The New Right-Wing Leftists

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

90 Responses

  1. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    One of the overlaps between Christian Nationalists and the old leftists is that they both despise the people they claim to want to save.

    The old left, in its pre-1960s incarnation, was Puritanical at its core and saw things like pop culture and consumerism as bourgeoisie decadence.
    There was an old joke circulating among the Reagan crowd-
    A socialist is ranting on the street, exhorting a group of workers:
    “Comrades- Come the revolution, everyone will drive a big fancy car! Everyone will smoke big cigars, and have a big bosomed girlfriend!”
    One worker raised his hand and said- “But I like my motorcycle, I don’t smoke, and am happily married.”
    The rabble rouser looks at him a moment, and says “Come the revolution, you’ll do as you’re damn well told.”

    The Christian Nationalists make it clear they despise modern Americans for much the same reasons, that we are not living according to the rules they want to set down for us. Come their revolution, we will do as we’re damn well told.Report

  2. Greg In Ak
    Ignored
    says:

    Love that pic up top and i agree with most of what you have written. OTOH that CS Lewis quote is laughably bad but i know lots of people love it. Oh well.

    There have been approximately 11 billion conversations on this here blog about noting that C’s have always had big swaths in favor of “big gov”. It’s the least surprising thing ever to here a conservative want big gov. One the ways trump captured the R’s was that he ignored most of the old pieties of the R’s that few of them actually believed in. The overweening Christian authoritarianism isn’t all that new either.Report

  3. Burt Likko
    Ignored
    says:

    Here I thought this piece was going to be about horseshoe leftists — the ones so morally pure they see no difference between Biden and Trump (these days on the issue of “genocide”) and intend to vote for Trump so that the Democrats respond to their incentives and nominate someone who is actually lefty enough for them.

    I call these people “idiots,” but YMMV.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Burt Likko
      Ignored
      says:

      The number of non-pragmatic leftists has always surprised me. You’d think they would have learned from prior deployments of this tactic why its a fools errand. And yet …Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        It’s not about making a difference or effecting a change. It’s about signalling their moral purity. Some of them are too morally pure to vote at all, which is just fine by me. It’s the ones who are so clever they think voting for Trump will somehow advance a left-wing agenda that are really bothersome.

        Alsotoo, there are actual anarchists out there in lefty-social-media-world, and their thinking about how to achieve their goals is as inchoate as the polities they want to create. Sometimes they’re interesting, though, though often slippery interlocutors.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Burt Likko
          Ignored
          says:

          affecting a change, not effecting

          (yes, I’m messing with you)Report

        • Chris in reply to Burt Likko
          Ignored
          says:

          I’m not sure how not voting signals moral purity, and to whom, or why anyone would think that. Have y’all talked to a lot of leftists about why they don’t vote, or is this just idle psychologizing? Given the extent to which leftists debate among themselves about voting, I don’t think there’s any real need to speculate about why they do it.

          I generally don’t vote, or only vote in selective local elections (I voted for DA in the Dem primary last week) and on state propositions/amendments. I won’t vote for a Dem for national (or likely state) government again, and I’m not really a fan of third parties except maybe as a more explicit form of protest than undervoting, though I don’t feel any need to register a protest at the ballot box anymore (I’m too old for that sort of thing). I personally don’t think this signals anything about my moral purity, or moral character whatsoever. I’m just voting, or rather not voting, my preferences, same as y’all I assume.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Chris
            Ignored
            says:

            I’m not sure how not voting signals moral purity, and to whom, or why anyone would think that.

            You should come hang out on some of the social democratic and DSA related Facebook pages I frequent. There is a TREMENDOUS amount of vote shaming in those places if one ever suggests voting for a Democrat for anything. To the point where I have been invited to leave more then once for simply pointing out that in many states there is never an alternative.Report

            • Chris in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              That’s weird. DSA here, and everywhere I know (I know a people well enough to have good idea what’s going on in several chapters and at the national level), spends a great deal of its energy on elections (much to my chagrin). They run their own candidates, endorse Dems at pretty much every level but President and U.S. Senate (besides Bernie, obviously), and block walk for candidates in larger numbers than pretty much any other local group.

