When reading Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson’s take on the unseemly Republican “candidates’” “debate” “moderated” (I’m starting to run out of quotation marks) by Donald Trump:
Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann have had the dignity and good judgment to decline participation in what is likely to be an embarrassment for all involved, except Trump, who lives in a world beyond shame. Paul’s campaign noted that the planned event would create an “unwanted, circus-like atmosphere†that is “beneath the office of the presidency.â€
Gingrich, apparently lacking dignity and good judgment, will eagerly participate. He will be joined by Rick Santorum, who, let’s face it, has nothing to lose.
So, if the event comes off at all, its attendance is likely to be limited to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
I could only think of Hunter S. Thompson’s wisecrack “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro”.
Now to be honest I think that some of the Republicans’ problem is that they have a very unfriendly press. The Democratic Party has no dearth of weirdos. The difference, apparently, is that rather than keeping their crazy relatives in the attic the Republicans put ’em out on the front porch.
However, I read a disquieting statistic the other day: 60% of Republican primary voters are evangelicals. The problem with that, politically, is that only about a quarter of Americans are evangelicals. For good or ill evangelicals do not represent the American mainstream. However, as is the case with many groups with high regional concentration, since everybody they know is an evangelical Christian, they think that they comprise a majority.
I think I’ve raised a similar question to claims of the coming theocracy at OTB, to which they’ve responded its an Evangelical/ Catholic movement. The term “evangelical” is vague and usually self-reported; if allowed, a Catholic might identify as an “evangelical,” apparently as a description of their enthusiasm.
The reality is that at election time a majority of those voting in almost every state will report that their (Christian) religion is very important to them. Whether this reflects a majoritian sentiment depends on whether racial, regional and denominational differences split the group.
I could define evangelicals but it would be pretty tedious and technical. The short version is non-conformist Christians (conformists are Catholics, Episcopalians, Orthodox, and Lutherans) less Methodists and Presbyterians. That nettles Lutherans a bit because they emphatically consider themselves evangelicals (this gets into that technical part I mentioned).
One way to view the relationship among evangelicals, Catholics, and humanist progressives is the analogy to that among Iran, the United States, and Israel. Humanist progressives may be the Little Satan but the Catholic Church is the Great Satan.
“However, as is the case with many groups with high regional concentration, since everybody they know is an evangelical Christian, they think that they comprise a majority.”
Heh, the right-wing version of Pauline Kael’s remark, no?
Progressives have a similar issue. The best guess on how many progressives there are in the U. S. is between 10% and 20%, mostly concentrated in cities, mostly concentrated on the coasts. CAP ties itself into knots trying to support a figure closer to 60%, I suspect because it comports with their experience: 60% of the people who live where they live are progressives.
Dave, I don’t think that’s a bad framework for a definition for theological purposes, though I would add that mainline protestant churches tend to have internal divisions that reflect evangelical versus non-evangelical splits. I would describe the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church as evangelical, but not the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.
For polling purposes, I think the term is problematic, because the term is debatable and relies on subjective self-reporting. Much better to ask people how often they go to church and what church they go to.
For political purposes, I strongly suspect the identification was encouraged by fundamentalists who realized after hitting a road block in the 80s that there are not that many religious fundamentalists outside of the South.
I tend to avoid the term “mainline Protestant” because I think it combines denominations too artificially. I’ve been in ELCA churches and high church Episcopal churches that had greater affinities with Catholic churches than they did with other Lutheran and Episcopal congregations.
I separate Christians into three groups: 1) Those with great classical music, Catholics and Lutherans. 2) Those with great soul or gospel music, generally black. 3) And those with either no music or lousy music, or creepily un-self-aware sexualized music, generally white protestants.
Needless to say I believe if there were a God he would favor Bach and Mahalia Jackson.
For the uninitiated, Mahalia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as1rsZenwNc
As long as she’s singing, I’m a believer.
If Hunter were still alive, I suspect he would be packing his helmet for the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
“For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”
Gingrich, apparently lacking dignity and good judgment….
Hmmm. ALDAGJ should probably be added to Gingrich’s name anytime it’s mentioned, much like NTTAWWT gets appended to any mention that someone isn’t straight.
I could define evangelicals but it would be pretty tedious and technical.
It’s not that hard. If palms upraised to the sky mean something other than “Raise the roof!” then you’re probably evangelical.
One way to view the relationship among evangelicals, Catholics, and humanist progressives is the analogy to that among Iran, the United States, and Israel. Humanist progressives may be the Little Satan but the Catholic Church is the Great Satan.
Puts me in mind of this comment of Razib Khan. It’s all a matter of local custom.