Rachel Alexander has an article up over at the Christian Post in which she bemoans the fact that the GOP, which she describes as the intelligent party, is suffering at the national level.
Conservatism is too cerebral for many Americans. Consequently, the right has to try twice as hard as the left to gain support for its policies. This means working smarter too, by using methods that are effective like emotional arguments. Although it may feel foreign to most on the right to use an emotional argument about something that is not terribly worthy of emotion, to continue down the same old path that no longer works is slowly making the Republican Party a minority. Republicans need to quit lamenting over the backwards fact that the most intelligent party is not the most successful.
Yes, the GOP is the party of the intelligent. This is the party that rejects the conclusions of the world’s most perspicacious scientists on the subject of global warming; the party that rejects the position of the world’s psychological community on the subject of homosexuality and the ability of gay people to raise children; the party that constantly attacks public education science standards and has a long history of making public education the first target for budget cuts.
This is the party that largely supports the teaching of creationism.
This is the party which proudly claims a 2,000 year old man who rose from the dead speaks to them (and tells a bunch of them to run losing campaigns for the presidency) and that this 2,000 year old man should dictate our policies in the 21st century.
I could go on, but to call the GOP the intelligent party is lunatic in the extreme. The GOP is the one using the emotional tactic of comparing a baby to a fetus when talking about abortions. The GOP is the group that uses all manner of emotional tactics and fear mongering when they’re saying that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will destroy our military, or that letting gay people marry will destroy marriage for others (or destroy the country). When Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq but had no facts to move us? Then it was emotion and fear all the way.
And the ultimate irony is that this article appears in the Christian Post. If there was a proposition that was more emotion-based as a means to circumvent the lack of any evidence in its favor than a religion that threatens people with eternal torment for defying it, I’ve never heard of it. People who believe in Christianity do so almost exclusively for emotional reasons: they don’t want to die or don’t want to go to hell. There is no evidence whatsoever that a Canaanite Jew rose from the dead, and anybody who believes that, no matter how emotionally motivating their Sunday services are, doesn’t get to lecture other people on the shady nature of using emotional tactics to win.
If you’ve ever instilled the fear of hell into a child, you lose that right in the eyes of any fair-minded person.