chuckmcf:

"Okay, folks, let's get back to reality. Leaving aside substantive issues such as military preparedness, the economy and all that, there is one reason why Reagan and subsequent politicians introduced "God talk" into politics much more than before: It works"

In order to be elected, RR created an grouping of people which political scientists refer to as the "Reagan Coalition." Conservative Christians were one of the power blocks in that coalition. In order to retain their base (which is roughly equal to the base of Democratic Party loyalists). Just as the Democratic party candidates and incumbents must deliver a message which appeals to both the party loyalists and the swing voters, the GOP must deliver a message which is acceptable to its base.

Appealing to the base is doubly important in election years. By ensuring that measures which are important to segments of the party loyalists are on *local* ballots, the party can ensure a heavier turnout. It's much easier to get out the vote if the vote is also on a local or regional issue of importance to the voter. The GOP has done this with the "Christian vote." and hopes to continue doing so by keeping issues which are important to the religious right in the public eye.

So, the constant jockeying on "moral" issues and other issues of importance to the religious crowd is nothing more than politics as usual - much like the way some Dem candidates pander to the unions. What was unusual was the creation of the religious voting bloc in the first place.

Mike

seattledodger:
"it was jimmy's administration that introduced the M1, M2, Spruance, Oliver Hazard Perry, F 16, etc. into our arsenal."

Well, not entirely. Complex weapons system introduced/purchased during a 1 term administration will generally have begun development in a previous president's term. I began my military service during the Nixon administration. In 1972, I saw prototypes of the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and the M3 cavalry fighting vehicle. The Armor branch did *not* want the M3 because of its unacceptably high silhouette.

The Spruance class (all 30 of them) was contracted in *1970*. The Spruance was launched on 10 November 1973 and commissioned on 20 September 1975 (http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/destroy/dd963txt.htm). So, the Spruance was ordered by the Nixon administration and commissioned during the Ford Administration.

The USS Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) was ordered on October 30, 1973 (Nixon Administration again), launched on September 25, 1976 (Ford Administration), and commisioned on December 17, 1977 (Carter Administration).

During the late 1960s and the early 1970's, Germany and the US attempted to develop a new supertank, the MBT70. This program failed to produce a viable prototype. The US then used this platform for the XM803 program. In 1973, this was terminated, but became the basis for the M-1 program (again started during the Nixon administration). the Chrysler XM1 prototype was accepted for further development in November 1976 (Ford Administration), although the M-1 was not accepted and placed into production until late in the Carter administration.

The F-16 entered production in 1976 (Ford administration). Development of this aircraft began in 1971.

A number of good things *did* happen during the Carter administration - many of them in the military. Unfortunately, Carter inherited the legacy of the LBJ, Nixon and Ford - a disfunctional military which was struggling to re-invent itself, staggering inflation, widespread dissatisfaction at home, and a foreign policy in disarray. Reagan's successes were often built on foundations laid down by Jimmy Carter. It was Carters doom to lead us out of the Post-Vietnam doldrums and history has rarely been kind to post-war presidents.

Mike

The odd thing about all of this piety since 1980 is that it has not improved the national dialogue, not promoted a more civil discourse and has indeed, sent us into a downward spiral from the far more respectful society that existed during JFK's time in office.

All one has to do is tune into the typical conservative or Christian broadcast to divine why this is so. Implicit in all of the discussion is a sort of judgemental attitude that if one does not accept what is being hurled at them from these various forums, then they are Godless, lack virtue, are unpatriotic and a traitor to America.

Even the most moderate, civil critics are subject to this harsh, judgemental treatment. Is it not surprising then that people would be suspicious of those who wear their religious hearts on their sleeves? I mean, look at what religious fealty does. There are those who show up at the funerals of our young troops who have died in battle telling their families in the harshest terms that their sons and daughters were punished by God because America condones homosexuality and abortion. There are leaders of large Christian groups who preach that same theme to their flocks.

Is it any wonder that America is no longer respected in the world at large? Indeed, we are feared and loathed. And well we should be.

To get back to the actual subject... the reason we have all this presidential invocation of the Deity is that the politicians and their handlers know it sells. If they thought the same about mouse droppings, you'd being hearing about mouse poop in nearly every Presidential address as well.

Reagan, who ran on the Southern Strategy without (of course) being racist, also ran on God-calling, without (of course) being religious. Machiavelli had nothing on him. No wonder he's the poster-saint of the Right. God bless us, everyone.

Reagan, who ran on the Southern Strategy without (of course) being racist, also ran on God-calling, without (of course) being religious. Machiavelli had nothing on him. No wonder he's the poster-saint of the Right. God bless us, everyone.

Jozvez, did you miss Sacrament meeting today?

When religious people of any type tell you how religious they are, IT'S A BIG RED FLAG!

In Colorado Springs, a haven for Christian extremists, I used to cringe when I saw the "Christian Fish" on their cars or business cards. These people were more likely to not pay on time or at all for services and goods or to deal with me fairly. It is like when someone prefaces comments with "To tell you the truth...." you probably can count on the fact that they aren't.

We need to take back America from the Pharisees.
What would Jesus say about the current state of American Christian extremist politics?

Yes, and it is unfortunate. Did we forget the founding humanistic principles this nation was founded on. America was born out of the Enlightenment.

All this talk of religion makes me puke.

Bye "Cyber Friends" bye "Warm Heart" et al! WOW1

Correction:

Yo can fool some of the 'Bloggere(s)' but you can'nt fool ALL U.S/ CyberSpace 'Good' Folk, ALL the Time!

Stupid! Nicew try!

you can fol some of the 'BLOGGERS" but you all Cant fool ALL us1 {sIR aBRAHAM? OR ELSE SAID!

Good bye Newsweek, Washington Post, Editor & POST et al:
Good bye every body!

Att: Washington Post, Newsweek & Company; You Suck!

Warning: Do not reproduce, deseminate, plagerize, copy, for profit or gain 'ANY of my "POST" on any onf these 'Onfaith' or "onreligion" bloggs, since MARCH.19/20th of 2007 until NOW! Dec.15th.2007!

Vote: ECLATi-ON Party for GRIDARIAN DEMOCRACY & TRANSFINITE CIVILIZATION 2012 & beyond! Bye Yo ALL!

Dear Resonable -

FYI, it's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. I know that Republics like gw bush like to leave off the "ic" as they know it gets under some people's skins. Others of us just chalk it up to their general stupidity.

So, RR was "perceived" as strong while Carter wasn't. I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that perception and reality don't always match up.

As far as people "liking" Reagan, I never liked him. As far as the general public liking a president, their favorability numbers at the end of their presidencies is instructive:

Clinton - 65
Reagan - 64
Kennedy - 63
Eisenhower - 59
Bush I - 56
Ford - 53
Johnson - 49
Carter - 34
Nixon - 24

Looks to me that "people liked Bill Clinton, and only RW partisans and the media somehow think he was the devil incarnate."

My reporting on the economic facts surrounding Carter and RR was in response to your unsupported allegations of who was an "inept" president. Sorry if the numbers don't support your preconceived ideas. I agree with you that the economy moves in cycles, but it would be ludicrous to suggest that Clinton's 8 years in office represented a "good" cycle while the 19 years of R presidencies since 1980 all happened during a "bad" cycle.

As far as the Fed determining the economy, you're right there too. Greenspan was particularly miserly with lowering interest rates when Clinton was in office, yet his lowering of interest rates to next to nothing for gw bush was THE major reason the economy has survived the bush years. Of course, those .5% prime rates fueled the sub-prime mortgage market and led us to the disaster we're facing today in the housing market.

BTW - if I have quoted stats that "fit my wrong-headed view of the world," I suggest that you stop with the "perception" BS and get around to providing a few economic stats of your own to support your arguments. You won't because you can't. Go looking for economic stats for the last 50 years and you'll find the same ones I did, that is, if you check reputable, impartial government sources.

I look forward to your offering empirical proof to support your faith- and ideologic-based view of the economic world.

