GOP a mix of outrage, fundamentalism

Contents

By STEVE OLSEN

Guest commentary

We've heard a lot of opinions recently about what direction the Republican Party should take in order to get their groove back. I think I have pretty good credentials for weighing in on this subject. I was an enthusiastic Reagan Republican, I used to argue politics with my Democratic, pro-union grandparents (may God rest their souls), and donated to John McCain's campaign in 2000. Yet a few weeks ago, this Reagan Republican was elected chair of the Weber Democrats. In short, I'm one of the people the Republicans "lost".

So what happened? Life changes tend to be a result of many things, but one of the main influences was simple: I could no longer endure the unremitting anger. Outrage has become the mother's milk of movement conservatism. True believers can't survive without their weekly dose of indignation. I'm not joking when I answer "Sean Hannity" when asked the question, "Who was your main inspiration in becoming a Democrat?"

Recently, the outrage is sounding even more contrived than usual. One example was the reaction to President Obama's selection of Harry Knox, an openly gay man, as a member of the president's advisory council on faith-based initiatives.

The Republican rage machine was apoplectic, with Newt Gingrich claiming Knox's appointment proved the Obama administration was "anti-religious." Knox's appointment became talk radio's outrage-du-jour for almost a week.

Here are the facts: The full name of the council is, "The Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships", evangelical Christians are overwhelmingly represented among the other 24 members of the council, and Knox has been a tireless worker in facilitating respectful dialog between people of different faiths. Seems the president is doing what he campaigned to do: Encouraging groups who have been throwing bricks to try talking to each other and finding common ground. Sounds a little different when you hear the full story.

Whether it be the sin of smiling when shaking the hand of Hugo Chavez or allowing his back to bend a little when greeting the king of Saudi Arabia, movement conservatives aren't happy unless they are demonizing our president. Their favorite insult is that he's a "socialist." I get a kick out of that one, since the president and the impressive team he has assembled are working their tails off to rescue free market capitalism from the extraordinary efforts of the capitalists and Republicans to destroy it themselves the last decade.

Ronald Reagan presents a stark contrast to his modern disciples. As Barack Obama has written, Reagan was a transformative president who was needed at a time when politicians mistakenly thought government could solve every problem, and when no one was keeping track of whether all that spending was actually effective.

But unlike his disciples, he was a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. Reagan enacted several major tax increases to help balance the budget, he negotiated with America's enemies, he championed comprehensive immigration reform, and he was tolerant and respectful of those with differing opinions. Most of all, President Reagan's main contribution to Americans was that, after the tough decade of the seventies, he made us feel good about ourselves again. His optimistic, we-can-do-anything leadership was arguably more important than his politics.

The mixture of outrage politics with fundamentalist Christianity has resulted in especially unfortunate consequences. I was distressed to read a recent poll that stated Americans who attended church every week were about 10 percentage points more likely than non-attendees to believe that torture is sometimes appropriate. Which leads to an obvious question: Who would Jesus torture?

It's all so alien to our Utah values. The most eloquent expression of those values is the book "Standing for Something" by President Hinckley. I have to be honest: I don't understand how someone can contemplate chapter four of that book, entitled "Our Fading Civility", and not feel uncomfortable with Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the rest.

In his dedication to wife and family, his pragmatic approach to problems and his ability to make us optimistic and hopeful again, it seems President Obama has more in common with President Reagan than his modern disciples. I suppose the outrage junkies are going ballistic over that comparison, and I don't mean to minimize the differences in political philosophy between the two men; but in the important things, our first African American president is the true successor to Reagan.

If Republicans want to be relevant again, they need a message of optimism and hope. That message will require abandonment of their addiction to outrage.

Steve Olsen is chair of the Weber County Democrats.