The Red-Capped Prophet

I've so far resisted the temptation to comment on Mad Mark Latham's comments in his book; partly because they're hardly unexpected, partly because an awful lot of people have used them as an excuse to push their own barrows just that little bit further already, but mostly because it's all a gigantic distraction from the real game, which is the IR reforms coming in.

I have to, however, comment on Latham's description of Gallop, Carr and Beattie as 'A-grade assholes'. Sure, he might be sore that they gave his leadership the coup de grace, but what did he expect? He ran the Party into the ground following the election, and Dr Geoff over here in the west was coming up to an election facing all of the anti-Labor crap that was being generated by that. Of course he was going to respond!

The Premiers did no more than state the obvious - Latham had to go.

Apart from all that, where did Latham stand on issues close to Labor's heart? He was, as Peter Brent describes him a 'serial Howard imitator, who went to water at the slightest provocation'. Well, I just got back from a rally in Perth over IR, where Gallop addressed the crowd - that man has spine, presence and a brain.

So if he's an A-grade asshole, I reckon Latho rates a 'D'.

.

Apparently I'm not allowed to respond to the replies my comment at Timmy Blair generated. So here it is anyway. And fellas, respond all you like - we're for free speech over here, regardless or how moronic our detractors are.

I wouldn't be so sure I voted for Latho, old son.

I know that the Right doesn't just like having it's cake and eating it too, you like the whole bakery at your disposal. Ie, claiming that the Howard govt is more worker friendly than Labor because wage rises under the Tories were higher than under Hawke/Keating, and then trying to claim that the union movement causes higher wage costs for business.

It's simple, fellas - is Latham's judgement so sound you're willing to quote him chapter and verse on the ALP, or is it so bad that he should never have been PM?

Me, I tend to the latter. Consistently. Good word that - look it up.

Update - Kevin Andrews reckons workers only have jobs to protest about because he gave them a one, or something equally bizarre.

See, thing is Kevin, if all this job creation has occurred in the last five years, bit hard to say a lack of IR reform's retarding employment, isn' t it?

You bloody tit.




Apologies for the lack of posting recently - new jobs, interstate moves and general drunkenness have stood in the way. But I can't stay away for too long, not with the absolute rivers of crap that have been floating around the nation of late to comment on.

While the last week has provided a lefty, anti-Howard blogger like me with a smorgasboard of opportunities to tear down the edifice of shite that is conservatism, I'll confine myself to the proposed IR reforms due to time and other constraints, a just illustrate a couple of points on Uncle Johnny's rhetoric that need challenging.

1. Johnny and Kev reckon that their government is "the best friend Australian workers have ever had", because wages have gone up 14% under their government, but only went up 1.4% undre Hawkie and Keating. Now, the Hawke/Keating period was characterised, as far as IR was concerned, by the Accords and the central role of the union movement. So how, exactly, do unions contribute to high wage costs for business?

Going further than that, don't the economic reforms of the period, and the growth initiated in it (from '91) demonstrate the positive and constructive role of the union movement in furthering reform and underpinning prosperity?

Of course, if you've got an ideological obsession like the Libs do, all that means nothing. You just take the Alexander Downer approach to historical revisionism - ignore facts, quote untruths and generally peddle a lot of rubbish in order to lobotomise yourself and enable big business interest groups to pull down your panst and have their way with you.

2. Apparently, going on strike to combat these changes, and/or spending money advertising their true impact, is a shocking waste of time and resources. Now, Robert Corr rightly hammers this crap at the Red Rag, but I have to add my voice to the choir pointing out that this is a piece of massive hypocrisy from these dickheads.

3. The libs reckon they've got a mandate for the changes. Funny how I thought they had a mandate to keep interest rates down. Don't remember much about Industrial Relations during the campaign - do you?

Come on you lot - if you were so proud of what you were proposing, why weren't there big campaign ads last October....."Work More for Less Pay - It's the Australian Way". Maybe instead of an 'L' plate, Latham could have been wearing a hard hat and a wifebeater.