Mr Mark- Despite the snide commentary on my faith(typical as you think it is a attribute to have none)- what would you have had RR do? Go into Beriut with the full force of the military, like Dubya has done today? No one has been that foolish sans Dubya and we know where that led us.And your other comment on economic growth? Do you really believe that the Inflation and recession cycles are tied to who is President? The Fed certainly has more influence on this and many if not most economists believe in the cyclical nature of expansion and contraction of economic activity. Carter was never perceived as strong and RR was. Carter had no charisma and RR did. Given the fact that the deficits that occurred during mostly democrat party controlled congress- and the fact that revenues increased but spending outstripped the increase in revenues, you can't blame all of that on RR. The Democrats take plenty of blame for that. I know this. The people liked RR, and only partisans like you think somehow he is the devil incarnate.

I suggest that YOU mr mark, do research on the subject of economic theory and our history in the past.... I did mine a long time ago, and I am confident that my conclusions are more valid than yours. You have simply quoted stats that fit your wrong headed view of the world.

ANONYMOUS writes:
"Carter also let our country be humiliated by Iran and did nothing."

Right. Perhaps you've forgotten the rescue attempt he ordered that ended with helicopters crashing in the desert and 8 US servicemen dying. Perhaps you've forgotten that a secoond attempt was in the planning stages and that candidate Reagan was given operational information about that attempt.

Perhaps you've forgotten the negotiations Carter was involved in with Iran to get the hostages freed. Perhaps you've forgotten the opinions since expressed by special ops members of that never-attempt second rescue that the Reagan minions leaked info about the second attempt to Iran and prevailed on Iran to not release the hostages before the election in 1980, and how said hostages were miraculously released on the very day Reagan was inaugurated. As payback, Reagan later illegally sold arms to Iran.

"I doubt Reagan would have tolerated people with the mind of a 2 year old storming an american embassy."

Yes, Reagan certainly took decisive action in 1983 when 241 Marines were blown to bits in Beirut. In fact, he turned tail and ran, pulling all American forces out of Beirut within 4 months of the bombing.

Osama bin Laden has pointed to Reagan's spineless response to the Marine Barracks bombing as proof that Americans need only have their noses bloodied to turn tail and run. Reagan's cowardly actions most likely inspired OBL to launch the two attacks on the WTC, culminating in 9/11.

After all, the attack on the Marine Barracks still stands as the deadliest single attack on American soldiers since WWII. It would be criminal - CRIMINAL - if any American president just let that one go by without a whimper. Remind me whose watch that happened on again? Remind me again which president it was that NEVER RESPONDED militarily or otherwise to the death of 241 US Marines? Oh, it wasn't Carter? It was Saint Ronnie?! Hmm.

BTW - how many of the 52 hostages were killed by Iran? Oh, right, zero.

How many Marines were blown to bits while Reagan worried about imaginary welfare queens? Oh, right, 241.

You were saying?

Carter also let our country be humiliated by Iran and did nothing. I doubt Reagan would have tolerated people with the mind of a 2 year old storming an american embassy. Why didn't Carter respond? Because the military was too weak to respond and he afriad of what the Soviets would do.

Okay, folks, let's get back to reality. Leaving aside substantive issues such as military preparedness, the economy and all that, there is one reason why Reagan and subsequent politicians introduced "God talk" into politics much more than before: It works.

That's all. It works.

Mr Mark: "To this left-winger, Carter has been a better ex-president than a president . . ."

excellent point; he does seem to have matured to an amazing degree for a politician, and a baptist one at that.

nice article guys. i caught you on the radio friday here in seattle; good show.

you make a valid point, but it's got some interesting wrinkles. in some ways, religion didn't infect politics during the reagan era, but rather the reverse: religious instituions became mortally politicized.

dad was a southern baptist preacher. the takeover of this organization (largely contemporaneous with the authors' timeline) by hard-line republican operatives is well documented. many churchs now are, to a greater of lesser degree, fronts for the republican party; their very membership rolls are turned over to pary operatives.

