I don't know when a valid form of argumentation became, X usually says shit so anything X says must be shit and therefor we dont have to engage with the substance of the argument put forward by X.
I think Carrol asks an important question: is christian fundemenatlism an ideological resource ready to hand that conservatives gravitate towards to legitimate their conservatism or populist reactions? Or rather, is christian fundementalism that which produces conservatism and populist reaction? The former makes one want to ask the further question about why people come to hold conservative values and employ reactionary populism. The latter terminates the conversation.
It seems the Repub strategists took the latter path to the former as did fundementalist preachers. Who new materialism would be taken seriously by the right and derrided by the left.
Travis
Carrol wrote:
> Does their xtianity flow from their conservatism or their conservatism
> from the xtianity, or do both flow from some X not covered in the exit
> polls?
>
> What evidence is there that their religious belief is an independent
> variable?
To which M. Dawson replied:
Everybody who's Carrol Cox or properly worships Carrol Cox knows that fundamentalist Christianity has no independent impact on American politics! Duh. Obvious!