Interesting article on Democratic Party & religion...

[The Rabbi]

Ok, well put simply, were I informed by religious feelings on abortion and homosexuality I'm not sure I'd have a political party I could vote for, either here or in the US.

The Republicans are not going to run on those issues in the way that some religious folks will want them to. So when does this failure to do so start to drive folks away from the Republican Party?

The one thing that does strike me, when the majority of people speak about the 'lesser of two evils' it is merely a figure of speech. When it truly is a case of evil (at least for you), I'm not sure how the lesser is the better.

The "pro-life" people have a seat at the table with the Republicans.  Every Republican platform has some kind of lip service to that.  Yes, the GOP will never adopt such measures as a high priority but at the margins it makes a difference.  With the Dems there is no question that such views get treated about the way Mike Irwin treated them.

[Stand_watie]

Barbara, your analysis is complicated by the fact that many of the religious conservative are also live and let-live small-government libertarians...

I more or less fit that description.

[Iain]

Sure, but in reality what are the Republicans going to actually do about abortion, even if pro-lifers feel that they at least have a fingerhold with party? There could well be incremental changes, such as reductions in the 'window', stricter limits on late term that sort of thing, but the box is well and truly open and closing the lid a bit doesn't address that.

[The Rabbi]

Sure, but in reality what are the Republicans going to actually do about abortion, even if pro-lifers feel that they at least have a fingerhold with party? There could well be incremental changes, such as reductions in the 'window', stricter limits on late term that sort of thing, but the box is well and truly open and closing the lid a bit doesn't address that.

What's wrong with incremental changes?  Twenty years ago gun rights were much more restricted here than they are now.  But we've made gradual changes and things are turning around.
Montana has essentially outlawed abortions.  I'll be interested to see how it shakes out.  What I would like to see is a return to state sovereignty on the issue and voters can hack it out with each other in a political process.

[Stand_watie]

Sure, but in reality what are the Republicans going to actually do about abortion, even if pro-lifers feel that they at least have a fingerhold with party? There could well be incremental changes, such as reductions in the 'window', stricter limits on late term that sort of thing, but the box is well and truly open and closing the lid a bit doesn't address that.

Well, the reality is they can't, without a reversal of Roe v. Wade, which isn't going to happen. On the other hand, they can make symbolic gestures, as well as preventing it from being paid for out of tax monies, preventing children from getting abortions without parental consent, etc.

[Iain]

Incremental changes are fine, but if we are talking about a matter of 'evil' (as it was termed) then incremental change can only be acceptable if ultimately the practice is going to be ended. Realistically, I'm just not sure how that is ever going to happen, referring to abortion specifically.

Even if the matter were devolved to the individual states I guess the swing state Republicans are going to have deal with backlash in their own state over what has happens elsewhere over abortion. Could be wrong here, as I'm not sure that I've made the progress in American Civics 101 that I should have, but logically that would more than likely seem to result in national party control over local legislation, because whilst it is popular in State A, the resultant effect is national and it's haemorraghing votes in State B.

My input on this issue isn't really driven by any criticism of anything that is specific to the US political system, we have a couple more parties but really the situation is similar. The bigger the party, the broader the church. That's evident from this thread.

[The Rabbi]

Incremental changes are fine, but if we are talking about a matter of 'evil' (as it was termed) then incremental change can only be acceptable if ultimately the practice is going to be ended. Realistically, I'm just not sure how that is ever going to happen, referring to abortion specifically.

That's called "letting the Good be the enemy of the Perfect."  I see it on fora all the times.

Even if the matter were devolved to the individual states I guess the swing state Republicans are going to have deal with backlash in their own state over what has happens elsewhere over abortion. Could be wrong here, as I'm not sure that I've made the progress in American Civics 101 that I should have, but logically that would more than likely seem to result in national party control over local legislation, because whilst it is popular in State A, the resultant effect is national and it's haemorraghing votes in State B.

I've read this three times and still don't understand the point.
Look at gun control.  Thirty years ago I don't think there was a "shall issue" state in the U.S.  Then FL passed it.  Every state has had to hash through the issue in a political process, with votes and polls and interest groups spending money to influence people and legislators.  Overall the result has been good.  But there wasn't and still isn't any national consensus on right to carry.
Why shouldn't abortion be dealt with the same way?

[Iain]

Rabbi, I understand your point with regard to letting the good be the enemy of the perfect. If we're talking about CCW laws then I can see the point of incremental change, but the issue we are skirting around involves what some regard as wholesale murder. There is a difference, particularly when you have no hard promises from those you are lending your support to.

With regard to the second point - Politics is a national issue, what happens in one state is going to impact on another. Imagine, if you will, a Republican running for state governor who openly states non-mainstream views on homosexuality. He is going to pick up major national media attention. Republicans in California are not going to be shaking this guys hand.

Anyway, as Mike has deleted his posts, I'm going to let this thread drop.

[richyoung]

Rabbi, I understand your point with regard to letting the good be the enemy of the perfect. If we're talking about CCW laws then I can see the point of incremental change, but the issue we are skirting around involves what some regard as wholesale murder. There is a difference, particularly when you have no hard promises from those you are lending your support to.

A school bus full of kids goes off of a bridge - and you KNOW you can't save them all before hte bus sinks/is washed down river.  Do you save as many as you can, or do nothing, since you can't save them all?

With regard to the second point - Politics is a national issue, what happens in one state is going to impact on another.

The reason we HAVE states, is so that they may find and try different solutions for their issues.

[MicroBalrog]

That's called "letting the Good be the enemy of the Perfect."  I see it on fora all the times.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good", you say? I say that if nobody ever insisted on the perfect, there'd never be any good.

L. Neil Smith