the fusion of politics and religion has been toxic for both. evangelical christianity went horribly astray when it put it's 'faith' in an earthly empire. empries fall. all of them.

but at least the issue of religion in american life has never been so open to discussion. the 'new atheists' are not really the primary threat (lots of 'religious' folk don't buy into the mumbo-jumbo either).

of greater interest is the rise of real, 18th century-style anti-clericalism. hitchens is a much more emblematic figure here than is dawkins.

the rise of the relgious right in america, termed by some as the Endarkenment, has had at least one positive effect in flushing out all the atheists and secularists that have been hiding in the shadows all this time.

i suspect the young will, once again, lead the way. they seem to like gays and don't believe in fairy tales, by and large. good on 'em.

with any luck, tomorrow won't look anything like today.

As Seattledodger points out, Carter was hardly dismantling our national defense.

While Rs love to say that Carter cut military spending to the point of hurting the military, the fact is that Carter funded the largest peace-time increase in military spending prior to Reagan. After the Vietnam War ended, military spending naturally decreased, but Carter increased military spending from 4.7% of GNP in FY 1979 to 5.2% of GNP in his final budget (FY 1981). Under Reagan, military spending increased to 6.5% of GNP.

It should be noted that Carter was no left-wing angel when in office. He supported the Shah if Iran until the end, he funded the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan, knowing full well it could spark a confrontation with the Soviets, he supported Marcos, General Zia, King Faud and other dictators. For a long time, he opposed Palestinian statehood, refusing to meet with Palestinian leaders while greatly increasing aid the Begin's RW Israeli government. At the UN, Carter's representative repeatedly vetoed resolutions to put sanctions on the racist government of South Africa.

To this left-winger, Carter has been a better ex-president than a president, bu that doesn't mean we need to misrepresent his actual record to dislike certain things he did as president.

Sidebar - I actually threw my vote away in 1980 and voted for John Anderson. In that respect, I helped Reagan gain office, so I apologize. By the same token, my defense of Carter's record isn't spurred by my having supported him. I didn't.

Thanks for substantiating observations I'd chalked up to my creeping crankiness, Nixon sincerely appealed to a deity only after he'd
plunged America into a crisis. Subsequent presidents have called on God gratuitously, As with the sporting of flag pins, symbols are expected to substitute for honest reality.

Dear Reasonable -

Yes, I well remember why RR got elected. One of his campaign mantras was that Carter was "mortgaging our children's future" with the budget deficits he was running. Over his 4 years in office, Carter added $483-billion to the national debt, or roughly $121-billion per year. In his 8 years in office, Reagan added $1.94 TRILLION to the national debt, or roughly $242-billion per year.

RW commentators love to point out that under Carter, the federal budget represented an average of 23% of GNP which was much higher than the historic average of 18-19%. Oddly, they fail to point out that under Reagan, that average stood at about 25% for his first 4 years in office. Also lost in the fog is the fact that the Carter budgets projected a SURPLUS by 1986, and we all know what Reagan was doing with spending during that year.

Yes, inflation was extremely high under Carter, but it should be pointed out that while inflation is very bad for wealth holders, it is not so bad for debt holders as the real value/cost of their debt DECREASES as inflation rises.

In terms of economic growth, the economy has historically had a higher rate of growth under Democratic presidents (3.92%) than it has under Republican presidents (2.94%). Yes, Reagan's average of 3.5% yearly economic growth was better than Carter's 2.8% (and that 3.5% was equalled by Clinton), but it was no where near Kennedy's 5.6% or Johnson's 4.2%, And Carter's 2.6% was certainly better than Nixon's 2.3% or Poppy Bush's 1.8% (though one can't blame that all on Poppy. He administration was saddled with Reagan's deficits and paid the price in the raw numbers).

If Carter was "mortgaging our children's future," then Reagan saddled them with a second mortgage as well, while Reagan's "miracle" economic policies turn out to be a miracle only when set against the under achievements of his Republican compatriots.

There are always two sides to the capitalistic coin, and the winners and losers can shift with economic trends and tides.

