Andrew Sullivan – Let Him Have His Cake

[ Back in 2009 I posted a link to Andrew Sullivan’s well-balanced reasoning why he left the political Right behind (Leaving the Right) ]

Recently, Andrew Sullivan wrote another well-balanced reasoning on why (or why not) should a baker be allowed to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple:

Let Him Have His Cake:

Mistake to force the baker:

  • […] I think it was a prudential mistake to sue the baker. Live and let live would have been a far better response. The baker’s religious convictions are not trivial or obviously in bad faith […]
  • […] That is particularly the case when much of the argument for marriage equality was that it would not force anyone outside that marriage to approve or disapprove of it. […]
  • […] It always worries me when gays advocate taking freedom away from other people. It worries me as a matter of principle. […]

Mistake to allow the baker:

  • […] I worry that a decision that endorses religious freedom could effectively nullify a large swathe of antidiscrimination legislation — and have a feeling that Scalia, for example, would have backed the gays in this case on those grounds alone. […]
  • (paraphrasing John Corvino): […] in this particular case, the act of creation is so deeply entwined with hostility to an entire class of people that antidiscrimination laws overrule it. […]
  • […] One final thought as a Christian. Sealing yourself off from those you consider sinners is, in my reading of the Gospels, the reverse of what Jesus taught. […]
    […] Somewhere, the fundamental Christian imperative to love others and be humble before them has been lost. […]

Republican, Inc

Forget the Republican party. Forget political parties at all.

Instead, create a for-profit corporation and sign up shareholders instead of party members.

In this ABCNews article — Whose Tea Party Is It? Nashville Convention Stirs Debate:

Convention spokesman Mark Skoda acknowledged Wednesday that [Judson] Phillips and his wife Sherry Phillips, founders of the for-profit Tea Party Nation Inc., will “make a few bucks” on the event at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center. But Skoda questioned why that should be anyone’s concern.

“Have we gone so far in the Obama-socialist view of the nation that ‘profit’ is a bad word? In particular, if we’re using it to advance the conservative cause?” Skoda asked.

It’s  a perfect time for the idea of party-as-corporation.  What with the Supreme Court granting personhood rights to corporations, your political corporation has much more freedom to use the power of the dollar to advance your cause.

And it might be profitable too.  As a shareholder you would earn dividends and benefit from increasing stock prices.  The corporation would profit from sales of bumper stickers, lawn signs, elephant hats for conventions, tea sets for tea parties, etc.  A corporation is BETTER than a party.

Forget political polls.  We’ll just track the stock prices of Republican Inc and Democratic Inc.

I have seen the future of politics: it looks like Wall Street.  Will the government decide Republican, Inc is too big to fail?


P.S. a government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation…