Right and Wrong

Sullivan proves again why it is so difficult to label him. He gets it right on with his essay on the New Green Coalition but couldn't be more wrong in another post concerning Barry Goldwater. He quotes the conservative hero:

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"- Barry Goldwater, September 16, 1981.

Then he asserts that that is little chance Goldwater could have survived in the Republian party today. Of course, the logic is so circular that it's almost hard to reason with.

But here we go. Sullivan references this quote to show that Goldwater stood against the sort of "theocon" idealogy that is becoming popular again, according to Andrew and his libertarian friends. If that is Goldwater's view, then there is no way that he could survive in today's party because the religious nuts have taken over. That's what we're told. Yet, the situation that Goldwater describes is every bit as awful sounding as Sullivan argues the situation is today. It could even be argued that the "religious right" was even more out of control in 1981. Yet, Goldwater survived in the party. He even became an icon for conservativism.

Goldwater had to deal with the presence of religious voters in his day, and the party survived. So did he. It's actually a credit to the Republican party that it continues to thrive with room for disagreement. But Sullivan has become so hostile to religion of late, that I doubt he'd ever see that. It doesn't fit into his worldview.