( I don’t fit neatly into “conservative” or “liberal” idealogies, especially the traditonal ones: I think government is good, but I’m very wary of free trade and would like to dismantle both CAFTA and NAFTA, for example.)

It’s so true the Republicans have become the party of greedy neo-cons- that’s all they care about, it seems, is money. I always say that I’m not rich enough to vote Republican, and I hope I never will be. (What with the camel through the needle’s eye and all.)

I respect values voters, but I am disgusted by the way the Republicans have so crassly exploited religious values for their own political gain. I think that’s why Huckabee has done as well as he has in this race- he doesn’t seem like he’s faking it to impress Ralph Reed. Even though I disagree with Huckabee on many points, both political and theological, I find his sincerity appealing, and am far, far more likely to vote for him than I am any other Republican candidate.

Excellent point!

I’d say there is more than one reason, and one reason goes to your subsequent column on the condom and the tampon. Many of us evangelicals don’t make the connection between loving God and loving people. The most we’ll do is “share the Gospel.” We’ll tell others to get right with God, but we don’t love them enough to keep our condoms and tampons in our cars rather than ditching them where others can walk past them. [I'll bet those are the same people who drive no more than the speed limit in the left lane! ;0) But I digress.] So, as I was saying, many of us see no disconnect between depending on Christ for salvation and depending on government for everything economic.

Another reason is that pre-Vat II Catholics are nurtured in traditionalism and evangelicals are not so much. Our traditionalism is very much fragmented, and extends only as far back as whatever our first few pastors happened to have learned and taught us. Evangelicals would be more fusionist conservatives, blending some tradition with individualism/libertarianism, since we do have a fiercely individualistic (in a herd-like sort of way!) streak. It’s why so many of us flock around Joel Osteen.

Another reason, I believe, is simply this: Christianity is not conservatism. Or, I should say, it’s not Conservatism, as described by either politicians or intellectuals. While Kirk does make good points, I as a new Christian was turned off when he wrote that Christianity is a tradition rather than a living relationship — I’m not quoting, obviously; I’m writing my impression. But the libertarian conservatives are even further away, typically, or so it seems to me, as they often have no use at all for Christianity — Ayn Rand, their patron saint, was an atheist. While there are lots of compatibilities between Conservatism and Christianity, there is a reason they have different names.

David R makes astute points, as is his habit. I agree: Why should the feds be expected to fix everything? I have a friend who calls himself conservative and believes that if the oil companies can’t come up with alternative fuels, then the government should. (Maybe the first thing we should demand is that the feds create a bureau like the FDA, but instead of qualifying drugs, this one, the FCA, would qualify who could call themselves conservative! Or not.) David and I agree: The feds should be limited in what they can control.

Now, a libertarian is inclined to say the feds should control almost nothing. Highways can be built by private companies that charge a toll to users rather than by a fed govt that taxes everyone. One prominent libertarian economist said light houses could be privately built/owned, and operators would go out in speed boats to collect a toll from passing vessels — calmer minds suggested they could be built by consortiums of insurance companies, who would benefit from the lighthouses.

But traditional conservatives tend to say — and this is where it gets messy — the feds should be involved in some areas and to some extent. One conservative principle, borrowed from the Catholics, is subsidiarity — handling matters at the lowest effective level. So do we need a quality control on drugs by government? Could you test drugs yourself and be confident that your family could sue successfully if/when you were wrong? OK, then maybe you should want your state government to do it — use the pharmacist professors at the state U (what Kirk referred to as Behemoth University). (Of course, that might work in states like Ohio where they have THE Ohio State University, but what about states like Michigan, that can’t even recruit an honest football coach?) 50 state SDAs could work, but I have no problem with one federal FDA. I’ll bet most conservatives did when it was first established; I’ll bet few do today — and would think you were a nutty libertarian if you suggested eliminating it. I’m not suggesting that David did want to abolish the FDA. And I agree on principle that feds should stay out of healthcare. But where would conservatives draw their line? The FDA is a part of healthcare. Would we draw the line after the FDA but before Medicare? Or would we also include Medicare but exclude Medicaid? Reasonable conservatives can disagree on this, just as reasonable Christians can disagree [well, maybe that's not true -- if you're reasonable, you'll agree with me. ].

Two challenges for conservatives in deciding how large a fed govt needs to be to do the limited matters David describes are the impact of technology and the impact of large corporate organizations. To have justice, we need something large enough to counter a large oppressor. You yourself have a tough time going up against your insurance company or an airline. You need something large enough, with enough clout, to work out justice for you. Or more correctly, to work out justice for your neighbor — after all, the bible teaches we are to accept suffering when we are wrongly mistreated and thereby glorify Christ.

Dan — one more and I’ll shut up — you mention the family whose child was taken because of a bruised forehead. This may not be common, but it ain’t rare, either. Laws in at least many states do require doctors and day cares to report such injuries — you could be punished if caught not doing so. And the govt workers who investigate fear media repercussions if they leave a child in an abusive situation (plus I suspect many just like the power), so they tend to take the kid. But remember: This is not the feds at work. This is your local government, probably at the county level, maybe even the city level. This is supposed to be where you’re safest, away from the grasp of the feds. But it’s just not that way any more. Community isn’t community any more; it’s us against them. Even, sometimes, within our churches, it seems.

OK, one more — Ron, you’ll note that I never grouse. I describe the problems inherent in situations and express my disappointment. That would only be grousing if someone else did it!