I provide this discussion of the two political parties in America today for the person who has the time to calmly reflect on their political ideas. I invite conversation.
The urge to comment or express opinion has always been present. In our time, social media offers a temptation for many, including myself, to offer comments and opinions far too much. I have luxury and ease that give some security in reflecting upon my political orientation. My reflections arise out of solitude and quietness. Silence is golden because it gives time for a pause in our thinking and acting and invites us to be in a listening and meditative posture. Much biblical wisdom warns of the danger of talking too much and the blessing that attends silence. Keeping quiet can lead to wisdom, while talking too much can stir up hatred. Some people are quiet because they do not the answer and others are quiet because they know when to speak. The wise will keep quiet till the right moment. Thus, there is a time to speak and a time to keep silence (Eccl 3:7). The wise person discerns the appropriate time for speech and silence, while the fool is unable to discern and does not even try.
I am not clever enough to keep you guessing as to my opinion. I have a degree of domestic happiness, civil respectability, and friendships that provide a good context for the development of opinions (I am playing off Soren Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments, preface). My intent is to state what I think respectfully but directly.
I developed political interests while at Austin High School, Austin, MN. Classes in social studies and history led me to such interests. The Vietnam War was a major concern, especially with the coming of the draft. I supported Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy and did a little campaigning for Hubert H. Humphrey before I was of voting age. He had boundless optimism in what government could do for people. I participated in a march for a moratorium on the war and was part of the Young Democrat Society. My first vote for president was for a Democrat. I was a supporter of George McGovern, having a large poster in my dorm room at Miltonvale Wesleyan College, which would later merge with Bartlesville Wesleyan College, which still later became Oklahoma Wesleyan. I was thought of by friends as liberal, but a nice guy. I still think that getting out of Vietnam sooner was the right idea. Even his idea of replacing federal welfare system with a negative income tax still sounds like a promising idea. Martin Luther King, Jr. inspired me. I never understood why something as insignificant as the color of skin could matter as to how I treated a person. Although I would start changing my political philosophy in my mid-20s, I look back upon these years of my political commitments with fondness. As with many of my generation, the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr, and RFK, had a deep impact.
Two experiences during this period anticipated my suspicion of what government could accomplish. One was the lies that attended the conduct of the Vietnam War by Johnson and the Democrat Party. Two was the continual fight with the Democrat Party of the south, which filibustered every attempt to rid the nation of legal discrimination and segregation. My skepticism of politicians and government would not find an intellectual home until a few years later.
Given the outcome of the primaries, this writer feels like he does not have a political party of which to be a part. Regarding the 2024 election, I will be tuning out this year. I have no interest in two old men seeking the presidency. I have books I want to write and a retired life to enjoy.
Although one must pay attention to the top of the two political parties, most of these reflections will offer reflections on the ideas that divide the political Left from the political Right. I hope I have done so with reasonable calm.
I begin with a discussion of the coalition of political forces that give rise to the Democrat Party today. To provide some objectivity to this discussion, I am relying upon the Pew Research Center for the typologies of the political Left and Right, each into four overlapping segments. I will provide links to discussions of the issues that will show that in some places I have common ground with portions of the political Left.
First, let us consider the two men at the top of the two parties.
Democrat leaders want to talk about a return to normalcy after the presidency of Donald Trump. However, both coalitions have their angry segments that inhibit such a return. There is no place in this study for the shibboleths of either side of the political spectrum.
An issue that unites the Democrat Party is its dislike of Donald Trump. I discuss some of the primary issues regarding him in the following articles: the Russian Narrative that has now been shown to be the Russia Hoax, the accusation of Fascism, the accusation of insurrection on January 6, and the legal battles he faces.
The above articles show that Obama, Biden, and Clinton have willingly used the FBI and CIA against their political opponents. These actions began under Obama and Biden with the IRS undermining politically conservative causes but became high powered politics with enlisting government agencies in the undermining of the legitimate successor to Obama, the legitimacy of which was challenged by Hillary Clinton and many in the Democrat Party. Such weaponizing of government agencies for political purposes when in power ought to be of concern to all Americans across the political spectrum. It is not. This reaction of opponents to Trump has contributed to the deepening loyalty of part of the political Right to him and deepened their anger toward the political Left.
If anyone wants a return normalcy, one will need to model it. My articles show that the Democrat Party does not want a return normalcy as it relates to the heightened rhetoric against Trump and the GOP. In contrast, the vulnerability they have to a lack of healthy patriotism and a healthy view of the American role in the world causes them to create a shiny object of fascism, insurgency, and sympathy for dictators that would, if true, be a danger to democracy. Portraying political opponents as extremists (while acting like an extremist), trying to persuade the electorate that Republicans are an existential threat to our democracy, is hardly returning to normalcy. It is not normalcy to have your political opponent removed from the ballot.
None of this bodes well for a healthy political conversation during 2024. It is why some of on the political Right looked at Nikki Haley as a way toward a healthier political conversation in the public square.
The popularity of Joe Biden is strong across the political Left. For the political Right, he is a dangerously weak leader in an increasingly dangerous world. As G. Michael Hope put it, “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And weak men create hard times.”
Joe Biden, according to Robert Hur, special counsel investigating the matter, “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials” after his vice presidency ended in early 2009. However, the special counsel opted not to bring charges, writing that a jury would be unlikely to convict because of Biden’s “diminished faculties in advancing age,” including a failing memory.
For Newt Gingrich, we are watching a potentially fundamental shift in majorities, which we have not seen in a century. With Asian Americans also beginning to move away from President Biden and toward President Trump, something profound is happening. Biden’s tenure certainly parallels with President Jimmy Carter’s collapse in 1980. But Biden may be in even greater danger. He may produce a disaster which makes him this generation’s President Hoover. (Hoover won only six states in 1932, earning a mere 59 electoral votes and 39.6 percent of the popular vote.) The results of Democrats’ policies are breaking the Democrat coalition.
Another way of looking at the success of Trump in the GOP primaries is that Democrats are enjoying this spectacle because they want Mr. Trump to be the main issue between now and November 2024. They believe Mr. Trump is the easiest Republican for President Biden to beat, and they know no one motivates Democratic voters more than the man from Mar-a-Lago. They are all too happy to see America humiliated by a mug shot shared around the world if it helps them win the election.
Joe Biden needs a strong Democrat Party to win, and he has one. So far, the overturning Roe v. Wade has been a positive for the Democrat Party. Joe Biden is showing grassroots strength in the amount of money raised. Republican leadership is ineffective. Biden beat Trump last time and he will do so again. The GOP primaries have shown that a sizable percentage of GOP voters do not want Trump, and a number will choose to either not vote for President, stay home, or vote for Biden at the top of the ticket. As weak as Biden is, everything that aggravated voters last time about Trump will continue to aggravate them.
I am skeptical of the insights of Newt Gingrich, which until Donald Trump were good. The Biden team had one of the best first term off-year elections in history. Despite economic problems, a border crisis, and a foreign war, Biden was not held accountable. The Biden team knows how to beat Donald Trump. He has been wrong about mid-term elections of 2022 and its promised red wave, and I suspect he is wrong this time about Trump. I think the Democrat Party is quite happy with this re-match.
However, is this election a re-match? Before, Trump was an unpopular President. How popular is Biden? Biden has a record, and some of it is not good: undocumented aliens entering the border in large numbers, inflation, crime in big cities run by the Democrat Party, war in Europe, and war in the Middle East.
Sadly, the political elite have given the American people a choice between two people, and most Americans do not like either one. I am used to this, since 2016, 2020, and 2024 are alike in that regard. I realize enthusiasts of both parties would disagree with this, but I might be right about this.
Second, I want to consider some of the ideas that unite the political Left. These lofty ideas are what united the political Right against them.
The Democratic coalition is united in support for a robust role of government and a strong economic and social safety net, as well as in their skepticism about corporate power. They think government does a better job than many people recognize, and are therefore opposed to limited government. They think government should do more to solve the problems America faces.
The deficit remains an issue that both sides claim to want to solve. The federal budget deficit is set to increase every year for the next decade. The first one trillion-dollar deficit was in 2009, a level now considered standard. it will turn into two trillion by 2031. The federal government will spend more on interest payments in 2024 than on national defense. It is unpopular to say this even in some conservative circles, but from March 2020 through June 2022, the federal government added $7 trillion in debt. To put that in perspective, the federal debt reached a total of $7 trillion in 2004, covering a span from George Washington to the first term of George W. Bush. That means the federal government has racked up 215 years’ worth of debt in just 27 months. The danger with such deficits is that it creates inflationary pressures on the economy. Such cost-of-living increases eat away at the savings and finances of countless Americans. Prices for both business and consumers have increased 18% on average since January 2021.
In several key issue areas – including environmental policy, gun policy, abortion, and the government doing more to ensure racial equality, and other topics – differences across the coalition are less about the issue itself than in the intensity of support for liberal positions and policies. This is also the case when it comes to some aspects of economic policy. Despite sharing the beliefs that economic inequality is a problem in the country, that the economic system favors powerful interests, and that government should play a role in addressing such inequities, the Democratic-oriented groups differ both in their views about the magnitude of the problems and in their level of support for proposed solutions. This disagreement in intensity and process, but not in goals, is what gives the political Left so much unity when it comes to actual votes, whether in elections or in votes at the legislative level.
Third, I want to consider the differences among the typologies of the political Left to which the Pew study refers.
Establishment Liberals are some of the strongest supporters of the current president and the Democrat Party. They see value in political compromise, believing that change can happen by working within the system. They are inclined toward measured approaches to society change. They think technology companieshave been having a positive effect on the direction of the country, a view with which most political conservatives would have a problem. They are highly educated and are economically well off. They are satisfied with the direction of the country and are optimistic about the future.
Democratic Mainstays are more likely than other groups to call themselves politically moderate. In fact, they can sound like certain aspects of the Republican coalition. Thus, this group has notable differences from others in the coalition around views of U.S. military might, where they are more hawkish than other Democratic-oriented groups on foreign policy, more invested in U.S. military power than other Democratic-oriented groups, thinking policy should be directed toward keeping America as the only superpower in the world, views related to criminal justice, where they favor the death penalty, think violent crime is a big problem in the country, think police deserve respect and admiration because they are the line between a civilized society and the criminal elements of society, think funding for the police should stay the same or be increased, and immigration, where they are much less likely to support increasing legal immigration and more likely to identify illegal immigration as a problem in the country. Black Democrats are particularly concentrated in this group. Mainstays are also older and less likely to be college educated than other segments of the coalition. They are very committed to the Democratic Party. They voted for Joe Biden and approved of his performance as president. They are the only Democratic-oriented typology group in which a larger share says that the decline in the share of Americans belonging to an organized religion is bad for society than say this is good for society. Democratic Mainstays also are more religiously observant than other Democratic-oriented groups.
The political Left has some diversity, which is why it is part of a Democrat Party coalition. If the GOP were to nominate the right candidate, which did not happen in 2024, some of the Democratic Mainstays might be loosened from the Democrat coalition, given what they consider the unmeasured and extreme positions of the progressive part of the coalition and their concerns regarding immigration, crime, and a strong military.
The next two typologies of the political Left would be what the political Right considers extreme Left. They do have the greatest amount of anger on the Left.
Outsider Left are the youngest typology group. They are not particularly enamored with the Democratic Party because it is not liberal enough for them. They have deeply negative views of the GOP. They view themselves as independent. They are progressive in their social views.
The money and political engagement of the progressive gives it influence beyond its numbers. Sizable majorities of progressives say white people benefit from societal advantages that black people do not have and that most U.S. institutions need to be completely rebuilt to ensure equal rights for all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity. Conservatives do not believe institutional life in America needs to be torn down and rebuilt for any reason. Political conservatives do not think a bigger federal government will bring increased justice or equality and do not think expanded federal government services will have the effect the progressive desires. The desire for a justice that respects all citizens and the desire for compassion for those marginalized by the system is laudable. Equality before the law is important to us all. Giving preference to certain persons because of their race or gender is another story. Expecting equity by expanding the powers of the federal government over civil society and the states by imposing progressive views upon the nation goes against human history. Limiting the federal government is the only way to respect the worth and dignity of individuals and the free association of people civil society.
Some of the discussion around gender identity seems absurd to me. A clarification of terms might be helpful. Cis-woman is a term used to denote biological women who identify as women, while trans-man is a woman who “identifies” as a man. Nonbinary people identify as neither men nor women. The absurdity I sense here is that biologically, except for an incredibly small percentage of births, the combination of x and y chromosomes determine whether you are male or female. You can think or which anything you want, but you are dealing with biological reality.
They broadly support substantial hikes in tax rates for large corporations and high-income households. They are the only typology group in which a majority express positive views of political leaders who describe themselves as democratic socialists. In contrast, the political conservative thinks the country needs to start cutting spending, reducing taxes, getting rid of regulations, building energy supplies, pipelines, and refineries. Given the expansion of national debt and yearly deficit, it makes me wonder what the goal of the progressive is in weakening the financial stability of the country. Political conservatives do not think higher taxes on corporations or high-income individuals will improve justice or social health. Some have suggested a tax on wealth. One problem with this is who determines the value of what you own? If the value of your asset goes up, you are taxed, but if the value of that same asset goes down, the government will not return the money. Of course, now it is only people with wealth over a certain amount, but the same was true of the income tax, which when passed in 1896 would apply only to the top 10%. If you do not have enough income to pay the wealth tax, will the government force you to sell assets to meet this new obligation – including the assets it just assessed? Does that represent a taking of your property? The significance of this final question is that it goes against the Bill of Rights.
The progressive Left is more likely than any other typology group to say there are other countries that are better than the U.S. This view moves against a healthy notion of American exceptionalism and having a strong military. America has provided a model for human rights, for the expansion of liberty to all persons, can continue to provide to aspire to a free and justice society. There are good reasons to feel pride in this country. There are good reasons for people to feel pride in any country in which they live. It is appropriate to love the country in which you live. One does so, aware of its imperfections and that it still aspires to be and do better. In contrast, this is a dangerous world, in which freedom has opponents in communism, authoritarianism, and Muslim militants. These dangers are far greater than imagined domestic opponents, usually labeled as enemies of democracy or fascist. I want the military strong enough to deal with such threats. I do not want the military engaged in foreign wars unless this country experiences direct threat. Thus, not only was Vietnam a mistake, but so were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and so is the war in Ukraine. I do not want the military used as a social experiment by progressives, using DEI to hollow out American military strength even as it poisons the political conversation in civil society. The issue is not equality before the law, which all agree with.
Conservatives represent a respect for the Constitution, the history of the country, and the positive role America plays in the world that the progressive does not share. The alienation the progressive feels from the country and from Western civilization is real and deep. A sign of the alienation from the country many progressives feel is the dislike of special days like Memorial Day, the 4th of July, Columbus Day, Thanksgiving Day or Veterans Day. Such national days are simple expressions of gratitude for this nation, its history, its liberties, and its role in the world. Such simple acts are not ways to deify the nation or have a “love it or leave it” attitude. Like every nation, certain days are special and honored not because the nation is perfect, but precisely because it aspires to build upon its past and become a better nation. Another sign of such alienation from the influence of Christianity upon America is the undermining of Christian beliefs that regularly occurs around Christmas and Easter.
Progressives are two-thirds White, non-Hispanic (58%). They are young and highly educated. The level of their political engagement is so high that although they are the smallest part of the Democrat coalition their influence is high. They also contribute more than any other group.
Progressives are contributing to the sense many Americans feel that something is out of kilter and very wrong about public political discourse in our time. They are not alone in their contribution, as I will show in my discussion of the Republican coalition, but they are a significant factor.
They have strong feelings against the GOP. These strong negative feelings lead to actions. I am concerned with doxing and associated attacks on the first amendment. These actions oppose genuine pluralism in the public square. Many progressives would agree with the language of Dr. Jason Johnson of MSNBC when he labeled the GOP a terrorist organization. It makes me wonder what the progressive and others who make such accusations really want in labeling 40% of the country with such terms and using government authority in this way. Here is another shiny object the progressive creates to distract from the actual terrorist organizations of the political Left, Antifa and BLM, as well as their willingness to set aside genuine concerns for Islamic militancy as either Islamophobia or racialist.
Those on the political Right have a high regard for the Christian influences upon the formation and reform of the country in its history, but also respect the right of all persons to be religiously non-affiliated. However, the willingness of progressives to use the power of the government to impose their beliefs upon those with religious convictions is of concern. We see this especially regarding sexuality. If Christians are to do business in this society or express their opinions on social media, the progressive wants them restricted in some way. Such concerns by the progressive leads to a distorted view of Christian nationalism as well. This willingness on the part of progressives raises the question of an Americanized version of persecution, which will not rise to the level of violence or prison but could result in denial of access to social media and other pressures to conform to progressive ideas. The generosity showed by the political Right toward the atheist or non-affiliated is not returned. The willingness of progressive Christians to unite with the political progressives in these matters divides the Christian community. They do so by interpreting the Bible in unique ways and by failing to appreciate the desire of evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox families of believers to abide by their reading of the Bible and Christian tradition and its values. The willingness of progressive Christianity to label such values as a distorted view of Christian nationalism increases the mistrust other families of Christianity have of them.
They preferred Bernie Sanders and then Elizabeth Warren in 2020, but they voted overwhelmingly for Joe Biden.
In my view, the sustained anger by the progressives had a profound influence on the 2022 midterm election.
I have discovered two interesting journeys of young people who began as progressives and eventually left that movement and embraced a conservative view of the world.
I appreciated the article The Turn, a journey by one young person from the Left to the Right. Even if you are liberal/progressive, you can appreciate the well-written article.
A young woman shares her experience moving from being a progressive in California to a conservative. When she had success, she was reminded that she had it because she was pretty white woman. When she had struggles, it was because males oppressed her. To state the obvious, there are things that happen in life that are beyond our control, which the virtue tradition descending from Aristotle thinks of as good and bad fortune. She eventually made the journey to a separate way of thinking about herself, accepting responsibility for her life, she found herself happier, enjoying her life, and healing relationships with her parents. She came to the important realization that much of the success and failure in her life is within her control, in that it derives from the way she thinks about her world and herself and from the choices she makes.
These two journeys out of progressive ideology are encouraging to me.