              I could see there being a lot of shaming about voting for Biden right now, given his continued support for genocide and all, but that’s different, and seems like a pretty good reason not to vote for someone even if the other guy is also likely to do the same.

              Maybe a bunch of Maoists (like Austin’s mostly defunct Red Guard) have infiltrated the pages you’re on?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Given that none of them are local I have no idea. I do know that affair number don’t actually think Trump would be an authoritarian dictator, nor do they believe he’d come for them relatively quickly. And in spite of what one would think is the need for democratic socialists to stand with undocumented migrants few seem to be willing to engage on what his immigration policies would actually be.

                Better to bash Biden.Report

              • Chris in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s very strange. Trump’s first term produced a big jump in DSA’s membership, and I think pretty much everyone I’ve met in DSA recognizes how bad he is. What’s more, at least here in Texas, where immigration is a big deal, DSA led protests to get a detention center closed (successfully).

                Sounds like you’re hanging out in weird internet spaces. Maybe Platypus types? (e.g.)Report

              • Philip H in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                the challenge for me is that about 1/4th of the time there is good solid socialist work being done and discussed there. As the election gets closer the vote shaming is starting to flare though.Report

              • Chris in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Shaming is definitely bad, and obviously not a good way to do organizing. Hopefully they grow up.Report

              • Burt Likko in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                The internet space of which I speak is Bluesky as I am no longer on exTwitter. “Moral purity” is a condensation, a shorthand of what I see articulated there. It’s a combination of revulsion at Biden’s response to the war in Gaza and magical thinking that a Trump win in 2024 will somehow pull Democrats to the left such that a future Democratic party will become morally acceptable.

                I’ve plenty of respect for someone who says “No, Biden lost me because of Gaza, so I’m not voting for him, or I’m voting third party as a protest vote.” Such an opinion leaves plenty of room for “But Trump is still worse on other issues, which are less important to me, and I’m sure as hell not going to vote for Trump either.”

                Maybe that’s what you’re getting at your DSA meetings. It’s not what’s coming through on my SM feed.

                What I get is moral condescension (e.g., “I see; after considering what’s at stake, you chose genocide,”) and I admit I react badly to that sort of thing. I’m not the guy who’s out there in an IDF uniform shooting into crowds of starving kids.

                I’m the guy who says “Neither party’s candidate is going to break our multi-treaty alliance with Israel, so what else might be at stake?” and is deciding that Biden is, in those other arenas, a much less bad option than Trump.

                I’m also the guy who says that the parties traditionally compete for votes in the center, and a strong showing by Trump therefore provides an incentive for the Democrats to move right and compete for those gettable votes. Debatably, that happened in between the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Further, people whose ideology is so far left that they can identify no material difference between Trump and Biden are, to phrase it much more charitably than my then-irritated self did a few days ago here, unlikely to be persuaded otherwise. There is therefore no incentive for the Democrats to reach out to such people at the expense of reaching towards the theoretically persuadable center.

                Apologies, friend, if I insulted you.Report

              • Chris in reply to Burt Likko
                Ignored
                says:

                I will say that genocide, especially one we’re watching, with very graphic photographic and video detail, in real time, tends to make people angry, and we live in a world now where one of the few places where people can vent their anger is social media (though BlueSky seems very tame, so I’m surprised you’re seeing that much over there). I’ve vented anger over what’s happening in Palestine myself, many times, so I get the impulse. And an easy, if not particularly effective (at least in most cases) way to vent is condemnation of the people who are doing or who support those doing what makes you angry.