I would suggest that Reasonable do a bit of research on the subject. For some reason, Reasonable takes his history "on faith" just as surely as he takes his belief in the supernatural on faith.

Yet one more dismal indicator of Amnerica's moral decay. I am sure that the more loudly one proclaims ones religion,patriotism, and responsibility; the less one has of these characteristics. Certainly there is nothing godly about the Christian Right, the lapel wearing Flag wearers are destroying our Constitutional government, and no one in the currrent administration has been held responsible for a whole string on unending disasters.

LIES

They tell me
There's the moon and the stars
And the skies and nothing beyond the skies.
Lies!
There's God beyond the skies,
I tell you.
When that woman gave birth
To her little son
She didn't feel that the Earth
Travels around the sun.
It's all one to the tellers of lies
Who believe the Earth and the skies
Were not made by the One
Who never behaves out of fun,
But were made by chance
Like the meeting of a girl and a boy
Who came to dance.
Lies!
They call themselves wise
But would they tell me why
A girl doesn't look like a guy
Nor does sunset look like sunrise
Nor do I look like my siblings?
Would they please tell me
Who made the soul that makes the flute weep?
Who made the bird's twitter
Different from the bleat of sheep?
Would they be bitter
If I asked why
A vulture flies high in the sky
Whereas a peacock won't go that far?

http://arabicwithlagouader.blogspot.com/

ReasonableNotHateful: "Or did you forget WHY RR was elected in the first place? -that Carter was the most inept President we have had in the last 50 years- included Dubya...."

now, now, let's be fair. jimmy did actually introduce intermediate range ballistic missles (pershing 2's and GLCM's) into Italy, Holland, and England to face down the soviet ss-20s. and after the repuckicans had basically destroyed the military in the early 70s, it was jimmy's administration that introduced the M1, M2, Spruance, Oliver Hazard Perry, F 16, etc. into our arsenal.

and don't forget it was carter who created the Rapid Deployment Force and the Central Command that won the first gulf war.

good thing there was the carter administration between all those republicans, who like this one, don't know much about military affairs.

but ray-gun did bring us star wars to waste a few billion. fortunately we had a democratic congress that continued to fund the carter naval buildup and the conventional programs of his administration.

i know a lot of people say you don't exist, but if you do: superman, please save our country from republicans.

Ahh, Mr Mark.

Making RR a straw man , are we?

To blame RR for the greed of people and for the pursuit of money is just illustrates your lack of understanding of humanity. It is not his fault, it is OUR fault. You really think that our country looked out for ... what did you call it(still on the floor laughing) ... "corporate good of the people" ?

Are you speaking to the welfare state and LBJ's "Great Society" ? Or the fact that Jimmy Carter was inept as he was(remember 20% prime rate or so? Inflation up the whazzu?) Or did you forget WHY RR was elected in the first place? -that Carter was the most inept President we have had in the last 50 years- included Dubya....

Frightened consumers?

I am more frightened that there are people like you that think the way you do. Jeez.

Ah, Ronald Reagan, the "faith and family" guy who never entered a church and would have nothing to do with his kids.

Without Reagan, there could have been no bush. Without Reagan, there could be no tearing down of the wall between church and state. Without Reagan, we might still be a country that looked out for the corporate good of the people, rather than a country of self-centered money grubbers who look out exclusively for #1. Without Reagan, we might still be a nation of fervent citizens, rather than what we are now - a nation of frightened consumers.

I have no doubt that 50 years hence, the Reagan years will be reevaluated for what they *really* were, ie: the beginning of a 3-decade nightmare of political opportunism coupled with religious intolerance; an era that had little of the "shining city on the hill" to it but, rather, a healthy dollop of a good old-fashioned shiner encircling its democratic eye.

Since you've hewed to a rigorously academic and statistical approach (which as always produces tedious but safely unarguable results), I would have hope you could have added something useful to the current political debate by showing statistically that one component of all this god-talk is that the media is now largely owned by right-wing interests and that the old accusation from the right about "left-wing bias" in media is at best mistaken and at worst part of the deliberate propaganda program of the right...

God bless John Kennedy....