The fact is, everyone involved knows what a crock this is, from the PM on down. Even the Rightists have been conspicuously quiet on this one, to the point of the Liberal council the other night raising serious concerns about the proposals. And that's before we get to the Nationals....mind you, they've never been too keen on exposing their constituency to unalloyed market forces either, have they?

These are crap reforms from a crap government. The only dismissals that should be expedited are Vanstone's, Ruddock's, Andrews' and Howard's. Mind you, at least Costello's working on the last one.....

.

Bob Hawke gives Peter Costello and the Libs this spray in today's Oz.....

....with a nice backhander at Keating as well.

...or at least, those running asylum seeker policy should be inmates.

Great speech by Lindsay Tanner on the Mandatory Imprisonment changes, coutesy of Aunty Margo....read and discuss.

So John's gone as leader of the Country Whinger's Party, citing a dodgy prostate. Wouldn't be the first time the Rural Rump has been a pain in the arse, but there it is.

In all fairness to the bloke, he does have a medical condition that's less than fun. Unfortunately for the Whingers, they've also got a problem when it comes to Telstra and their natural constituency. I almost sympathise with the Whingers, representing a group of people who's motto seems to be "we'll all be rooned", but not enough to give a toss if they have a few issues selling the Telstra sale to the hicks.

Interesting thing about all this is Ando's not retiring from the House. And I think this suggests that the CWP are more nervous than they let on about Telstra.

Independents don’t win marginal seats, they win safe ones, the safer the easier (refer to the state seats of Chaffey and Mt Gambier in SA as examples). Now, with the Telstra issue really biting in the bush, an independent candidate (like a local mayor, state member etc) promising to fight the full sale of the telco could conceivably get up. When you take into account the fact that the government of the day usually sufers a swing against in a by-election, and the fact that Ando’s primary vote would be inflated due to his local name and popularity, there is a very good chance an independent with good preference deals could win the seat.

Now that would be a monumental slap in the face for the Government, and a real blow to their chances of getting the full sale thru the Senate, given people like Barnaby Joyce’s ruminations. The Nationals would oppose the sale if they saw it as a choice between political extinction and selling Telstra, and losing Gwydir to an anti-Telstra candidate would almost ensure dramas between the Coalition partners on that score.

So Ando’s going to hold on til ‘07….wise move, from a political angle, methinks.

.

Update - apparently over-censorship is all the Left's fault. Ah, I should have known, shouldn't I? All this time is was the really the homosexual pinko communists ruiing all the fun. Nothing to do with Draper and the Bible bashers at all.

Excuse me while I wipe my arse with Albrechtsen's latest effort.


Irony, irony, all is irony.

The do-gooders are at it again, worried about a bit of shagging on TV. Led by Trish Draper (surely one of the worst MPs to serve four terms in the history of the parliament) and the Lyons Forum, these self-appointed guardians of moral decency reckon that Channel 10 ought to take the Uncut show off the air.

What a crock. This is the same Trish Draper who was in strife for this (also here, and here). Pretty sordid stuff, not to mention stupid. She's trotted out the old line about protecting children. Hey Trish, ever heard the theory that parents are supposed to babysit their kids, not the TV? Mind you, with her example as a mother, perhaps parenting standards aren't what they used to be.

In Draper's world, it seems that bonking's ok if you're both cheating on your partners and flying around Europe on the taxpayer's dollar, but not if you're both single, consenting adults. And it seems that depicting, publicly, gratuitous content on the Internet is ok if you're shagging the local MP, but not if you're on a TV show which is clearly rated and timeslotted for adults.

To borrow a line from the dear departed Member for Werriwa, if Draper was listed on the Stock Exchange, she'd be trading as Hypocrisy Inc.

This is the same MP who tried to ban the movie Lolita, and then on radio was forced to admit that she had neither seen the film nor read the book. Also the same MP who has a large AOG church in her area, and sucks a lot of Family First c--k for preferences. Do these people have no shame?

Incidentally, when it comes to the bible thumpers, what's wrong with a birthday suit, anyway? God created Adam and Eve in the raw, and I've got a sneaking suspicion he might have created shagging as well.