                The impulse to condemn is likely heightened, in this case, by the liberal need to constantly (constantly) blame the left: for liberals’ own electoral failures, for a lack of pragmatism (see above in this thread) in not abandoning sincerely-held principles and convictions to vote for the lesser evil (in this case, because the lesser evil supports pretty much the greatest evil), for constantly criticizing Democrats instead of Republicans (in this case, for supporting genocide), etc. However, I doubt there are many leftists of any sort (excluding a very small group of Maoists and Stalinists, the latter of whom are almost entirely online, and the former of whom are almost entirely not) who don’t fully recognize that Trump would be worse than Biden in many ways, but are more likely to criticize Democrats than Republicans anyway for a couple reasons: 1) The Republicans are too far gone, and have been for decades: Trump is a logical step along the decades-old trajectory of the party and American conservatism, so criticizing them is beyond pointless 2) The Democrats see themselves as the left, and as vying for left votes; as a result, they both sap energy from the left and see the left as a group that should fall in line. It makes very little sense to criticize the Republicans, then, and a great deal more sense to criticize the Democrats, who are going to blame the left even if we don’t.

                I do know that there are leftists who still think the Democrats can be pulled left, though ironically that group is the most likely to vote for them on pragmatic grounds. Those people, in my experience, tend to read as much about partisan politics as anyone here, and so are aware that Trump will likely pull the Dems to the right no matter what, because there are more conservatives or former conservatives, like some of the active or formerly active conservative commenters here, who are disturbed by the direction of a party and movement they (foolishly, it must be said) believed to be their own, who might vote Democrat if they move a bit to the right on this or that (excluding, obviously, abortion, where they move to the right at their own peril; an issue, I might add, on which Biden is pretty bad) than there are leftists who the Dems are likely to lose, so there’s a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don’t going on here if you’re a pragmatic leftist.

                It does seem to me, also, that at least some of the more pragmatic leftists have a limit on what they can tolerate from the Democrats, and that limit is genocide (in ’04 and even ’16, it may have been support for the Iraq War). I suspect that most of the more pragmatic leftists will vote for Biden in the general (as they, the most zealous of Sanders fans, did in ’20, and as they did for Clinton in ’16), even if they criticize him and his supporters openly right now.

                All of which is to say, while I don’t doubt that you’re seeing shaming and condescension, I doubt it really means what you think it means. Sure, there may be some people, young and naive most likely, who want to display their moral purity on social media, but I think most people are venting sincere anger, and more than that, I believe they aren’t quite certain why everyone doesn’t share that anger. I admit that confuses me as well.Report

              • Chris in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Thinking specifically of DSA, first noting that I am not a member, haven’t been in years, last went to a meeting in 2020 or 2021, and only joined in support of friends (my politics are not represented, or at least not well represented, by DSA), though I do have close friends who are members, including on the leadership committee (we had a gathering at our house last weekend, among whom there were maybe 2 dozen active DSA members, including leadership), so I have a pretty good idea what’s going on with them.

                Anyway, starting at around an hour 54 minutes (the link should take you to the right place), this kid expresses the DSA outlook better than I can, and with more direct knowledge:

                https://youtu.be/4r3Ye10EyOE?si=MYy6eui1ppYfXUgU&t=6827

                Note, nothing about moral purity, and he defends those who choose to vote for Biden (against a panel, and likely audience, hostile to Democrats and Biden in particular).Report

              • Philip H in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                while I don’t doubt that you’re seeing shaming and condescension, I doubt it really means what you think it means.

                One of my great handicaps as a human is that my brain doesn’t find the “real meaning” in the spoken or written word. It finds the literal meaning. SO if you tell me my politics are not left because I will vote for Biden, I assume you mean my politics are not left because I will vote for Biden.

                I think most people are venting sincere anger, and more than that, I believe they aren’t quite certain why everyone doesn’t share that anger. I admit that confuses me as well.

                There are two bad assumptions here – one that I or people like me are not angry and two that if we just explained ourselves everything would be ok. I am angry – a lot. But in the rank order of things, preserving the institutions that allow me to be angry without fear of government sanctioned retribution is far more important then the rest. And given the stark choices I face down here, I am really tired of being told I’m part of the problem.

                So it goes I guess.Report

              • Chris in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Given the extent to which leftists are criticized by liberals for criticizing Biden on the ongoing genocide, I don’t blame them for thinking that said liberals are not angry.Report

              • Burt Likko in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Chris, I really appreciate your taking the time to respond like this. Cheers.Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                That link. Good Lord.Report

              • InMD in reply to Slade the Leveller
                Ignored
                says:

                It reminds me of the Lyndon LaRouche pamphlets I used to find left on the metro.Report

              • Chris in reply to Slade the Leveller
                Ignored
                says:

                I was going to suggest not watching the rest, lol, unless you like Fink (I do), though if you like Fink, he doesn’t say anything there that he hasn’t said better elsewhere.

                Platypus is… a weird group, and though I don’t think anyone on the panel is a member (other than the moderator), I suspect most of the audience is either a member or there to hear Fink.Report

      • James K in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        But then if you’re not a pragmatist, why would you reject a tactic just because it doesn’t work?Report

      • Philip H in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Welcome back George Turner!Report

    • Alysia Ames in reply to Burt Likko
      Ignored
      says:

      I like that name.Report

  4. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    That tweet isn’t Christian nationalistic though. The author may be, but the principle he’s espousing there isn’t even particularly controversial. Every voter can apply his ethos to his decision-making, even if his ethos is formed by his religion, so long as he doesn’t support religious establishment.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      He goes through a list where he wants to put Lee and Saul in prison if they circumcize their children, and others here in jail for marrying their same sex partners, and still others for using birth control and yet others for watching any movie he disapproves of.

      Come the revolution, we’ll do as we’re damn well told.Report

      • James K in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        And of course, if they ever got the power they craved their entire movement would collapse into brutal sectarian conflict because Christianity, once given power, cannot tolerate difference. Everything from the doctrinal intolerance of the Christian Roman Empire to the Inquisition to the European Wars of Religion proves that once Christianity gains enough power it starts eating itself.

        It’s one of the the reasons your Founding Fathers set up the First Amendment, they came to understand that religious freedom was the only way to keep Christianity stable.Report

  5. InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    Personally I think if Christians want to influence the culture the best place to start is by living lives of such grace that it’s impossible to ignore their example. Do that, and society will more largely reflect their values, regardless of what the state does. It’s hard for me to think of anything less Christian than demanding compliance at the point of a gun.Report

    • North in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      My whole adult life has been one long wail from social conservatives of “Oh Lord God, we’d do anything to restore the influence of Christianity in society but not that!” With regards to quietude, charity and humility.Report

      • InMD in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        Yea, in a culture increasingly dominated by the shallowest forms of consumerism I would think Christianity or any kind of religion summoning people to some sort of higher purpose would be due for a renaissance. This… is not the way to go about that. Not even close.

        But you know, meet the new religious right, same as the old religious right.Report

        • North in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          I think it was Dreher who voiced the premise that post Christians are not the same as non-Christian as in the former are much harder to prosthelytize and that it’ll likely require a generation of concretely powerless Christians before the masses become open to the Christian message again.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          I can’t help but notice how religions all over the world are becoming more radical and assertive.

          Not just the Muslims, but in India the Hindus are trying to create a Hindu-nationalist state, in Israel the rightwing expansionist hardliners are becoming ever more unhinged; In Eastern Europe Orthodox and retrograde flavors of Christianity are gaining power.

          None of these, absolutely none, are expanding via joyful conversion or exemplary behavior. All of them are belligerent, authoritarian, and increasingly intolerant of dissent, external or internal.Report

          • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            A poster from the other blog’s idea of cognitive overload has a lot of explanatory power here. The world is becoming increasingly complex and many people can’t really mentally handle all the changes, complications, and issues. The turn towards authoritarianism in religion and politics is because authoritarians make things clear and you have many people looking for things to be clear.

