When individuals whose outlook recalls a Pat Robertson's or a Jerry Fallwell's appear to be making unexpected overtures to faiths and denominations like the Jews and/or Mormons, etc., because of possibly political considerations stemming from the "culture wars", that may be a harbinger of the future. You see, I've sometimes thought that the current political alliances in the U.S. are rather shaky at their foundations.
Consider: First off, we have one party, the Democrats, who are (nominally, if not faithfully) spokesmen for a more economically activist agenda. In other words, it is Democrats like Roosevelt and those in later generations who have urged the consolidation of an economic safety net that would redress possibly destabilizing inequities that a purely laissez-faire approach might fail to address. But it has been the Republicans who have (by and large) urged a generally more laissez-faire approach, letting the market place rule more.
At the same time, in post-WWII times, it has been the Republicans who have become (by and large, although, again, there may be individual exceptions) the party of more activist (some might say, intrusive) social/cultural policies, while it has been the Democrats who have appeared, in general, to opt for the more laissez-faire approach, letting the market place (in this case, Hollywood[?] et al) rule.
Now consider the respective constituencies for these two parties today.
You see, by and large -- although this is not uniformly the case, of course -- the blue-collar worker tends to be somewhat more conservative than the white-collar worker -- or exec or whatever -- re social issues than s/he is with economic ones. This has been one of the factors that has helped the Democrats lose the strong hold they used to have on blue-collar (and union) households. Well.......... maybe the Democratic party may not stay "liberal" on social issues much beyond this generation(?). They may jettison the socially "liberal" platform instead in order to regain those union (and similar) households who are still sympathetic with the Democratic party's "liberal" economic platform but uncomfortable with its social platform.
Alternatively, maybe the Republican party instead may not stay "conservative" on social issues much beyond this generation and may jettison a socially "conservative" platform in order to consolidate more with economically better-heeled constituents who tend to be (by and large, although not universally) more at ease with the "slacker" mores of the cultural market place today.
This puts the sudden overtures made to "extra-Christian" denominations who may still be (generally) culturally conservative in a broader context. If there is a struggle coming, in which common cause would be made for the sake of more rigorous cultural control according to a more restrictive canon of beliefs, then that might extend into a broader economic clash across international boundaries in which the (generally) more conservative cultural mores of the less well off are actually pitted against the (by and large) more laissez-faire mores that tend to characterize the better-heeled today around the world!
Consider the implications of that cultural clash morphing into a bigger clash across economic lines as well -- and around the world! Come the next generation, we might actually see groups like the activist fundamentalist Christians internationalizing their cultural efforts by even reconciling with fundamentalist Muslims! They would see eye-to-eye on social issues! And this would not happen in a vacuum. There would be strong pressures all collaborating in facilitating such an alliance, chief among them the economic divide that would ensure natural constituencies for restrictive cultural policies versus laissez-faire ones.
Here in the U.S., the two parties would morph into one party advocating activist (some would say, intrusive) policies on both culture and the economic market place, with a built-in constituency of the less well-off, and another party advocating laissez-faire policies across the board(!), with a built-in constituency of the better-off who don't wish to rock the boat in either respect and who just want to maintain the status quo with a minimal role for government.
The first constituency would have sheer numbers on their side, the other would have more money. Would either party gain dominance? Hard to say. Would I feel comfortable having total libertarianism versus total activism as my only choices? Probably not. But that may be the choice I'd have to make at the ballot box thirty or so years from now.
And that divide would extend to U.S. foreign policies re the growing conflict with the fringe Bin Ladens of the Muslim world. The activist (or intrusive) party might seek rapprochement with these fringe elements, driven by growing sympathy on the part of their less-well-heeled constituents. But the libertarian party would maintain rigorous armed conflict with the least hint of any Bin Laden sympathizers around the world, in order to preserve the order that is so user-friendly for their better-off constituents. Needless to say, this would mean that the libertarian but more pro-war party would be mostly secular, while the activist but less pro-war party would be mostly devoutly -- intensely -- religious.