In the studies presented by the Pew Research Center, there is a “faith and flag” identifiable group on the political Right, but no comparative group on the political Left. The unfortunate aspect of this is that it gives the impression that Christians are only on the political Right. However, as discussed above, some on the Left take their religious beliefs. I can also testify as a United Methodist that most Protestant denominations have social principles that are identical with the Democrat Party and that many are sympathetic to the ideas of the progressive group within the political Left as consistent with Jesus and the prophetic tradition in the Bible.
I now turn to the Republican Party.
t was not until Marion College, later Indiana Wesleyan, and Asbury Theological Seminary that I started reading George Will and William F. Buckley, and through them Milton Friedman in economics. I would become an avid reader of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell as Black conservatives. My last Democrat vote was for Jimmy Carter in 1976, my reasoning being that with Democrats in charge of everything, we could see what they would do with that power. The result was high inflation, high interest rates, and unemployment. Toward the end of his term, it was hostages in Iran. I enthusiastically put my vote with Ronald Reagan in 1980 and have remained a conservative voter, although not necessarily always a Republican one.
My journey toward political conservatism was an intellectual one. It is not motivated by hostility toward Americans who think differently, but a belief that the principles of the political Right as understood above will improve the condition of all Americans.
In political discussions, I often describe myself as libertarian, which I take to mean preferring a federal government doing only what the constitution says it should do, keeping its foreign involvements focused on trade, peaceful relations, influencing the world to liberal democracy, and using the military only when American security is directly affected. I also take it to mean that if people want to destroy themselves with various drugs they should be allowed to do so. The picture created by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged has impressed me as true in that an economy managed by government agencies, officials, and politicians will stifle economic growth and creativity. Those who are creative enough to be producers, especially people visionary enough to imagine a market where there is no demand, such as the advent of the personal computer, are amazing to me. A positive future relies upon this small number of persons, and they need the freedom to risk and reap the reward of that risk. I have only once voted libertarian, preferring to vote for the most conservative candidate available.
To provide some objectivity to this discussion of the political Right, I am relying upon the Pew Research Center for its typology. I want to explore the diversity there is among those on the political Right.
First, it comes as no surprise that the political Right disagrees about Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is not a favorite of mine. In the lengthy list for the 2016 GOP nomination, he was always last on my list. I parted company with Rush Limbaugh in this. Yet, the reasons the political Left and the never-Trump conservative have offered for opposing Trump have not rung true to me. The political Left has been dishonest in accusations made against Trump. I liked his supreme court picks and his renegotiation of trade deals. As a retired person, I liked the growth in the stock market. I think he made a big mistake in taking the approach he did toward COVID-19, where the model of Sweden was far better. It was time for him to leave the public scene and allow younger voices to emerge. Donald Trump in the midterms of 2022 showed himself to be a liability to the conservative cause. I disagree with my conservative friends who remain convinced that the defeat of Donald Trump in 2020 was illegitimate. I understand the passionate loyalty to Donald Trump that many on the political Right have. Labeling anyone not Trump as RINO is not helpful. However, I own that label, if it means openness to considering other positions that might lead to compromise. I clearly did not want him to remain a national figure and I wanted him defeated in this round for the GOP nomination for President.
I discuss Trump in the following articles: the Russian Narrative that has now been shown to be the Russia Hoax, the accusation of Fascism, and the accusation of insurrection on January 6. It is easy to refer to the number of indictments against Trump, but given the context of the weaponizing of federal agencies against conservatives and especially against Trump, the political nature of the indictments needs exploration. The never-Trump conservative and the always-Trump conservative do not part company so much on ideas as on the efficacy of having Trump being the messenger for them. There are differences, which I will explore below, but the lofty ideas of political conservativism unite them.
The rise of Donald Trump contributes to the sense of the lack of normalcy in the discussion that takes place in the public square. I am not blaming Trump, although he contributes to this. It was there when the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson presented Barry Goldwater as the man who would lead to nuclear war, and when Jimmy Carter did the same against Ronald Reagan. It was there when George W Bush was depicted as a fascist and when some portrayed Obama in a similar light. In the 2024 election, the responsibility lays with both the intensity of support Trump receives from the populist Right and the intensity of opposition he arouses from the progressive Left. Many will vote the way they always do, for either the most liberal or the most conservative candidate available and will not attach the level of feeling to their vote that others will.
Second, let us look at the lofty ideas that unite the political Right. The Republican-aligned groups in the political typology are united by the following policy goals. We can look upon these goals as that which gives the political Right its identity. The struggle within the political right involves various attempts to shift the identity of the party in other directions.
They believe in American exceptionalism, the exemplary Idea of freedom that America embodies.
They share a preference for a smaller role for the federal government providing fewer services to people in need. This view can take the form of saying that federal government aid to the poor does more harm than good by making people too dependent on government assistance. They think government is wasteful and inefficient. They think government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals. This position recognizes that there are those in genuine need, but that it best comes from civil society and from state and local government.