            The other explanation is that politics is basically about who gets what, why, when, and how. You have many different groups around the world convinced that their group is getting the fair share of the pie or will be screwed out of their fair share of a pie, so it is just best to go for the entire pie rather than hope for the best. Money might not necessarily be an issue but time and space are always going to be finite resources. The Oppression Olympics and more strident voices of the Very Online make people feel that they will be denied their time and space. I have felt this way myself at times and see a large chunk of the world as trying to reduce the Jewish share of the pie.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq
              Ignored
              says:

              I don’t see anyone moving from secularism to religious fervor; Like the QAnon freaks, aren’t converting to religion, they are just draping secular paranoia in dogmatic ideology.

              What I see is religions shrinking but becoming increasingly radicalized.

              A loose theory is that as it becomes increasingly clear that a kind, civil and flourishing society can exist without religion, they feel an existential threat and lash out.

              I admit to being America-centric, since I don’t have intimate knowledge of the Hindu/ Musim/ Orthodox Christian worlds.

              But notice also how here in America the minority faiths- Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Budhhist- aren’t radicalizing.
              My theory is that they have long ago made their peace with being a minority; The Hindus aren’t bombing cattle lots, the Jews aren’t picketing Red Lobster.

              American Christians though, aren’t accustomed to being relegated to “Other” and this enrages them.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq
              Ignored
              says:

              What *IS* the appropriate share of the pie?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                a slice from a pie made bigger.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                That changes the absolute value, sure. But it doesn’t change the *SHARE*.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                really? Math doesn’t work that way.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Actually it does.

                For example:

                20% of 100 is 20.
                10% of 1000 is 100.

                100 is larger than 20.
                But one-fifth is a larger share than one-tenth.

                The Red Queen talks about this.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                please please please assure me that you have never made a decision affecting the citizens of this country that involved you doing mathReport

              • KenB in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                I assume (hope) that Philip is just exhibiting here the 30-point IQ drop that political partisanship causes, rather than a core deficiency.Report

              • Philip H in reply to KenB
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh you all think you are SO funny. Here, let me take the forks out of my side and give them back to you. Surly you all need them more then I do.

                Whether one agrees or not, making the pie bigger means you have more people who can get slices. And often more people getting slices of the same size. Because the more pie you have the more people it can feed. And perhaps most importantly – the large the pie, the more the people who have slices can turn around and give parts of their slice to others.

                Or so I’m told.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Phil, you’re saying we need to make the pie higher.

                The idea that a rising tide lifts all boats has been famously declared a Conservative Republican Notion, and you just haven’t ever seemed like the kind of dude who’d go for that.

                Although, I dunno. I’m really getting the idea that you’re like Freddie de Boer, a libertarian conservative at heart who was raised in a culture where such labels meant Homophobic Zealously-Christian Racist, and that was obviously an uncool thing to be, so you just kind of always assumed you were something else, and try real hard to show it.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                I never said what the directional vector of the pie was – everyone just made assumptions.

                And rising tides can indeed lift all boats – if everyone is allowed to first have a boat and second the boat lifting is allowed to proceed. These days a few people want all the boats to themselves.

                I’d also argue that actual Christians following Christ’s actual teachings are some of the most radical leftists you know. Something about feeding a crowd with 5 loaves and two fish, and having women discover the empty tomb and insisting you couldn’t stone hookers because you were as big a sinner.

                I’ll be as clear as I can be – the rank inhumanity and cruelty that the modern GOP espouses is not at all conservative, nor do I want any part of it. The fascist turn that has been taken by alleged conservatives is repulsive.

                I’d also add that I find most libertarians to be magical underpants gnome thinkers who can’t actually grok how the world works. And thus why government might actually be necessary.

                That clear enough for you?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Something about feeding a crowd with 5 loaves and two fish

                Math doesn’t work that way.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Matthew does, though.Report

              • Pinky in reply to KenB
                Ignored
                says:

                I think this was more a botched analogy than a math mistake.

                Q: “What *IS* the appropriate share of the pie?”
                A: “a slice from a pie made bigger.”

                It’s a non sequitur. What he should have done is just get out once it was questioned, but he dug in his heels.Report

              • InMD in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I think you’re right that it was a botched analogy but I also think everyone is being unnecessarily uncharitable to the point Philip is making.

