Why 'Conservatives' Oppose Abortion But Kill Abolition Bills: Understanding Group/Grid Politics
Mary Douglas shared an idea with the world that doesn’t get enough credit. She shared that people don’t live on a spectrum of ideas, but rather are committed to ideas and groups.
In 2006, I finished a thesis about the Schism in the Missouri Baptist Convention. This schism was often described as liberal versus conservative in the media and the Baptist community, with moderates unwilling to commit to either side. However, this linear understanding of the differences were completely wrong.
Churches were suing other churches. Individuals were leading crusades against colleges. And property was being stolen and resold to keep it out of the hands of “fundamentalists.”
They even used the 1 Corinthians 5 passage about not suing other Christians as justification to sue other Christians. The problem was not the linear concept of fundamentalism versus liberals, it was a battle for who could call themselves Baptists. This was strictly about Baptist identity. The identity could be worn by the inheritors who won in secular courts in Cole County.
Everyone assumes that identity is strictly linear. It’s on a line that runs from east to west.
It’s not. Not even close.
The truth is something uncovered by Mary Douglas (Catholic Anthropologist), who maintained her faith despite the secular and atheism of most sociologists around her.
The elegant solution she provided us is called Group/Grid. Essentially, one belongs to a group or multiple groups. These groups are on the X-axis. However, in that group, one has a strong commitment to certain ideas. In the Baptist schism, the old ideas of Academic Integrity, Priesthood of the Believers, Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura were being challenged with a higher commitment to Young Earth Creationism, Inerrancy of Scripture, and Infallibility of Scripture. Yet, in 2006, I failed to see one problem that I see clearly now.
This one problem was that the ideas the fundamentalists and liberals were holding onto were essentially held without an evaluation of the primary thoughts that led to them. Instead, they were glommed onto because they were the best tools to provide a litmus test to determine who was the best Baptist. Liberals believed it required blind obedience to ideas like Sola Fides (Faith alone.) Fundamentalists believed it required blind obedience to Inerrant Scripture (The Bible has no errors.)
The ideas were the brand new fence posts, set up to determine who was in the group and who wasn’t. They had created a brand new group with no true commitment to the ideas. The group was still the same. Both were Baptists, but their ideas about what made one Baptist had changed. They had no magesterium, or teaching authority, either group would both agree to follow and hence, the schism.
Schism in Politics
We see this in Conservative politics. I’ve watched as people argue about supporting the party over the idea. They say, “We can’t win on abortion as defined by you, so we must win based on the good name of Republicans. Don’t besmirch Republicans who fail to have a commitment to conservative ideas.”
This is why we can have Camellia Peterson, an Americans for Prosperity lobbyist, supporting Eric Burlison, a known Mason, and they both will claim the title conservative. This is why Sherry Kuttenkuller, former legislative aide for a Missouri Senator, Bill Eigel, can argue that some murders are okay because polling matters more than ideas.
When challenged about Amendment 3 (Missouri’s abortion amendment), supporters revealed their true framework. One argued: “We can’t have that! Ok. Let’s say no murder at all! We can’t. The public won’t support it - most want some kind of murder.” Another stated plainly: “God doesn’t compromise, Jesus didn’t compromise” but then immediately pivoted to “we cannot make perfect the enemy of good” and “We will fight to save all lives as fast and furious as we can, but we cannot make perfect the enemy of good.”
The telling moment came when a participant was accused of not engaging in “civil debate” simply for stating: “But, I don’t believe the amendment is ‘good’. And that IS my right to believe differently than those that do... I am tired of being told if I don’t go along with the group think, that I am just wrong. It IS my right to disagree.”
The response? “That is not kind, that is not civil, and that is not debate. That is attempting to shut the person down. It’s a political tactic.”
In other words: questioning whether we should compromise on principle is itself “uncivil” because it threatens group cohesion and the path to winning.
The Conservative Label as Fence Post
Consider two prominent Missouri figures who both claim the “conservative” label: Camellia Peterson and Eric Burlison.
Peterson works as Legislative Director for Americans for Prosperity Missouri, a Koch brothers-funded libertarian organization that advocates for eliminating state income tax and school vouchers. These vouchers, as promoted by AFP, primarily function as tax shelters for wealthy Republican donors like the Koch brothers and Rex Sinquefield rather than genuinely helping families.
Burlison, a U.S. Congressman representing Missouri’s 7th District, boasts impressive conservative credentials: a 97.47% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and a 100% rating from Club for Growth. He champions Second Amendment rights and pro-life legislation.
Yet both face serious questions about whether their affiliations align with the conservative principles they claim:
Peterson’s AFP agenda prioritizes libertarian economics over traditional social conservatism. The organization’s focus on tax elimination and deregulation serves wealthy donors’ financial interests rather than conservative family values or religious liberty.
Burlison’s Freemasonry presents an even starker contradiction. The Missouri Freemason magazine (Fall 2013) documents Burlison as a member of Solomon Lodge #271, present at a ceremony initiating another state senator into the fraternity. This membership directly conflicts with the stated positions of numerous evangelical and conservative Protestant denominations, including the Southern Baptist Convention (America’s largest Protestant denomination), Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Assemblies of God, and Presbyterian Church in America.