They share a preference for a strong U.S. military because the best way to ensure peace is through military strength and diplomacy. They might disagree on whether the military should be larger.
They reject the view that the country needs to do a great deal more to address racial inequities, questioning whether black people are held back by discrimination, and having a concern for discrimination against white and even Asian people. They think everyone has it in their own power to succeed. Nothing else needs to be done to improve equal rights regardless of race or gender. They think an improper understanding of the history of slavery and racism is bad for American society.
They are united in placing importance on securing U.S. borders. They think illegal immigration is a noticeably big problem. They think people who have immigrated to the U.S. illegally generally make the communities they live in worse.
Many have reservations about same-sex marriage.
Many have concern regarding the lack of respect for religion in the public square, even if they differ on the specific issue of leading students in Christian prayers at public schools.
What has attracted me to the conservative side of the political spectrum is its favoring of a smaller role for government in society. This arises out of my youthful skepticism of government, given its role in the Vietnam War and its role in legalizing racism and the difficulty in changing it. This makes me trust market forces, such as the freedom to work for whom one wants, the freedom of businesses to compete and cooperate, and trust the process of producers and consumers to determine the prices of goods and services. Reducing the role of the government in that process, usually through reducing regulation and taxes, arises from not trusting politicians or government bureaucrats to make those decisions. I do think there is a role for government in lessening the alienation experienced by many who are poor, and programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and assistance with housing have helped. My concern is that these matters are best left to states and localities. At the same time, I think the role of large corporations has changed through their commitment to the progressive agenda. This has made me increasingly discerning of the products I buy. I would prefer they stay out of politics and focus on producing good products and treating their employees well. This leads me to favor moving toward as much free trade as reality allows, which is a proper role for government on the international scene. Sometimes, buying a product from certain foreign companies is more American than buying a product from an American company.
I share the belief of many conservatives that the world is a better place if America is economically and militarily strong in international affairs. In contrast with some conservatives, I think diplomacy is the first option and the military option is always last. A strong military does not always mean a larger military. I think this is a dangerous world, in which freedom has opponents in communism, authoritarianism, and Muslim militants. These dangers are far greater than imagined domestic opponents, usually labeled as enemies of democracy or fascist. I want the military strong enough to deal with such threats. I do not want the military engaged in foreign wars unless this country experiences direct threat. Thus, not only was Vietnam a mistake, but so were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and so is the war in Ukraine. I do not want the military used as a social experiment by progressives.
Third, we need to explore the typologies of the Pew Research Center regarding the political Right.
The first two groups on the political Right are open to conversation with opposing groups. These are the Republicans in Name Only (RINO) to which some on the political Right will refer.
From this group comes two movements that have had an impact on policy and elections.
One is neo-conservative thinking, which I discuss as part of article on American military might, thinks America needs to have an active role in pushing back tyranny and Islamic militancy, favoring a democratizing of the Middle East.
Two is the never-Trump movement within the political Right. I am not sure what they believe. I assume they believe what the broad ideas already discussed and the first typology I will discuss. What puzzles me is that while they agree with many others on the political Right, they part company because of the intensity of their disgust for Trump. The problem with the charge of racist, fascist, and misogynist, is that the political Left has made that accusation against every Republican nominee since Reagan. The legal troubles of Trump might suggest to them that this smoke means there is fire. He should be in jail for some of the things he has done. Many on the political Right share discomfort and dislike of Trump. He says stupid and boorish things. He writes embarrassing and offensive tweets. He has legal trouble. Yet, many on the political Right do not take it as far as this movement. They will look at what Trump did in his first four years, find they line up most of the ideas of the political Right, and cast an unenthusiastic vote for Trump. The only thing that makes sense to me about the never-Trump position is this. They believe strongly in conservative ideas and believe just as strongly that Trump is a danger to the advance of those ideas. He is the wrong messenger. I assume some were disgusted with Trump enough to believe the lies manufactured by the political Left, but I hope some can read the evidence and see the political motivation behind the lies and the legal cases. I can agree that Trump is not the right messenger. The political Right needs messengers like Nikki Haley and Tim Scott, not the old businessman. However, never-Trump adherents take the next step and actively seek the election of Joe Biden. Given his allegiance to the progressive cause, that is a step I cannot.
Staunchly conservative and overwhelmingly Republican, Committed Conservatives hold pro-business views traditionally associated with the Republican Party, have favorable attitudes about international trade and favor a limited role of government. They think large corporations are having a positive effect on the way things are going in the country these days. They think government regulation of business usually does more harm than good. Their approach to international relations centers on engaging with U.S. allies and maintaining American military might. They tend to hold moderate positions on immigration. They think the fact that the U.S. population is made up of people of many different races, ethnicities and religions strengthens American democracy. They think that America's openness to people from all over the world is essential to who we are as a nation.
They do not think Trump is the legitimately elected president in 2020.
The Ambivalent Right hold many views that are consistent with core conservative values. Yet they also hold more moderate stances on several social issues and differ from some other segments of the GOP coalition in taking a more internationalist view of foreign policy and a less restrictive position on immigration.
They support legal abortion. They think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
They are not as concerned about same-sex marriage.
They are not supporters of Trump and believe he legitimately lost the 2020 election.
They think good diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace, preferring soft power as the way America can influence the world toward an increasingly peaceful and just world.
They think marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use.
This group includes a sizable number of Democrats. They are young, and include higher numbers of Hispanic, black, and Asian people.
They think that none of the candidates for political office usually represent their views well. Although the Pew Research Center does not say this, I would view this group as leaning libertarian in political philosophy. I see much here that is more like me than any other group in their political typologies.
These next two groups are less open to discussion with those with whom they disagree. They have hostility toward their primary opposition, the political Left, but they also have hostility toward those members of the Republican coalition who compromise on any policy matter with the political Left.
As for me, I have enough anger within me. It tends to make me less rational and less reasonable. I do not need to identify with those conservative groups that would nurture this anger. Anger can be a strong motivator toward action. However, it can also inhibit the need I sense for respect of the politically other to listen to their concerns and learn from them.
Faith and Flag Conservatives are highly religious, politically engaged and both socially and economically conservative. They are older. In the past, the “moral majority” was a movement that united a brand of evangelical Christianity with conservative politics. Although I was sympathetic to many of the political positions, I was uncomfortable with claiming that was the Christian position. My discomfort increased when persons on the Left, such as Jim Wallis and Ronald Sider, started uniting their brand of left-leaning politics with dubious interpretations of the prophets and Jesus.
Thus, although I am an ordained United Methodist pastor, I am not convinced that a robust role for religion in public life is a good thing. I have long favored a moment of silence in the classroom, but I question the value of public-school teachers leading in a prayer. Of course, my faith is important to me, and I hope my life shows its importance. My background would be the white evangelical Protestant, and I still have that stirring in my soul with certain types of music and preaching. I appreciate the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper, especially its Trinitarian structure, but I can also appreciate freer forms of the celebration of the Supper as well. Fellow Christians who want an official role for Christianity in the public life of the country do not represent my views. In fact, the lack of such an official role may well help the churches to realize the shift that is happening toward secularity in this country and may lead to a better response to that shift.
They favor a robust role for religion in public life. They think the decline in participation of the American population in organized religion is a terrible thing for the country. They think cities and towns should be able to put up religious symbols on public property. They want a smaller role for government in society. They hold that a strong American military is essential in international affairs. They think American exceptionalisminvolves believing the United States stands above all other nations.
They overwhelmingly identify with the GOP and remain dedicated supporters of former President Donald Trump, many believing he at least probably won the 2020 election and that too much attention has been paid to the January 6, 2021, events in Washington DC. The hostility they have toward the Left is strong. The Moral Majority was an early version of this segment of the political Right today.
They think that Republicans are not comfortable to express their views in public, having much concern over limits to free speech and action that are protected in the Bill of Rights.
Compromise is just another word for selling out. Thus, other Republicans are in such in name only (RINO).
The populist Right makes its contribution to the sense that the public square lacks normalcy. The progressive Left makes its contribution to this feeling as well. I want to explore the concerns that have given rise to the passion that is behind this part of the political Right. Before Donald Trump, this group supported Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, supported Sarah Palin, fueled the TEA Party, which advanced limited-government principles, reducing taxes, regulations, and excessive federal government spending as their agenda, and took a strong stance on illegal immigration. They are the left-behind blue-collar workers and social conservatives who thought the GOP leadership of the time ignored them. I have a concern for this part of the political Right, and it arises from what it has lost. Ronald Reagan defeated an incumbent Democrat president by wining 44 states in 1980 and improved that margin in 1984. He did it by embracing optimism and inclusivity, not resentment and distrust—articulating a positive, future-oriented vision in which government is limited and people can be trusted to make decisions for themselves. In the 1980s, Reagan told voters it could be morning in America, and they believed him.
The Populist Right hold highly restrictive views about immigration policy, wanting less legal immigration. They are extremely critical of government.
Their criticism extends well beyond government to views of big business and to the economic system. They are concerned about the negative impact of large corporations. Many support higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations. They think the economic system in this country unfairly favors powerful interests. They think tax rates on household income over $400,000 should be raised. They think corporations, banks, tech companies, labor unions, entertainment, colleges, and K-12 schools all have a negative impact on the country. These concerns are consistent with concerns over doxing and other attempts to limit freedom speech of in the public square. However, some of their concerns about corporations and taxation are more like the political Left and would be against the general theme of the political Right for limited federal government.
Many are women. Their level education tends to be lower.
They support Trump and think he was the legitimate winner of the 2020 election.
The journey through the political typologies has encouraged me to think through again my political philosophy. This is an intellectual quest for a perspective on what lead to the right political ordering of the nation toward human flourishing.
I have felt ambiguous about some groups who also vote conservative.
My Christian beliefs hold higher priority than any political ideology and opinions derived from them do. The anger that dominates political discourse in the public square reveals that ideology has a far tighter hold upon adherents than it ought to have. I sense the anger among certain types of conservatives. Anger is present in the progressive as well, an anger that focuses upon the country in which they live and by default anger toward the conservative who values the American idea. Trusting that God is above all and in all ought to help keep political ideology in its proper role in our lives as Christians. We need to hold our political ideas and goals lightly rather than allow them to gain our complete allegiance. Holding such ideas loosely in our minds would aid much in reducing the heated rhetoric so common of our age.
Abortion is not a high priority issue for me, although I do favor democratically arrived reasonable restrictions, such as the presence of brain waves and heartbeat, that would give more protection to the human life growing inside the woman. I would prefer to see a growing respect for life rather than an increase in the culture of death. This means that I am OK with the legal access to the abortion pill and with legal access to abortion within the above limits.
I love my neighbor, regardless of how they choose to live. Especially in sexuality, I do not think we do people any benefit by encouraging confusion of sexual identity or sexual expression outside of love and commitment to each other. Most human beings fall short in the ideal here, for sexual desire is strong and comes with much curiosity regarding it. For many persons, sexual desire burns hot, but it will bring greater happiness if it is a controlled and directed burn toward one with whom you have love and commitment. However, attacks on the nuclear family and marriage are tearing at the soul of our country, and efforts to silence and punish those who hold different beliefs is the opposite of tolerance, respect, or individual liberty. Some of the discussion around gender identity seems absurd to me. A clarification of terms might be helpful. Cis-woman is a term used to denote biological women who identify as women, while trans-man is a woman who “identifies” as a man. Nonbinary people identify as neither men nor women.
I want equal rights. One of the least important aspects of human beings is the color of their skin. It is no more important than the color of their eyes or hair. I think America has provided a model for human rights, for the expansion of liberty to all persons, can continue to provide to aspire to a free and justice society. I think there are good reasons to feel pride in this country. I also think there are good reasons for people to feel pride in any country in which they live. It is appropriate to love the country in which you live. One does so, aware of its imperfections and that it still aspires to be and do better. Thus, I share the concern of many conservatives that the way in which the American past in race relations is used to deepen division rather than bring reconciliation and peace.
I welcome immigrants to this land, for they expand American experiences, bringing a rich cultural heritage that benefits us all. I think people need to enter this country legally. It makes me wonder what your real goal might be by encouraging illegal immigration.
If I read the study by the Pew Research Center correctly, these positions put me in line with what it refers to as the committed conservative and to the ambiguous conservative, but in tension with faith and flag conservative and with the populist conservative. The groups with which I have tension display more anger than that with which am comfortable. They have abandoned the optimism for which Reagan was famous and have a darker picture of the future of America and the world than I would have. As Reagan put it, “This country needs a new administration, with a renewed dedication to the dream of America—an administration that will give that dream new life and make America great again.”
I understand the anger of some conservative groups. I have experienced the suspicion of major news outlets that they are mouthpieces for the progressive ideology. I am suspicious of what schools are instructing children, youth, and young adults, whether it be about gender or whether they can find anything about which to celebrate regarding this country. Exercising the right of free speech regarding many of the opinions I have expressed here can result in doxing and cancellation. Some ideas discussed today, such as not loaning money to those who hold conservative views on a variety of topics, may become reality. The lack of wisdom exhibited by many elected and appointed officials generates outrage. The shapers of culture, whether in media, educational institutions, or in the entertainment industry, seem to have generated a crisis that results from their disorientation regarding the country in which they reside. One could make a persuasive case that the problem is not the anger of many conservatives, but the crisis generated by many of the leaders of entertainment, education, business, and media.
In his farewell address, Reagan said the country needed informed patriotism. His concern was the nation was losing its institutional, cultural support for the kind of love of country he had grown up with. The world was changing. Young parents are not sure that appreciation of America is the right thing to instruct children. Those who shape popular culture no longer believe a well-grounded patriotism is the style. His concern was the failure to institutionalize the spirit of optimism his presidency represented for many of those who voted for him.