                We’ve gotten to a place where Christianity/religion in politics is really shorthand for the conservative side of debates over state involvement in sex, marriage, and reproduction. It seems to me that’s giving very short shrift to what religion is and can be, and gets us to a place where, among other things, IVF or abortion or contraception are treated as having incredibly serious implications for the faithful in how they should participate in politics but, say, balancing the federal budget by kicking as many poor people as possible off of their health insurance isn’t something that should even register.Report

              • Pinky in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                “We’ve gotten to a place where Christianity/religion in politics is really shorthand for the conservative side of debates over state involvement in sex, marriage, and reproduction.”

                In my youth, conservative and liberal Christians generally agreed on these matters. Now, liberal Christians have sided with the increasing number of liberal Nones against the morals they used to hold. That doesn’t have to be the only topic at the intersection of religion and politics, and I’d argue that it’s not, but to the extent that it is, it’s because of a departure on the left.

                If you want to talk about the budget, I think that we’re stealing from the next generation out of ignorance or cowardice, and I don’t find that to be a great moral example. I think the responsible thing to do it to look at, taking your example, health care and really consider the impact of decisions we’ve made. Even though I don’t like to interfere in markets, I’d be willing to consider making it illegal for companies to provide insurance. At a minimum we should be discouraging the practice. And I’d love to be having conversations about this with people of all faiths and political leanings. Name the issue and if it’s one I know anything about, I’m there.

                The opposite position is the one taken by the original article, which casts doubt on the legitimacy of a person using his ethical beliefs as a guide to his political positions. We probably can’t talk about anything until we collectively denounce that.

                Lunch almost over. Cutting this comment short.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                In my youth, conservative and liberal Christians generally agreed on these matters. Now, liberal Christians have sided with the increasing number of liberal Nones against the morals they used to hold. That doesn’t have to be the only topic at the intersection of religion and politics, and I’d argue that it’s not, but to the extent that it is, it’s because of a departure on the left.

                That former agreement was never a moral position, in as much as it was used to justify racism, sexism, denying women contraception/body autonomy, and inflicted shame and guilt on people doing normal human things. It caused way more harm then good.

                The “liberal” religious position is that following Christ really does require doing to and for the “least of these” our brother’s and sisters. And since they are made in different skin tones, differing sexualities and genders, and from vastly differing economic circumstances, opening wide the arms of the Church is an obligation. IF you look at the books of the Gospel, “liberal” Christians are a lot closer to the radical love Christ preached then their conservative counterparts. We just don’t yell as loudly.Report

              • InMD in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                To respond in reverse order, I can certainly concede that it is not inherently wrong that one’s religion would inform one’s moral/ethical judgments of various matters of public policy which would in turn influence how one participates in the democratic process. It isn’t realistic and may not even be possible for an individual to totally separate those things.

                It’s probably my fault for being imprecise, but taking this all the way back to my comment that these threads sprung from, my point of emphasis is less the state of politics and more the health and influence of religion in society at large. So while I’ll make the concession requested, I’d also say that so intermingling religion with politics as to demand that the state operate solely in accordance with a particular flavor of religious beliefs is not just bad for politics, it’s bad for religion.

                Looking at it that way I don’t think it’s particularly important who left whom. I of course have a different view on that than you and I know we won’t convince each other. But when we ask ourselves why religion has declined I think among the many reasons is thoroughly bundling it up with a bunch of partisan commitments and temporal, Earthly baggage. When I think about the death of mainline Protestantism in this country I have to believe a significant contributing factor is the hardening of camps into hardcore conservative shock troops on one side and following moral relativism into the complete dissolving of expressly Christian commitments on the other. Neither of these things have happened independently of each other, and I think Catholicism, despite its many catastrophes, has weathered it a bit better, even in spite of (only partially succesful) attempts to conscript conservative Catholics into the same kind of dead end.

