I ran across this article the other day and found it interesting. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I never cared for Ralph Reed. He always seemed a little phony to me - a little too slick and self-satisfied, and far to ready to play the political game. I guess he never seemed genuine to me.
The article, of course, argues a similar point, and believes that it proved to be his downfall. Specifically, the author notes that his close relationship with Jack Abramoff likely cost him the Republican primary in the race for Governor of Georgia. It likely cost him the election because the Christian voters he was so good at producing throughout his career chose not to vote for him when as the connection between Reed and Abramoff became public knowledge.
The reason I found this article worth noting here is that it exemplifies something I have been concerned about for a little while now - that in many cases, Christian votes are used by the Republican party. Many Christians will blindly vote for Republican candidates, assuming that they have a monopoly on morality (they do not), and Republicans are more than happy to take advantage of their ignorance.
A couple of examples will illustrate my point - one from this article and one from the last presidential election. The article notes that Reed was once paid a very large sum of money by one indian tribe to run an anti-gambling campaign in order to prevent another indian tribe from opening a casino. Reed's campaign against gambling, of course, was based on religious reasoning and supported by many Christian voters. If this information is true, and it seems to be (although Reed denies knowing where the money came from), it certainly provides an example of an instance where Christian voters were mobilized and used under false pretenses.
The 2004 presidential election provides a second example. I find it interesting that the issue of homosexual marriage became such a "hot button" issue during that election, but seemingly disappeared completely from Bush's agenda after the election was won. It seems to me that the reason it became so "important" is because it is an issue that typically mobilizes conservative Christian voters, the great majority of whom also typically vote Republican. Thus, focusing on the issue brings more conservative Christians to the polls, which results in more votes for the Republican party. The fact that it disappeared so quickly after the election leads me to believe that the focus on the issue was politically expedient, but not based on any genuine conviction regarding the issue.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that Christians should not vote Republican, or that they should vote Democrat. I am also not trying to imply that Republicans are the only party guilty of using people to get what they want - unfortunately both parties are guilty of such behavior. What I am saying, however, is that it would behoove some Christians to be a little more wise when determining who will receive their vote, and I would emphatically argue that the Republican party is not the Christian party or "God's party," as the bumper sticker above proclaims. I'll leave it at that for now, since this post is already much longer than I intended.
3 comments:
As I've said in the past, I'm not much for politics but I am slowly getting more and more into it as I study and research for my own blog.
What you said rings true. When I was first given the opportunity to vote I classified myself as independant. I didn't see either party as necessarily right. But later on I found that I was missing out of useful information because neither party was sending me literature. I wanted to stay current (back when the internet wasn't as enlightening) so I had to choose a side.
I ended up choosing Republican for two reasons. One - the majority of what they "stand" for is what I agree with and Two - I did fall into that trap of believing in "God's Official Party".
Would I say I'm now Independant again? Not sure about that though I'm leaning that way. Would I say I made a bad decision in voting for Bush? Absolutely not. Though I'm not very political and Bush may have played some slight of hand in his campaign I still think he was the lesser of two evils. And you have to choose because not choosing isn't a choice.
Its always hard to judge someone's motivation for doing anything, and particularly difficult to do so with politicians because politics involves so much rhetoric. My suspicion would be that a lot of people do get into it because they want to do good, but too many are corrupted by the system - cutting corners or doing "little" unethical things in the name of the greater good can look ok at first, even if it isn't.
That said, for some I'm sure it is the money, and the power. I know what you're saying about politicians not being paid a great deal, but lets not kid ourselves that a salary is the only way to make money as a politician.
Jake hit the nail on the head, though. It really isn't the money - its the power. Once you find yourself in a leadership role of real importance I can see it being really hard to give up such a role. I can also see it being hard not to want more of said power.
Post a Comment