The Electoral Limits of Xenophobia: will there be a political alliance between US Christian/Muslims?

[Trotsky]

Right now, as right-wing nationalists will gladly explain in detail, there is some level of long-term incompatibility with the alliance of left-wing secularists and Muslim immigrants (in particular) in the United States. Conversely, there are definitive social policy compatibilities between Muslims and the domestic groups that most fiercely oppose them on the right.

There is no shortage of facial irony to the fact that the left wing is fighting the right wing on behalf of a community to the right of the right wing. Conversely, there is no shortage of irony that the right wing is moving farther right and mobilizing against the left by way of resisting import of further-right social groups.

So, it seems to follow that once xenophobic rhetoric loses its power of persuasion in the Republican Party, and the American right is not openly hostile to Muslims and Latin Americans, that the communities, especially Muslim Americans, should be expected to team up with the social-traditionalist American right against the left's policies of gender and sexual equality, access to contraceptive services, separation of church and state, etc.

So, given that the Muslim community, and to a lesser extent the Latin American community, is coming to the United States from nations with social-traditionalist policies much more in-line with the American right than the American left, how long will it be until we see this electoral shift? Or will ethnic-based tensions ultimately prevail and prevent this alliance by way of mass deportation, etc.?

 

[spin]

Electoral as in what?


They already vote along the same lines on social issues, except for the Muslim focused ones obviously.

 

[Son of Jamin]

In Sweden and much of Europe, there is an overarching strategy among the Muslim brotherhood and other Muslim organizations to infiltrate political parties. In Sweden, they quickly filled ranks within a left-wing Green Party but after some scandals, they lost some key members. Now, they are negotiating openly with a Centrist party.

These groups don't care about the host nation's politics, only the politics that will benefit them and help them to move their agenda forward.

So it's not a left- or right issue per se.

 

[Trotsky]

Electoral as in what?


They already vote along the same lines on social issues, except for the Muslim focused ones obviously.

Electoral as in creating a political coalition under one party. In the United States, we have single member district plurality in a two-party system. It doesn't really allow for a-la-carte type of politics.

 

[syct23]

Nope..

Literally read the first sentence.

Then last..

Nope.

Explain...

 

[Trotsky]

In Sweden and much of Europe, there is an overarching strategy among the Muslim brotherhood and other Muslim organizations to infiltrate political parties. In Sweden, they quickly filled ranks within a left-wing Green Party but after some scandals, they lost some key members. Now, they are negotiating openly with a Centrist party.

These groups don't care about the host nation's politics, only the politics that will benefit them and help them to move their agenda forward.

So it's not a left- or right issue per se.

It is a left-right issue per se if their "agenda" is necessarily composed of right-wing social policies. I am not knowledgeable on these European parliamentary developments, but the most narrow of ethnic self interests can only extend so far before the requirement of right-wing social policies kicks in. That is: once recognition of religious autonomy, easing of foreign interference with Muslim countries, and tailoring of immigration guidelines is in some capacity resolved, the obvious next step would be social policies congruent with those of the host countries' right wings.

 

[Trotsky]

Nope..

Literally read the first sentence.

Then last..

Explain...

Read the words before the first and last sentence, as opposed to, say, not reading, then saying you didn't read, and then asking for an explanation about what you didn't read.

 

[syct23]

That's a lot of comma's ...

 

[spin]

Electoral as in creating a political coalition under one party. In the United States, we have single member district plurality in a two-party system. It doesn't really allow for a-la-carte type of politics.

Ok.


When it comes to voting for a candidate, no. Not as you described.

One of the top points for a candidate, and for our supposedly Conservative Christian posters here, has been speaking out against other religions.

Once religion seeps into politics, it just becomes tribalism. And those are two opposing tribes

 

[nostradumbass]

The left is walking a fine line. They don't have policies of equality, they want the table tilted in favor of whatever racial group happens to be losing. Muslims are not a big enough percentage of the country to swing anything anyway, and Muslims who were born here aren't really all that Muslim anyway.

Though traditional values of actual Muslims should be more on the right, the left is a lot more malleable and Muslim kids born in the US don't maintain the same religious values as their parents and tend to vote as minorities rather than religious people, which is often the democrat candidate.

 

[Trotsky]

Ok.


When it comes to voting for a candidate, no. Not as you described.

One of the top points for a candidate, and for our supposedly Conservative Christian posters here, has been speaking out against other religions.

Once religion seeps into politics, it just becomes tribalism. And those are two opposing tribes

Well, this is the premise of the topic: is purported Christian and Muslim principle so strong that it will eventually trump tribalism?

Or is it the case that, in the alternative, the Christian majority will vote any what way (for fascism or communism, outlawing abortion or full access to late term) simply to oppose the Muslims, and vice versa?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Right now, as right-wing nationalists will gladly explain in detail, there is some level of long-term incompatibility with the alliance of left-wing secularists and Muslim immigrants (in particular) in the United States. Conversely, there are definitive social policy compatibilities between Muslims and the domestic groups that most fiercely oppose them on the right.

There is no shortage of facial irony to the fact that the left wing is fighting the right wing on behalf of a community to the right of the right wing. Conversely, there is no shortage of irony that the right wing is moving farther right and mobilizing against the left by way of resisting import of further-right social groups.

So, it seems to follow that once xenophobic rhetoric loses its power of persuasion in the Republican Party, and the American right is not openly hostile to Muslims and Latin Americans, that the communities, especially Muslim Americans, should be expected to team up with the social-traditionalist American right against the left's policies of gender and sexual equality, access to contraceptive services, separation of church and state, etc.

So, given that the Muslim community, and to a lesser extent the Latin American community, is coming to the United States from nations with social-traditionalist policies much more in-line with the American right than the American left, how long will it be until we see this electoral shift? Or will ethnic-based tensions ultimately prevail and prevent this alliance by way of mass deportation, etc.?

A lot of Muslims were Republican before the onset of the War on Terror. My dad was a registered Republican until then and even when he left the party he became independent. I suspect its because of the social conservatism as you point out here so for that bridge to be rebuilt we basically have to get past the War on Terror and allow some other minority to become the primary threatening Other but it seems as if we're far from that happening.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It's most definitely an interesting "what-if". The Right/GOP in the states could / probably will have to realign their ethonationalistc mantra in order to stop the future bleeding from bad policy. The traditional views of conservativism aligns pretty well with other religions; and even minority groups that typical have high numbers that follow a religious identity.

It's something that the left is aware and probably extremely cautious of. Considering that in the entire history of US political representatives at the federal level, maybe 7-8(?) have identified as atheists / non religious. You absolutely have to believe that way more actually would identify as non religious if their career path was in any other field than professional politics. That's a hell of a thing to think about: the synonymous connection between success in politics having such a large dependency on religious views -- real or otherwise.

No way Obama is religious if his support among the black contingency didn't depend on it. No way Hillary picks Tim as a running mate if they weren't worried about the Catholic vote.

 

[ocfightfan]

No, I don't see that happening. Maybe brief alliances on narrow issues of common interest but there will be no long term or grand alliance. While there are things in common the essence and big goals of each religion is very different.

 

[spin]

Well, this is the premise of the topic: is purported Christian and Muslim principle so strong that it will eventually trump tribalism?

Or is it the case that, in the alternative, the Christian majority will vote any what way (for fascism or communism, outlawing abortion or full access to late term) simply to oppose the Muslims, and vice versa?

From what I've seen, nothing trumps tribalism.


And no, they'll both vote to their beliefs which both being conservative will sometimes being common. But they'll be no Coalition or no agreement to do so.

There's no motivation pushing these to groups towards the end you're proposing.

 

[Fawlty]

It's an interesting question, but I think it's eclipsed by the enmity between the Jesus and the Muhammad, at least for the next 10 years. But after then, who the hell knows.