You see, Trish, I couldn't care less about what you do with your toyboys, or what bored, repressed, suburban folk like to watch on TV. So where do you get off telling me or anyone else what we can see in the privacy of our own homes?

Ran across this effort from Uncle John Anderson earlier....it's a year or so old, but presumably still how this little man and his mates think.

I know this subject's an oldie, but it's still a goodie. And it illustrates the sort of crap that the Right spews out on a regular basis. The lack of comprehesion in this piece is stunning.....the lack of logical thought....Voltaire famously defended the right of every idiot to speak his feeble mind. He may not have been so vehement in that defence if he had had to endure these sorts of assaults on the national IQ level.

So we're going to step by step walk through this lunacy. Take a deep breath....

You can get a fair idea of how much grasp old Ando has of reality from the opening paragraph; "So far it [the same sex marriage debate] has been conducted in emotive terms...which has not always been helpful or beneficial".

Nice way to start, John. We're dealing with marriage here, not the budgetary figures for the Assistant Vice-Deputy Chairman for the Department of Pens and Paper. Marriage is always emotive, and so it should be. If people are ever getting married without their emotions involved, I think even the conservatives will stop preaching it's benefits.

That's before I even point out that most of the emotive language has come from the moron chorus that opposes equal rights for gay and lesbian people....or that it's Johnno's government that has sought to manipulate people through emotive language on refugees, welfare recipients and the like. But we move on....

After carrying on about how he believes in the Bible - nice little sop to his bible bashing constituency - he then demonstrates why that doesn't matter, and starts off with this gem;

"A democratic society rests on two principles: that citizens exercise choice in political and personal processes, and that the choice of the majority rules (while respecting the view of the minority). Bearing this in mind, the Australian Government of the day is the embodiment of the majority choice". Now for once I agree with Johnny boy. Choice. Citizens exercising choice. Apparently it's one of the cornerstones of democracy. Remember that, we'll come back to it.

The choice of the majority rules? In matters of government, yes, but in matters of personal morality too? We might as well dissolve marriage altogether, on the basis that de facto relationships are now the norm. What a stupid argument.

But it get worse. He goes on the assert that Government of the day represents the majority view. What, on everything? Someone ought to tell Petrou Georgiou that. People don't vote for an issue, they vote for a party. That doesn't mean they agree with every word that proceedeth from the mouth of a Coalition speaker. If John actually thinks that every voter who returned the Coalition is against gay marriage, he's either mentally diseased or just plain dishonest. I doubt Ingrid Tall, for one, signed up for that plank of the platform.

And presumably, when a Labor government is returned, John will never oppose any of their policies, because they will represent the majority view. Crap. Arrogant, idiotic crap. And we've only just begun.

Now we get to the fun stuff. "A homosexual lifestyle is a valid choice within a secular society. However, it is a decision that is made and exercised with an understanding that other lifestyle choices might be negated or denied". Excuse me? A valid choice? Presumably Mr Anderson chose to be a handsome white man, as well. Come on John, this is ridiculous. With all the homophobia, government-sponsored inequality and intolerance in our society that is aimed at gyas, who in their right f*cking mind would sit down one day and think, "I know! I'll turn poofter. What fun that'll be!"

No pun intended, but it buggers me how people can continue to peddle such crap. Homosexuality involves the same element of choice that being heterosexual does. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Zero. Got that? Ever spoken to a gay or lesbian person? Any of them ever tell you they just chose to be gay? Didn't think so.

So Ando is saying that if you choose to be a willy woofter, you deserve to be ostracised. Hardly a surprising attitude, from a Government which thinks that if you choose to be a refugee you deserve to be locked up, but quite nonsensical and quite immoral.

Even if sexuality were a choice, the question is not that they shouldn't complain, but why, in a secular society, is that not considered a valid one? Ando's just arguing for the status quo, from the status quo. Amazing....and not only does this man vote, he actually runs the country.

But we press on...."Within Australia, the homosexual community represents roughly 1.5 percent of the population. Within that community, it seems unlikely that a majority support same-sex marriage. Gay marriage, therefore, represents a minority view - which must be respected - but can never dominate the majority view that heterosexual marriage is the norm for Australian society".

