[deadwolfbones]

Brief thoughts about that Bill Keller op-ed on candidates’ religions, and the kerfuffle that kicked up. But only by way of kicking off in the direction of what’s really going on here. The religion stuff needs a more general frame.

Keller is just being reasonable. If candidates say ‘my faith is a private matter and all that need concern the voters is how I will conduct myself in office,’ fine. But if candidates play up faith, for political advantage; if they announce that their religious views and values inform their political views and policy proposals, then obviously that makes religion fair game. Because in politics, your politics has to be fair game. Keller’s critics suggest that arriving at any such conclusion is tantamount to proposing something like a religious test for public office. Or worse! It’s an attempt to ban Christians from public life! But no. He’s only ruling out one or another of a couple possible norms that are so absurd that no one would ever advocate them explicitly. That you can’t fault politicians for concealing their policy objectives, so long as the politicians favor the policy on religious grounds. Or that you can’t fault politicians’ policy proposals, period, so long as they advocate the policy on religious grounds. Something like that. That’s nuts, so Keller is just being reasonable.

But, like I said, I don’t think this is the right way to think about this issue. For one thing, it misses that the religious case is just a special case of a more general phenomenon. Let me switch over to a question Kevin Drum asked last week: why do Republicans get a free pass? He’s absolutely right that they do.

Here’s what gets me. Perry’s views are getting denounced by all the usual lefty suspects but not much by anyone else. And the reason for this is something very odd: In modern America, conservatives are largely given a pass for saying crazy things. They’re just not taken seriously, in a boys-will-be-boys kind of way. It’s almost like everyone accepts this kind of stuff as a kind of religious liturgy, repeated regularly with no real meaning behind it. They’re just the words you use to prove to the base that you’re really one of them.

Kevin points out that if Hilary Clinton wrote a book about how much she wanted to repeal the Second Amendment and ban hate speech everyone would freak out that she was a radical. So what gives?

But the question answers itself: it’s really true that Perry doesn’t mean what he says. Mostly. As Kevin says, these are just the words he has to say to prove to the base he’s one of them.

By contrast, Hilary Clinton would only write that book about wanting to repeal the Second Amendment, etc., if – against all likelihood – she really wanted to repeal the Second Amendment. Because, since she isn’t a conservative, she’s not going to get a Get Out of Crazy Jail Free card. So there is no profit to her in writing such a book. Turning the point around: given that liberals don’t systematically employ a rhetoric of believing things they don’t, but conservatives do, it makes a great deal of sense to give conservatives an endless supply of Get Out of Crazy Jail Free cards. And round we go.

Must We Act As If They Mean What They Say? — Crooked Timber

Whole thing is good.

[JinDesu]

Regardless of how other people may thing "oh those conservatives are up to their crazy pranks again" and whether or not those politicians believe what they say, it's still damn wrong in my eyes.

[Nesster]

weeelll... there are some good points made.

However, and here's another case of amnesia or get out of jail free cards: what about all those radical Republican governors who earlier this year actually set out to do what they said they would?

Would this not reflect back on the Republican Presidential candidates, for the country to actually take their views and proposals seriously?

Leaving aside Fox, and MSNBC if you insist, what's in it for the CNNs and CBS's of the world? One, they do some investigation and 'fact checking' on candidate statements - but they can't possibly devote enough time to each candidate, especially if there's a lot of facts to check. And we do appreciate this, Democrat and Republican.

But the further self interest in the media outlets is to spin out a story line, make it a horse race, stir up the daily controversy and faux pas. It is in main stream media's best interest to pump up any candidates who seem to have some traction, to be a player in the nominating process. Thus there was almost universal "game changer" talk about Perry... thus Palin and Bachman get coverage... Because public interest, however encouraged, translates to viewership, which translates into revenue.

[shooz]

The last paragraph pretty well sums up the current position of modern man.
The need to be entertained.
The hopey changey part is that sometimes, that need is another "mother of invention".
Some of our greatest inventors invented out of that need.

One of the things this world is most in need of is a new kind of politics.
The old ones seem to have run their course, the world over.

The need to induce understanding is a strong one too.

[jeffkrol]

Because, to repeat: everyone kind of knows that conservatives don’t really mean they want theocracy, even when they say something wild that might be construed as implying that they do, on the stump. Mostly not. So it will seem paranoid to argue that all these conservatives are aspiring theocrats. Getting back to Kevin’s non-religious example: Perry isn’t really going to roll back the welfare state to 1900 levels, or even try to do so. He might really advocate 1 out of 10 of the craziest things he seems to advocate. But that still means that it’s unreasonable to worry too much about any given crazy thing he says.

That's about the most dangerous statement I've read in a long time.........................I'm sure every society ushered in a depot on the theory "oh they don't really mean that"........................

Not to mention the fact that the depot gets his "peoples mandate" ...........

The greatest evils occur when good people don't believe "he/she couldn't do that" since it is actually beyond logical comprehension.....

[Parallax]

The greatest evils occur when good people don't believe "he/she couldn't do that" since it is actually beyond logical comprehension.....

Exactly. Hitler was able to do what he did because what he was doing was so outrageous that no one could believe it was actually happening.

[deadwolfbones]

Rick Perry is not Hitler.

[shooz]

I heard he was all hat and no cattle.

[Wheatfield]

I heard he was all hat and no cattle.

Or at least no cattle cars.....

[Parallax]

Rick Perry is not Hitler.

I wasn't making a comparison.

[shooz]

While we are on the subject of Perry. it would be for him prudent to realize.......you get what you pay for.
Now he has to beg for FEMA.
Some kind of teabagger, he is.

Texas cut fire department funding by 75 percent this year|Raw Replay

[johnmflores]

While we are on the subject of Perry. it would be for him prudent to realize.......you get what you pay for.
Now he has to beg for FEMA.
Some kind of teabagger, he is.

Texas cut fire department funding by 75 percent this year|Raw Replay

A strong government is not needed until it's....errrr....ummmm....really needed.

[shooz]

Like I said.
Small government is for small countries.

[deadwolfbones]

I wasn't making a comparison.

Yeah, I know. But I don't think it's particularly helpful to operate under the assumption that everyone could be another Hitler, either.

[Wheatfield]

Yeah, I know. But I don't think it's particularly helpful to operate under the assumption that everyone could be another Hitler, either.

Sadly, with your very far right (Teaparty), any one of them does have that potential.
And then, they came for the Democrats, and no one was left to say anything.