When did the GOP lose touch with Reality?

[Prospero]

There used to be liberal republicans. Not allowed any more. These days anyone with compassion or the inkling of something that is not hard right gets labelled a rhino... republican in name only. When did the GOP yield to the totalitarian temptation?

[Ben]

There used to be liberal republicans. Not allowed any more. These days anyone with compassion or the inkling of something that is not hard right gets labelled a rhino... republican in name only. When did the GOP yield to the totalitarian temptation?

Well, their base are Christian nutcases. And I mean "nutcases" in the nicest way possible --
Anyway, their base are hardcore Christians. So, well, that's it.
I mean, nobody supports their policies.(Because their core policies enrich the top 0.01 percent of the population and harm/hurt the rest. Policies like free trade (albeit it isn't free trade), the free movement of capital and the free import of goods and, lastly, starving the beast. Ya know, we're the beast. And we need to be starved.
A lot have "fallen in love" with Santorum because he's a Bible thumper.
Plus elections and election campaigning are pretty simple: politicians want uninformed voters (about 90 to 95 percent of voters are low information voters) making IRRATIONAL choices. That's how our market system works: we've uninformed consumers making irrational choices. But for markets to work, well, you need informed consumers making rational choices.

[robertlouis]

Well, their base are Christian nutcases. And I mean "nutcases" in the nicest way possible --
Anyway, their base are hardcore Christians. So, well, that's it.
I mean, nobody supports their policies.(Because their core policies enrich the top 0.01 percent of the population and harm/hurt the rest. Policies like free trade (albeit it isn't free trade), the free movement of capital and the free import of goods and, lastly, starving the beast. Ya know, we're the beast. And we need to be starved.
A lot have "fallen in love" with Santorum because he's a Bible thumper.
Plus elections and election campaigning are pretty simple: politicians want uninformed voters (about 90 to 95 percent of voters are low information voters) making IRRATIONAL choices. That's how our market system works: we've uninformed consumers making irrational choices. But for markets to work, well, you need informed consumers making rational choices.

It's a curious kind of "Christianity" which consistently preaches a doctrine of hate - hate for gays, hate for women who want control of their bodies and hate for anything and anybody they fear or otherwise don't understand.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The American Christian right is every bit as intolerant and extremist as the likes of the Taliban and the Mullahs in Iran. The only difference is that so far the wisdom of the better part of the American people has prevented them from getting their hands on the levers of power. But if that ever does happen, through the agency of the Republican Party, you'll see a theocracy unleashed which will take America back centuries.

[BluegrassCat]

It's a curious kind of "Christianity" which consistently preaches a doctrine of hate - hate for gays, hate for women who want control of their bodies and hate for anything and anybody they fear or otherwise don't understand.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The American Christian right is every bit as intolerant and extremist as the likes of the Taliban and the Mullahs in Iran. The only difference is that so far the wisdom of the better part of the American people has prevented them from getting their hands on the levers of power. But if that ever does happen, through the agency of the Republican Party, you'll see a theocracy unleashed which will take America back centuries.

I think there are important cultural and political differences between the two groups that would prevent christian conservatives from reaching those depths. Firstly, America places great value on the principles of equality, democracy, and freedom of speech and religion at least in the abstract if not always in the particular. Even with a Rick Santorum presidency and a quiescent Congress these cultural values would prevent a full on regression to the dark ages. You would find increasing restrictions on the reproductive rights of women and a lot more government money going to Christian organizations but not a complete mirror image of a Muslim theocracy.

The other important arresting factor is that the people who fund the GOP and its candidates are the 1%, and they could give two shits about social conservatism. They find it useful to get the Christian conservatives to vote for the moneyed interests in the name of Jesus, but in name only. If these candidates ever starting threatening the bottom line (for example by actually trying to carry out what Jesus said) their corporate masters would quickly find new tribunes with the appropriate interpretation of the gospels.

While America is increasingly becoming an oligarchy, I don't see theocracy as a possibility.

[robertlouis]

I think there are important cultural and political differences between the two groups that would prevent christian conservatives from reaching those depths. Firstly, America places great value on the principles of equality, democracy, and freedom of speech and religion at least in the abstract if not always in the particular. Even with a Rick Santorum presidency and a quiescent Congress these cultural values would prevent a full on regression to the dark ages. You would find increasing restrictions on the reproductive rights of women and a lot more government money going to Christian organizations but not a complete mirror image of a Muslim theocracy.

The other important arresting factor is that the people who fund the GOP and its candidates are the 1%, and they could give two shits about social conservatism. They find it useful to get the Christian conservatives to vote for the moneyed interests in the name of Jesus, but in name only. If these candidates ever starting threatening the bottom line (for example by actually trying to carry out what Jesus said) their corporate masters would quickly find new tribunes with the appropriate interpretation of the gospels.

While America is increasingly becoming an oligarchy, I don't see theocracy as a possibility.

Are you sure? Here's Santorum in his own words. What a prick.

[BluegrassCat]

Sanatorum would have no ability to ban porn. This is cheap talk to the base.

[robertlouis]

Sanatorum would have no ability to ban porn. This is cheap talk to the base.

....who would shout at him until he did something about it. The worrying thing about Santorum is that he is the real deal - a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool true believer, a fanatic.

At one level that's more admirable than the cynics (I'm looking at you, Newt) who'll say anything to garner votes. But when he says what he says, he truly believes it. That's chilling. And even if, as seems likely, the GOP challenge to Pres Obama is in the end going to be headed by Romney, it won't be easy to forget or ignore that large constituency on the religious right for which Santorum has articulated beliefs, hopes, desires, and, heaven help us, a sense of expectation.

Even from this side of the Atlantic I find that truly terrifying, and I am concerned that an otherwise intelligent man like you seems eager to dismiss it so casually, no disrespect intended.

[muh_muh]

and its also something he never said
http://www.snopes.com/politics/santorum/taliban.asp
awesome fact checking there from you

[hippifried]

Sanatorum would have no ability to ban porn. This is cheap talk to the base.

He doesn't seem to know that. Just writing the executive fiat could cause trouble for years while the courts bounce it around. Besides; Just making such a stupid statement tells me he's too stupid to be President. & being a radical papist & all, even the klan doesn't want him.

[BluegrassCat]

The question was never whether Santorum would be a good president. I think we can dismiss that out of hand. The question was would he (or any president) be able to institute a Christian theocracy. I mentioned the institutional barriers that I see preventing such an occurrence. I fail to understand how recognizing the limits of the presidency is equivalent to dismissing the nastiness of the Christian Right.