form a viable third and fourth etc.  power base.

 

Without proportional representation it's hard for a third party to get traction because, aside from a protest vote, you are voting for the lesser of two evils .. if you vote.

 

Back in the home country an election with PR and single transferable vote, might have, say, five seats up for grabs and 15+ candidates of all stripes. Voters would get to express preferences 1 through 5 for a list of candidates. It made elections much more interesting and provided the opportunity for all sorts of special interests to run a candidate and get visibility, even if they didn't ultimately get elected.

 

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/voting/proportional_representation.html

Of course, in spite of a more fair electoral process, the Irish have a similar contempt for most of the incompetent and corrupt politicians who get elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly didn't take him long to go full Godwin.

 

There seems to be a growing rift on many fronts in the Republican party. If you go to sites like Brietbart or Free Republic they pretty much hate the rank and file Republicans (RINOs) as much as the Democrats. It comes from many areas...immigration, planned parenthood, national defense, spending. They feel betrayed and they are angry and at the point where many on those sites have said, quite vehemently, that if the Republican candidate is not Trump or maybe Cruz, they simply will not vote at all. Or some have even said they will cast a protest vote FOR HILLARY.

 

And the ironic thing is the GOP are the ones who made their own mess here. They played to the hard right and the loonies for many years. Courted them, made promises to them. Then didn't come through. Their chickens are finally coming home to roost in multiple ways. They pretty much created Trump as well. Only difference is he says some of the stuff they've been advocating for decades out loud as opposed to using subtle code words and dog whistles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Batman Party"

Don't vote for those jokers. Vote Batman.

He's even got a Dick for VP.

To the article, I doubt there'll be an exodus. It's going to be tough to convince their party to hand the DEMs the Presidency, and potentially more, for the sake of making point, or having a small chance of actually getting a new party started up.

Most definitely, only having two parties can be problematic, and laws making it difficult for third parties need to be tossed, but it's tough to convince people to break ranks even in that situation. The cost-to-value isn't good. We'd need a wholesale system change, and good luck with that.

Though I wish Graham the best of luck. If he wants to crash the GOP, he is more than welcome to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly didn't take him long to go full Godwin.

 

There seems to be a growing rift on many fronts in the Republican party. If you go to sites like Brietbart or Free Republic they pretty much hate the rank and file Republicans (RINOs) as much as the Democrats. It comes from many areas...immigration, planned parenthood, national defense, spending. They feel betrayed and they are angry and at the point where many on those sites have said, quite vehemently, that if the Republican candidate is not Trump or maybe Cruz, they simply will not vote at all. Or some have even said they will cast a protest vote FOR HILLARY.

 

 

 

And, of course, almost none of them will actually do this.   The overwhelming majority of them will troop in and pull the R lever in November, same as they always do.   The GOP establishment knows this, and if anything, is glad to be able to seem separate from Franklin Graham.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, of course, almost none of them will actually do this.   The overwhelming majority of them will troop in and pull the R lever in November, same as they always do.   The GOP establishment knows this, and if anything, is glad to be able to seem separate from Franklin Graham.  

Oh I'm sure you're right. Though it would be amusing if they actually went through with it. But yeah its probably just hot air at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, of course, almost none of them will actually do this.   The overwhelming majority of them will troop in and pull the R lever in November, same as they always do.   The GOP establishment knows this, and if anything, is glad to be able to seem separate from Franklin Graham.  

 

 of course. If they didn't and it were a blowout. You'd see revenge taken in going at FG's Church as a Corporation and not.....well....a church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, of course, almost none of them will actually do this. The overwhelming majority of them will troop in and pull the R lever in November, same as they always do. The GOP establishment knows this, and if anything, is glad to be able to seem separate from Franklin Graham.

I agree with this. Most will still vote for the Republican nominee because they know the alternative is worse. They know Graham is pulling his public support but they aren't worried about his vote. The establishment loves it because it's one less voice on their side that opposes them or tries to keep them in line. It's also less issues they have to worry about. Now they will focus on their main goal which is not policy, but gaining and retaining power. So whatever policy gets them that, they will shoot for it. It's what they have been doing, but now they can publicly ignore the likes of Graham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with P. It's noise is all, nothing will really change.

 

How about tossing this into the mix---how would any of you scheme up a successful third party? What would be the composition of the constituency you think would have the best shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with P. It's noise is all, nothing will really change.

 

How about tossing this into the mix---how would any of you scheme up a successful third party? What would be the composition of the constituency you think would have the best shot?

 

 

The only way to create a new party is to cannibalize voters from one of the existing 2 parties, and gradually replace that party over a couple of election cycles.   That's how the Federalist Party became the National Republican Party and then became the the Whig Party and then became the GOP.   But it always drops back to two parties, quickly.  It's called Duvurger's Law of politics.  

 

Our constitution basically mandates 2 parties because of the winner takes all approach and single member districts.  The same thing is true for the Presidency by virtue of the Electoral College.   I wrote a long paper on this subject back in college.  

 

If you want third parties, you need to get rid of a large amount of the constitution.   You need larger districts, and proportional voting and several other things.   

 

So in the current situation, people could try to split the GOP to create a Libertarian Party or a Christian Values Party (for example) but within two election cycles, that party would either be defunct, or the GOP would be defunct and replaced by that new party.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our constitution basically mandates 2 parties because of the winner takes all approach and single member districts.  The same thing is true for the Presidency by virtue of the Electoral College.   I wrote a long paper on this subject back in college.

I fail to recall the part of the constitution that mandates single member districts. But I'm sure you know more about it than I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to recall the part of the constitution that mandates single member districts. But I'm sure you know more about it than I do.

 

 

No, actually, you are correct and my memory failed me when I said it was constitutionally mandated.  

 

The states originally were empowered by the Constitution to set their own rules, but the Constitution also said that Congress may override them.  And Congress has chosen to override them and mandate single member districts.  That is legislation, not a Constitutional provision.   I supposed that legislation could be revoked, and then each state could vote for different ways of choosing representatives if they wanted to.  

 

However, doing so would run into other Constitutional problems, particularly the one-person one-vote principle contained in the Equal Protection Clause.   It would be a huge mess.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The states originally were empowered by the Constitution to set their own rules, but the Constitution also said that Congress may override them.  And Congress has chosen to override them and mandate single member districts.  That is legislation, not a Constitutional provision.   I supposed that legislation could be revoked, and then each state could vote for different ways of choosing representatives if they wanted to.

Thanks for the info. I had no idea that Congress actually passed legislation mandating that. I'd always assumed that it was simply a case of "that's the way we've always done it".

 

Wonder why Congress decided that they needed to mandate that.  Was some contrary state trying to do something that the other states didn't like?  But that's OT trivia. 

 

Although, I will agree that Congress has that authority.  I forget the exact words, but the constitution grants Congress the power to determine it's own membership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the parties practice divide and conquer, not enough of a unifying theme to do more than sway leaners.

 

a values voter party is probably the best chance, but divisions and fear from the opposition largely preclude that

 

they even scare me when they start agreeing  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...