Essay on Analysis of The Party Is Over by Mile Lofgren
762 Words4 Pages
The Party is Over by Mike Lofgren goes undercover to reveal what politics is like behind the screen. I believe this book was more for criticizing the GOP and Republicans that the Democrats. The GOP and Republicans are a lot different in politics now than they were decades ago. The book talks about how the Republicans are against the government, how Republicans are anti-science and anti-intellectual, and also how they view religious rights. All of these lead to problems with politics. The Democrats were brought up than the Republicans, but were still mentioned. They too did some damage in today’s politics. This book informs us on how the Republicans went crazy and Democrats became useless, and how it’s become a problem. The Republicans…show more content… Honestly, science is way more accurate than religion will ever be. It is bizarre to completely knock scientific research and scientific research off their political agenda, because of their religious affiliations. The Republican Party has been overtaken by religion sense the rise of the religious right. The religious fundamentalism may have been the key factor in the transformation of the Republican Party. It is the largest single bloc in their voting base. The GOP bases themselves and others off of religious beliefs. The Party is Over states, that the Republican Party “cuts slack to the candidates that claimed to have been washed by of the lamb and reborn into a more Christian life.” From this they overlook the candidate’s flaws, if they agree with the Republican Party’s fundamentalists values. I took these previous statements as an inefficient way to choose if a candidate is good for presidency. What if the candidate was involved with multiple accounts of misdemeanors? Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition stated: “Those people in the Republican primary have got to lay off this stuff. They’re forcing their leaders, the front-runners, into position that will mean they lose the general election.”
Even Robertson agrees with the fact that judging a candidate based off of their religious beliefs is no way to unprofessional way to elect them. Continuing on I don’t think fundamentalists are fit for presidency because of their authoritarian traits.