Hang on. why assume that every heterosexual is opposed to gay marriage? I'm straight, and I'm all for a bit of husband-and-husband action. John's maths only work if you assume that every non-gay person is an anti-gay person; let me enlighten him, that is certainly not the case.

And no-one is arguing the numerical supremacy of us straight folk, or that the "norm" is, by weight of number, a heterosexual one. Big f*cking deal. Once again, if we apply that logic, we should ban inter-racial marriages, because most marriages occur between people of a similar background. Stupid, John. Stupid.

Then after babbling that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice (choice my arse, but we've been through all that), we come to this bit of gold from Uncle John;

"...the dominant view within Australian society is that of heterosexual marriage – one man and one woman. In that sense, the definition of marriage proposed – that marriage is the “union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” – is merely the expression of the democratic majority. It is a view upheld and supported by the Australian Government. Similarly, the logical corollary is that children are best served when raised by both a father and a mother. It would be inconsistent to separate these two issues in any legislative protection of marriage".

We've aready seen that the dominant view is no way to run a railroad, and certainly no way to determine what is right or wrong. I'm sure that, as a Christian, Johnny baby wouldn't suggest that truth is arrived at by a show of hands. It's no justification to say that because the majority believe something, it's a good idea, or good policy, or generally right at all. Because the mob must have a reason for saying what they do, too. They must be valid reasons at the core - and John doesn't have any, just assumption and inconsistencies.

Hang on - what's that second part of this paragraph? Children are best served by a mother and a father? Tell my dad that, who was raised by his sole parent dad. Tell widows that, looking after their kids. Presumably Mr Anderson will support compulsory divorce for anyone investigated by the Child Protection Unit.

But there's another assumption here, that marriage is about children. Ever heard of people that don't want children, John? And here's another gross inconsistency - while gays can't marry, because it'd be bad for the kids, paedophiles can. So can convicted wife-batterers. And if marriage is all about kids, I suppose Ando reckons that infertile people should be banned from the altar.

What this inconcsistency shows is that real issue for John and Co. isn't kid's welfare, or anything of the sort. Their real agenda is to isolate and demonise a section of society. Now, I know I'm a pinko commy gay-whale loving lefty, who sees a conspiracy theory under my bed every night, but the Coalition have got form on demonising people - they do it to win elections.

Ultimately, John couldn't give a toss about gay people. He has no real arguments to support his position, just assumptions and inconsistencies, and a fair dose of ignorance. Hell of a way to run a railroad, wouldn' t ya say?

And here's the kicker; "While minority views must be respected and accepted, they must not dominate if the true definition of democracy is to be upheld".

Now you just wait a cotton-pickin' second. Wait right the f*ck there. Who the hell said anything about domination? Are the Gay Liberation Army marching on us? Secret fifth columnists posioning our pure, straight society, waiting to take us over? That feared terror group, the Mauve Hand, trying to subjugate us all?

What's at issue here is not the outlaw of straight marriage. You won't have to turn gay to get a ring, you know, John. No-one is denied their straight preferences just because Uncle Bob and Aunty Craig want to be able to say they're married. No, it goes back to what Ando says is the foundation of democracy.

Remember that from the beginning? That bit about exercising choice? The issue is that at present, gay people cannot exercise the choice to get married, while heteros can. If gay marraige was legal, then straight people could still get married. You don't like poofters getting married? Simple - don't marry a poof!

Anderson would deny the foundation of democracy to 1.5% of his nation. That's a fact. Gues how many people's participation in the full rights of democracy gay marriage denies?

Zero f*cking percent. Got it? None.

The wishes of the minority in no way devalue or dominate the majority. Would Ando's own marriage be any less precious, if a couple of shirt-lifters could tie the knot too? Would two committed men in a marriage devalue it any more than Britney Spear's 48 hour job?

I just don't get it. This bloke runs the country. In a civilised society, he wouldn't allowed to vote, with mental processes that dulled. Pull your head out of your arse, Anderson. You should apologise to the country for the national disgrace you and you conservative mates are.

One final thought - if conservatives are so damned keen to stop gays people having sex, why don't they let them get married? It seems to work for everybody else....

Update on Bomber - over at Dogfight, the Saint gives Janet Albrechtsen an almighty spray, as does Flute on his wonderful site. Sunili tees off as well.

As both of them point out, it's not that hard to make the Right's efforts at justfying this crap fall over.....

Update yet again - Michael Costello (surprise surprise) points out the obvious in today's Oz.
.

I've been watching with a sort of grim fascination lately, as the Federal Labor Party seems to be having the mother of all second thoughts about Kim Beazley as leader. Again.

Now I'm not exactly president of the Kim Beazley Fan Club. At times, he would have lost a spinal competition with an amoeba, and he uses 57 words where four will do. But I do think he's actually got this one something close to right.

What the hell is it with the Left? After crying for years that nobody sticks up for the bottom 80% of society anymore, that they've abandoned their roots, and all the other bleating coming from the cheap seats, Kim finally grew a spine and opposed the silliest, most blatantly unfair set of fiscal policies we've seen in a long, long time. And now he's being berated for that! You can't win with these wingnuts.

Now I will agree that the whole thing could well have been handled better. Kim should have waited two days until his Budget reply to articulate his response, instead of shooting on the run Latham-style in an interview on the night. And the word "amend" instead of "oppose" would have worked a treat too. But all the triumphalist babble from the right-wing commentariat (Bolt, et al) and the rantings of sections of the Federal caucus and the ALP generally, ignores a couple of things.

Firstly, there hasn't been any great movement in the polls on the back of this issue. If it was shaking Middle Australia to its foundations, we'd be seeing more than a 51-49 split in the polls....it'd be more 54-46. October '04 saw it at 53-47, and in the eight months succeeding we've seen Howard playing the statesman after the tsunami, Latham's demise (and none too pretty at that), a massive bribe of a Budget from the government, and this supposed massive cock-up from Beazley. And it's 51-49 (52-48 if you're very generous) .

I think reports of the ALP's demise have been exaggerated, to tell you the complete truth. In fact, I'd say that Brand Labor looks ok - at least much better than it did on October 10, 2004. WA returned a Labor government quite nonchalantly, the NT should see a strong Labor retain in the election there on the weekend, and Beazley is actually punching on. Now, he doesn't posess the earthy charm of a Hawkie, or the verbal swordplay of Keating, but he is actually punching on.

I'm going to ignore the dribblings of the Right and their mouthpieces - it would be strange indeed for the ALP to start setting it's agenda with their satisfaction in mind. But the utter tools on our own side of the fence.....well, they just about drive me all to pot.

What would these morons on the Left have him (and the Federal ALP generally) do? Pick a fight over the DIMIA business? Wake up and smell the oil in the water - the public do not care anymore, if they ever did. Unless you've got video of Peter Reith strangling a child, that one's dead as an issue. Keep interest rates low, or promise to, and people do not give a flying suitcase if some smelly reffos are locked away. Besides, previous weak-kneed responses to that issue from the ALP have rather hand-cuffed them at the moment....and Amandatory Dentention Vanstone and her bumbling, mumbling department are doing a splendid job of making themselves look stupid without any help at all.

Carry on about the welfare cuts in the Budget? Ok, the absolute immorality of giving wealthy buggers squillions, and paying for it by ripping off the disabled, and then suggesting that if you have a disability you're somehow rorting the system, makes us all sick. And I suspect, turns off more than a few mortgage-belt swingers. But how can the ALP talk about all that, if it supports the tax cuts? You have to oppose them, or you might as well shut up.

The welfare lobby is quietly organising. Targetted, smart campaigns, in marginal seats, with high numbers of disabled people in them....it's happening. Why would Bomber need to even talk about it, except the obligatory blast every now and again. Just let the lobby go to work, and position yourself to benefit from the odium that will attach to the notion of kicking a bttler when he's down. How do you do that? OPPOSE THE TAX CUTS.

I have a feeling that two years from now, this period could be remarked upon as the beginning of the end for the Howard years. Yes, it might get rough, and we might cop some bad polling in the short-term (although I've given my view about that earlier). But in every electoral cycle since 1996, the ALP have led the government during the "off years", only to be beaten at the booth when it matters. People aren't voting now, but they are getting a sense of what Kim and the ALP are all about.

