This can become particularly gnarly when attempting to marry the tenets of evangelical Christians with the present Republican Party. — Torus34

Why "gnarly"? I think it's exactly right.

Isn't it simply the case that politics has become tribal and dumbed down around themes such as freedom versus social control and that tribalism is galvanised along principles such as 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'?

Hi, Tim!

Are you saying that the philosophy of the Republican Party at present is essentially the same as that of the evangelical Christians?

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Hi, Tom. That's part of it, of course, but it's hard to assemble all of those beliefs into a coherent philosophy. The word 'coherent' is carefully chosen.

Regards.

I'm not sure that politics as practiced involves coherent beliefs, more like loose themes and perceptions. The main game is getting elected and appealing (however that looks) to a base which is constantly evolving. In practice politics is marketing.

Are you saying that the philosophy of the Republican Party at present is essentially the same as that of the evangelical Christians? — Torus34

Am I saying that the spirit of the flock is the same as the shepherds' and shearers'? Not the same, but with some functional overlap. But the specifics of the relationship are interesting. E.g., evangelicals are all about shame and their own brokenness, and Republicans simply have no shame whatsoever. Akin to the relationship between those who want to be hit and those who want to hit. Ultimately a dance, and the dance and dancers to me repulsive and disgusting.

One of the [to me] more interesting corners to root around in is back-tracking from the current set of beliefs of either side to constructing a coherent underlying philosophy — Torus34

I think this Atlantic piece does a pretty good job of identifiying the major ideologies involved:

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/619012/

Packer makes good points.

The ideology undergirding all factions is that of statism, as it invariably will be. No other principle can reign over this one because the intention of any political party is to seize the state machinery, thereby attaining control of it, and thus power over everyone else. The people, facing the progressive loss of their own power, are left to use their measly right of suffrage, to vote for some power-seeking careerist, perhaps with the view that he possesses some remnant of a principle similar to their own, but never a 1-to-1 ratio.

So to answer why the statist would vote for a party that contradicts his own principles, it’s because he couldn’t do otherwise.

I think this Atlantic piece does a pretty good job of identifiying the major ideologies involved:

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/619012/ — Joshs

Four Americas: "Free", "Smart", "Real" & "Just". Packer's essay leaves out a fifth, the one that matters most because it strategically exacerbates (though does not (have to) create) and leverages the divisions among the others for control: Oligarch America. As the Romans used to say: cui bono? – or follow the fuckin' filthy lucre – if you really want to understand "the underpinnings" of the last three centuries of Murican politricks.

Hi again.

You may be right. Thus, my search for the underlying philosophy may be in vain. If I'm not careful, though, we'll get into a discussion over 'proving' a negative! ;-)

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Hi again, Tim.

We agree on the Republicans, especially when they present as Mr. Donald Trump, being a poor ideological match with Christian evangelicals. One might quip that it's not exactly a match made in Heaven.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Hi!

Thank you for the link. I'll certainly read it.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Hi, NOS4A2!

It may take me a while to get my head around your post. Thank you for taking time to respond.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Hi, 180 Proof! [I'm more of a wine man myself.]

I've not yet read the article, so I can't respond directly to your comment. That America is 'controlled' in a number of ways by an oligarchical structure is a good observation.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

There's only two flavors of politics. The path of force (authoritarianism) and the path of freedom (libertarianism). Everything in between is opinion, and more often than not, hypocrisy.

Hi!

That's a point, of course. I suspect that a nit-picker would add anarchy. There are times when extreme simplification can provide insight. There are other times when a finer-grained approach provides more opportunity for a deeper exploration.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

There's only two flavors of politics. The path of force (authoritarianism) and the path of freedom (libertarianism). Everything in between is opinion, and more often than not, hypocrisy. — Tzeentch

:up: