Christian Fundamentalists cling to such politics in spite of Roe v. Wade (1973) and Griswold v, Connecticut (1965), which guarantee as rights of privacy both abortion and use of contraceptives.
The Tea Party
The Republican faction that calls itself "The Tea Party," really isn't a faction at all. It is only perceived as a faction but is really the embodiment of the destructive personalities of a couple or three money-men. The money that's the glue of the Tea Party crowd comes from the deep pockets of the Koch brothers----billionaires both----and multi-millionaire Dick Armey who is also a former member of Congress.
There aren't many Eisenhower Republicans left. President Dwight Eisenhower, if anyone remembers, faced the greatest national debt-to-Gross-Domestic-Product (GDP) ratio in the country's history--far greater than the current ratio. He did it by focusing on infrastructure improvements, (i.e., roads, bridges, schools, etc.) and building the Interstate Highway system across the length and breadth of the then 48 states. And Eisenhower borrowed more money to complete his legacy.
So there you have it. If the factions were to break into individual political parties, each new party could be only a minor party at best.
The Neocon Party would survive because it would have the financial support of Wall Street, the billionaire gang and Big Oil.
Christian Fundamentalists as a stand-alone political party would attract not only the Pentecostal Christians but some of the Roman Catholic faith, at least those Catholics who have given their lives over to the church hierarchy's dogmatic proscription of sexual matters.
Such a political party would struggle on for a short time (perhaps three or four election cycles) until it became obvious to them that not only has their one-issue approach failed but none of their other political hopes could ever be realized.
The Tea Party would struggle on, although that party's future usefulness to the agendas of the Koch Brothers and Armey is doubtful. Without such financial backing The Tea Party crowd would most likely drift onto the unaffiliated voter rolls, ready to join the next hair-brained political panacea that might come around.
It's important to realize that the Tea Party doesn't really stand for anything. We know they are against higher taxes but they don't know why exactly. We also know they think the word "taxes" is a four-letter word (and we know they can't count the number of letters in a given word).
We know they are against new government programs because we (meaning the country) can't afford them. And we know they are against any existing government program, unless they benefit from those programs.
The Tea Party is mostly for anarchy. This bunch has already begun to throw Republican moderates under the bus, as evidenced by the loss by Richard Lugar in the Indiana U. S. Senate primary--only to lose the Senate seat altogether to a Democrat in the November general election.
Unfortunately, Eisenhower Republicans are dying off or have been kicked out of the party or have drifted into the never-never-land of unaffiliated voters. The Richard Lugars and Everett Dirksons don't exist in enough numbers anymore to make much of a difference.
A political party made up of four factions that are so incompatible with each other, as the Republican Party currently is, doesn't stand much of a chance of surviving in a meaningful way in today's world that needs coherent policies that really help the bulk of the body politic. A party, such as the GOP, cannot continue with a dogmatic ideology that protects the privileges of the 1 percent over the needs of the 99 percent. Such a party with that kind of agenda also has the 1 percent looking with scorn on half of the rest of the nation's population. Such a political party is soon headed to the scrapheap of history.
- Copyright 2012 by P. A. Triot. Copy and distribute at will, with proper attribution. P. A. Triot is a pen name of a retired journalist.
1 | 2