The Overt and Covert Politicians
There is an interesting exchange going on between former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and Focus on the Family leader James Dobson. Dick Armey's original statement can be found here, and James Dobson's response can be found here. It's interesting to see each side spin the facts.
It's clear that James Dobson has become a very accomplished and shrewd politician. He's definitely better at wordsmithing than Armey is. I recommend reading his essay just to see what an amazing job he does being precisely accurate, and yet spinning it. I certainly wouldn't want to be a politician opposing him.
While I have no fondness for Mr. Armey, his essay leads me to an observation. Most people tend to view 1990's Republican conservatives (at least the strict constructionist ones) and Christian advocacy groups as having the same belief set. But the two groups have one very significant distinction. Many Republican conservatives believed that issues should be decided at the state level whenever possible. Christian advocacy groups (FotF, FRC, NRLC) believe that Federal law is necessary to achieve their goals whenever they fail at the state and local levels. This means that the two sides will have very different views on what constitutes a limited Federal government.
As an example, consider the gay marriage issue. On this issue, both sides would agree that Federal intervention is needed. The Republicans would say that it is necessary because of the "full faith and credit" clause. The Christian advocacy groups would say that it is necessary because it is a moral issue.
For the second example, consider the Terry Schiavo case. The Republicans would say that this was strictly a state issue, and it would thus be inappropriate for the Federal government to intervene. But the Christian advocacy groups argued that Federal action was necessary because of morality. The two sides would disagree in this case. The Republicans would argue that the Christian advocacy groups were advocating big government, and the advocacy groups would argue that Republicans were being immoral.
To highlight this discrepancy, here's an interesting philisophical question. If you could become dictator in the US and outlaw abortion, would that be moral?
It's clear that James Dobson has become a very accomplished and shrewd politician. He's definitely better at wordsmithing than Armey is. I recommend reading his essay just to see what an amazing job he does being precisely accurate, and yet spinning it. I certainly wouldn't want to be a politician opposing him.
While I have no fondness for Mr. Armey, his essay leads me to an observation. Most people tend to view 1990's Republican conservatives (at least the strict constructionist ones) and Christian advocacy groups as having the same belief set. But the two groups have one very significant distinction. Many Republican conservatives believed that issues should be decided at the state level whenever possible. Christian advocacy groups (FotF, FRC, NRLC) believe that Federal law is necessary to achieve their goals whenever they fail at the state and local levels. This means that the two sides will have very different views on what constitutes a limited Federal government.
As an example, consider the gay marriage issue. On this issue, both sides would agree that Federal intervention is needed. The Republicans would say that it is necessary because of the "full faith and credit" clause. The Christian advocacy groups would say that it is necessary because it is a moral issue.
For the second example, consider the Terry Schiavo case. The Republicans would say that this was strictly a state issue, and it would thus be inappropriate for the Federal government to intervene. But the Christian advocacy groups argued that Federal action was necessary because of morality. The two sides would disagree in this case. The Republicans would argue that the Christian advocacy groups were advocating big government, and the advocacy groups would argue that Republicans were being immoral.
To highlight this discrepancy, here's an interesting philisophical question. If you could become dictator in the US and outlaw abortion, would that be moral?
posted by David at 11/01/2006 07:20:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home