What's so scary about a genuine policy sh*t fight? Let's have an argument about ideas, let's have a fight about policy. We beat the living suitcase out of each other over here on the Left; why do we quiver at the thought of beating up the Libs occasionally?

Let's have that debate. Because when you stack the Left agenda up against the Right's, the Left wins damn near every time. And if we don't believe that, what the hell are we doing on the Left? We need to pull our heads out of our polls, and get a brawl going. Because when the rest of it all, when the DIMIA scandals and the welfare backlash and the poor economic management kicks in, all people will want to know is two things - what do you stand for, and, can we trust you? We lost 2001 on the first question and 2004 on the second. And big Kim seems to have grasped that nettle at long last.

So for those of you moderate lefties like me - hang in there. Kim's not a populist like our esteemed Premiers, and he might have swallowed a thesaurus when he was 15, but he just might be on to something here. And if nothing else, he's right.

Update - poll published in Sydney's Tele (admittedly not the high water mark of opinion polling, but if anyone else has even asked the question I'd like to see it), asks the question, "Should Labor block the tax cuts?" Even with a loaded question like that, result was 52% yes, 40% no, 8% uncommitted.

Vindication? No. Indication? Yes.

I've been following this conversation over Signposts (link at the bottom). Over 200 comments and counting.....what I think's remarkable about this exchange is that for the most part it's been civil and open.

What I don't get is the mindset of some people who would have the unknowable, illimitable, mysterious God of history encase himself in a book, easily deciphered by a culture far removed from the original audiences, and chopped up into bite-sized certainties for you and me. It's my rule in life to disbelieve anyone who tells me they have the entire extent of life's answers, and especially distrust those who say they don't have the answers but act like they do.

I'm reminded of John Stuart Mill..."not all conservatives are stupid people, but most stupid people are conservatives." Time and again, in politics, religion, sport and sex, I just keep finding that the simple answers aren't usually the right ones - and that the people that subscribe to them usually do so in search of intellectual refuge. Hence, I suppose, why most stupid people are conservative.....but it wears you down after a while.

I suppose that could be called elitist. So be it. I'm not a Rhodes Scholar, but I don't see the value in running down academic excellence on the grounds that it's difficult to understand. St Peter didn't, so I don't see why I or anyone else should. Truth and justice are not products of the lowest common denominator, or of boof-headed ignorance. Rather they're the products of academic debate and constructive conversation.

Roll on Signposts.

http://www.signposts.org.au/index.php/archives/2005/05/21/what-is-a-liberal/#comment-30659

"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said 'Stop! don't do it!'

'Why shouldn't I?' he said.

I said, 'Well, there's so much to live for!'

He said, 'Like what?'

I said, 'Well...are you religious or atheist?' He said, 'Religious.' I said, 'Me too!

Are you Christian or Buddhist?' He said, 'Christian.' I said, 'Me too!

Are you Catholic or Protestant?' He said, 'Protestant.' I said, 'Me too!

Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?' He said, 'Baptist!' I said, 'Wow! Me too!

Are you Baptist church of god or Baptist church of the lord?' He said, 'Baptist church of god!' I said, 'Me too!

Are you original Baptist church of god, or are you reformed Baptist church of god?' He said, 'Reformed Baptist church of god!' I said, 'Me too!

Are you reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?' He said, 'Reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!' I said, 'Die, heretic scum,' and pushed him off."

I thought it would be perfectly logical to begin a left - leaning blog with a quote from one of the 1960s leading conservatives....

"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

This man ran for President of the United States in 1964, on the Republican ticket. How did we get from there to here in 40 years? How did the Christian Church allow itself to be so prominently identified with one political idealogy? How did that view of politics allow itself to be so totally dominated by one group of people?

I know that there are many, many Christian people who's views on neo-conservative values, as expressed in today's political climate, range from suspicion to abhorrence. But how have they lost their voice? Why has ground been ceded to what is really just religious extremism, to the point where in the non-Christian mind, Christianity = right-wing politics?