                All of this is to say, I think that if we want Christian influence to return, a core part of that is to try to walk it back from politics some, not make them one in the same. That doesn’t require abandoning personal principles or ethics based on religion, just recognition that at a certain point these are different realms of life. IMO the individual cited by the OP is totally failing at that, with the result of cheapening religion, not strengthening it.Report

              • InMD in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Reading this again I’m still not sure I am being clear. The TLDR boils down to something like ‘you can’t run all of the normies and not particularly political people out of religion with this sort of hard line stuff yet expect society to continue to have a broadly religious character, or wonder why it lost it.’

                That’s not just a shot solely at conservatives, I know of situations where people have given up on churches due to wokery run amok, or turning so relativist as to lose any value as a guide towards spiritual fulfillment.Report

              • Pinky in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re focused more on how politics has hurt religion, and that’s fine, because the thread has gone in quite a few different directions. I was more addressing how religion (or non-religion) is affecting politics. If our sides used to agree on A, B, and C, and your side stopped agreeing with A, B, and C, it’s simply unfair for your side to blame mine for dividing us on A, B, and C.

                “I’d also say that so intermingling religion with politics as to demand that the state operate solely in accordance with a particular flavor of religious beliefs is not just bad for politics, it’s bad for religion.”

                No disagreement there.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I mean… sure?

                But I don’t know how we got to there from the complaint about others wanting to make the Jewish share smaller?Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Ehh Philip would probably need to answer that.

                I think a lot of wires got crossed. As I read it Lee is arguing that politics is a zero sum game and therefore when religion is involved all gains by one religion come at the expense of another. If I am reading correctly Philip was pushing back primarily on the zero sum part of the argument but put in some mixed metaphors that clouded what he was trying to get at.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                If we want to argue that we can solve a lot of problems by making the pie bigger, I would agree with that.

                Periodically, The Heritage Foundation comes out with an argument like “99.9% of residences have a refrigerator, 98.5% have a stove, 90% have a television” and so on and these are given as arguments that poverty is being eradicated and, of course, the argument is always mocked because poverty is *RELATIVE* and not *OBJECTIVE*.

                And then we get back to issues of whether it’s even possible to even dent poverty if it’s relative rather than objective and the worst part is that we have to pretend that we’ve never discussed that sort of thing before.Report

              • Pinky in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I think Lee’s problem is more with the raping and murdering. The fact that he’d credit those who try to justify terrorism with caring about the slices of the pie, that’s just an act of courtesy on his part.Report

              • KenB in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I would just say that what DD and I were reacting to was not his first comment but his failed snarky response to Jaybird — “math doesn’t work that way”. It was not only unnecessarily hostile but also a really dumb thing to say.

                Whether there’s merit in his first comment is a different topic (DD’s reaction re “rising tide” was what came to my mind as well — however we approach it we ought to aim for consistency).Report

              • Philip H in reply to KenB
                Ignored
                says:

                I get snarked all the time. SO why shouldn’t I snark back once in a while?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Snark back *WELL*.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Everybody disagrees on that point surprisingly enough.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      “I think if Christians want to influence the culture the best place to start is by living lives of such grace that it’s impossible to ignore their example.”

      Oh, you’d be surprised what it’s possible to ignore. One man’s “live life of quiet grace and tolerance” is another man’s “if one Nazi and nine other people sit down at a table, ten Nazis get up”.Report

    • Philip H in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      Many of us do. We just don’t brag about doing it.Report

    • Pinky in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      The trick is to tread water as society becomes so awful that we look good by comparison.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      There’s Hippie Jesus, who you’re talking about here and who I for one kind of like. And then there’s Judgey Jesus, who is a different sort of guy entirely. Christian Nationalists don’t worship Hippie Jesus.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Burt Likko
        Ignored
        says:

        They don’t worship, much less follow, Judgey Jesus either. If they did they wouldn’t be all about mega churches. Or attacking trans people. Or suppressing women. Things similar to what Jesus actually judges the Pharisees and Scribes and Chief Priests for.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *