“When confronted with secular conservative complaints about the undue influence of religious conservatives, I have often been inclined to ridicule or belittle their concerns, because I am a religious conservative who sees no such influence and would be glad to see much more genuine religious conservatism guiding the right… Even Andrew’s often overwrought and ultimately misguided complaints about so-called “Christianism” are at bottom arguments in favor of the proposition that is is possible to be conservative but critical of religion in politics.”

I certainly don’t think Andrew is misguided or overwrought to label a segment as something different from “conservative Christians,” because I think it’s plain that they’re not the kind of “religious conservatism” that you would consider desirable. When you see “no such influence,” I think you’re missing something that’s a huge plank of the whole conservative problem now.

First, consider that these are the people fighting against evolution because they find it existentially threatening. That is, when science threatens their myths, they’re adamant to resist science. “Facts” are to be scorned, belittled, discredited, and *kept away from our children* when inconvenient.

Next, ask yourself: who ARE these twenty-someodd percent of people who still approve of George Bush? Who ARE these thirty-someodd percent of people who rate Palin favorably? And, obviously, I’m suggesting that they’re largely the same groups. And when it comes to “influence,” 20+% of the population choosing to ignore – even DAMN – inconvenient facts is a mighty problem for the conservative movement. (Which, of course, hasn’t done itself any favors by stonewalling against global warming, and launching a reckless war upon no basis of factual evidence.)

I.e., there’s a massive segment of whackjob irrationals, and the conservative party both has a virtual monopoly upon them and desperately needs them to create winnable majorities and foot-soldier their positions. That’s a problem that must be taken apart and overcome, durations be damned.

I’m certainly not attacking you, Daniel. If I had to lock myself down to a single label, I’d call myself an Eisenhower Republican, and I see rational voices like yours as critically necessarily to bring such a sensible party back into existence.

But my feeling is that there’s no hope for the Republican party until the whackjob irrationals are effectively marginalized. “Validation for their way of life” might be their subconscious desire, but they will only be entreatied by validation of their adamantly superstitious and fact-hostile (and sex-hostile) worldviews. My feeling is that only rejection can move the party forward toward any sum of credibility that will elect sensible Republicans again. (The party would certainly be more attractive to the average centrist, at a minimum.)

“Holding the two in tension” has been the *problem*, not the solution. It led to Bush (who was as plain as Palin from the outset), and it will lead to no better.

That’s my advice, anyway, from someone who wants *two* viable parties to serve all our best interests, and wants legitimate conservative voices like yours to lead the way.

Because they’re Republicans, not Libertarians.

I take your point about Palin’s fans wanting some sort of validation of their way of life; but why? Why do they need that validation? Why can they not just live their lives according to the code they believe to be correct, whether I endorse or approve of it or not? What you’re describing is a tremendous personal insecurity that winds up driving people’s political choices.

And it’s ridiculous to say Bush doesnt care about ideas. Bush is stubbornly obsessed with ideas he shares with Brooks, such as on foreign policy, immigration, and to lesser extent, big government “conservatism.”

Palin is a great example – at her announcement, it was intriguing. Without doing any vetting, she sounded almost perfect for the party. Reformer Governor, blah blah. Now, you can’t tell people that she left Wasilla with over $20M of debt because they refuse to believe that their golden girl is incompetent, or not a true fiscal conservative. They have bought into her identity so wholly because it validates who they are – gun loving, middle class America, maybe they’re religious too. Any dissension is seen as a personal affront, and intellectual dishonesty abounds.

The reductio ad absurdam of the attempt to justify Palin’s nomination was when the candidate herself (and other campaign surrogates) began to assert that she had foreign policy credentials because Alaska was next to Russia. This is not an argument that can be made honestly and in good faith.

And it’s struck me, over and over again, that a defining feature of the Bush administration has been repeated statements made which have demonstrably not been made in good faith. All politicians shade, spin and (occasionally) lie. Acting systematically as if your words have no meaning beyond the exigiencies of the day is new to me, and I’m 49 years old and have followed politics since the early 1970s. So Palin fits right into this emerging pattern, and it’s one that I’d hope to see conservatives reject.

You can govern competently and honestly from the Right. Acting as if you have no need to demonstrate either competence or honesty isn’t a long term sustainbable strategy, I think.