You may feel uncomfortable at such a stark choice at the ballot box thirty years from now. But if those were the only choices, which would you choose?
Thoughts?
Operacast
Consider: First off, we have one party, the Democrats, who are (nominally, if not faithfully) spokesmen for a more economically activist agenda. In other words, it is Democrats like Roosevelt and those in later generations who have urged the consolidation of an economic safety net that would redress possibly destabilizing inequities that a purely laissez-faire approach might fail to address. But it has been the Republicans who have (by and large) urged a generally more laissez-faire approach, letting the market place rule more.
At the same time, in post-WWII times, it has been the Republicans who have become (by and large, although, again, there may be individual exceptions) the party of more activist (some might say, intrusive) social/cultural policies, while it has been the Democrats who have appeared, in general, to opt for the more laissez-faire approach, letting the market place (in this case, Hollywood[?] et al) rule.
Now consider the respective constituencies for these two parties today.
You see, by and large -- although this is not uniformly the case, of course -- the blue-collar worker tends to be somewhat more conservative than the white-collar worker -- or exec or whatever -- re social issues than s/he is with economic ones. This has been one of the factors that has helped the Democrats lose the strong hold they used to have on blue-collar (and union) households. Well.......... maybe the Democratic party may not stay "liberal" on social issues much beyond this generation(?). They may jettison the socially "liberal" platform instead in order to regain those union (and similar) households who are still sympathetic with the Democratic party's "liberal" economic platform but uncomfortable with its social platform.
Alternatively, maybe the Republican party instead may not stay "conservative" on social issues much beyond this generation and may jettison a socially "conservative" platform in order to consolidate more with economically better-heeled constituents who tend to be (by and large, although not universally) more at ease with the "slacker" mores of the cultural market place today.
This puts the sudden overtures made to "extra-Christian" denominations who may still be (generally) culturally conservative in a broader context. If there is a struggle coming, in which common cause would be made for the sake of more rigorous cultural control according to a more restrictive canon of beliefs, then that might extend into a broader economic clash across international boundaries in which the (generally) more conservative cultural mores of the less well off are actually pitted against the (by and large) more laissez-faire mores that tend to characterize the better-heeled today around the world!
Consider the implications of that cultural clash morphing into a bigger clash across economic lines as well -- and around the world! Come the next generation, we might actually see groups like the activist fundamentalist Christians internationalizing their cultural efforts by even reconciling with fundamentalist Muslims! They would see eye-to-eye on social issues! And this would not happen in a vacuum. There would be strong pressures all collaborating in facilitating such an alliance, chief among them the economic divide that would ensure natural constituencies for restrictive cultural policies versus laissez-faire ones.
Here in the U.S., the two parties would morph into one party advocating activist (some would say, intrusive) policies on both culture and the economic market place, with a built-in constituency of the less well-off, and another party advocating laissez-faire policies across the board(!), with a built-in constituency of the better-off who don't wish to rock the boat in either respect and who just want to maintain the status quo with a minimal role for government.
The first constituency would have sheer numbers on their side, the other would have more money. Would either party gain dominance? Hard to say. Would I feel comfortable having total libertarianism versus total activism as my only choices? Probably not. But that may be the choice I'd have to make at the ballot box thirty or so years from now.
And that divide would extend to U.S. foreign policies re the growing conflict with the fringe Bin Ladens of the Muslim world. The activist (or intrusive) party might seek rapprochement with these fringe elements, driven by growing sympathy on the part of their less-well-heeled constituents. But the libertarian party would maintain rigorous armed conflict with the least hint of any Bin Laden sympathizers around the world, in order to preserve the order that is so user-friendly for their better-off constituents. Needless to say, this would mean that the libertarian but more pro-war party would be mostly secular, while the activist but less pro-war party would be mostly devoutly -- intensely -- religious.
You may feel uncomfortable at such a stark choice at the ballot box thirty years from now. But if those were the only choices, which would you choose?
Thoughts?
Operacast