These denominations condemn Freemasonry as incompatible with Christianity because it:
Promotes universalism (all religious paths lead to the same God)
Teaches works-based salvation rather than salvation through Christ alone
Requires secret oaths that violate Christian principles of transparency and fellowship
Embraces a syncretistic view of God that evangelical Christians consider blasphemous
So what does “conservative” actually mean when Peterson and Burlison both wear the label? The answer: it’s a group identity marker, not a substantive ideological commitment. The ideas themselves don’t matter. What matters is tribal membership.
What we see is not a big tent with everyone aligned, but a desperate attempt to redefine conservative so that certain groups gain certain political, economic, and social benefits. The Koch brothers get tax policy that enriches them. Sinquefield gets his hedge fund disguised as education reform. Masons get political cover and networking opportunities. And everyone gets to call themselves “conservative” as long as they don’t question what anyone else in the group is actually doing.
This isn’t coalition-building based on shared principles. It’s a protection racket where the label grants access to resources, and the price of admission is never asking what the label actually means.
High Group, Low Grid: The Uniparty Explained
This is High Group, Low Grid in action. The group boundary is everything; the ideas are negotiable.
Looking back at the Group/Grid diagram, we can now see why the “Uniparty” exists. High Group means strong tribal identity and clear boundaries about who belongs. Low Grid means weak commitment to rules, principles, or ideological consistency.
In this quadrant, what matters is:
Who you know (networking, lobbying relationships, donor access)
What label you wear (Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Progressive)
Which tribe claims you (are you one of us?)
What doesn’t matter:
What you actually believe (ideology is flexible)
Whether your positions are coherent (contradictions are fine if they serve the group)
Whether you keep your promises (betraying principles is acceptable if it maintains group cohesion)
Our government isn’t run by people with great ideas. It’s run by people with great identities.
This is why Republicans and Democrats can seem like mortal enemies during campaigns but work together seamlessly on spending bills, foreign interventions, and expanding government power. They’re not actually fighting over principles (Grid). They’re fighting over which group gets to distribute the resources. Once that’s settled, they’re happy to cooperate because they’re all operating in the same High Group, Low Grid space.
The “Uniparty” isn’t a conspiracy. It’s what naturally emerges when political actors prioritize group membership over ideological commitments.
The Illusion of Opposition
Illinois can be navy blue and Missouri can be blood red, but both groups are forming the same ties to the Chicago Gaming Commission—the polite term for what everyone knows is organized crime with a regulatory veneer.
The “opposing” political tribes maintain their distinct identities and stage their theatrical battles for the voters. But behind the scenes, they’re both doing business with the same interests. The tribal markers (Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative, red state/blue state) create the illusion of meaningful difference while obscuring the actual power structures both sides are embedded in.
This is the genius of High Group, Low Grid politics: you can have intense tribal warfare on the surface while maintaining perfect harmony where it actually matters—in the distribution of money, power, and access. The voters think they’re choosing between fundamentally different visions. They’re actually choosing which branding they prefer on the same product.
Illinois can be navy blue and Missouri can be blood red, but both groups are forming the same ties to the Chicago Gaming Commission—the polite term for what everyone knows is organized crime with a regulatory veneer. Recent reports document that Illinois Gaming Board investigations have repeatedly uncovered casino contractors with “reputed mob ties,” resulting in millions of dollars in fines. The Bally’s Chicago Casino construction was shut down in May 2025 when undisclosed vendors with organized crime connections were discovered working on the project.
Meanwhile, in Missouri, a federal lawsuit revealed that Torch Electronics operates approximately 15,000 illegal slot machines across the state—generating tens of millions in revenue with no special education taxes like regulated casinos pay. A jury found these machines violate Missouri gambling laws, yet they continue operating while regulated casinos push to eliminate this competition.
The convergence is no accident. According to reports from Missouri activists, U.S. Senator Roy Blunt became part of efforts to remove slot machines in Missouri to consolidate gambling through casino monopolies connected to both the Chicago Gaming Commission and Missouri Gaming Commission. After retiring from the Senate in 2023, Blunt immediately joined Husch Blackwell Strategies (now Hartley Blunt Strategies), a lobbying firm run by his son Andy Blunt and staffed by his former aides. The firm refuses to register Blunt as a lobbyist—keeping his clients hidden from public disclosure—while he provides “strategic advisory services” to navigate state and federal government.
This is the Uniparty in action: red state senator, blue state gaming regulators, organized crime connections, unregulated gambling operations, and lobbying firms where family members profit from the access. The tribal warfare between red and blue is theater. The real business happens where both tribes do deals with the same interests.
Blunt’s gaming connections run deep. During his time in Congress, he had documented ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and was among nearly three dozen members of Congress who pressed the government to block a Louisiana Indian tribe from opening a casino—while simultaneously receiving donations from rival tribes and Abramoff himself.
Records show Blunt received $1,000 from Abramoff personally and $2,000 from his lobbying firm around the time of a May 2003 letter he wrote to Interior Secretary Gale Norton on a casino matter. A month later, he signed another letter on the same issue alongside Tom DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert—both deeply implicated in the Abramoff scandal.
When questioned, Blunt’s spokesperson claimed he “has a long history of opposition to Indian gaming” and that his district “is fundamentally opposed to the expansion of gaming.” Yet here was Blunt taking money from gambling interests to block specific casinos while allowing others—the very definition of picking winners and losers based on who pays.
The pattern is consistent: Blunt had regular meetings with Abramoff’s lobbying team and received campaign contributions from Abramoff and his clients while working on key legislation Abramoff wanted to influence. Trevor Blackann, a former Roy Blunt aide, pleaded guilty to taking thousands of dollars in gifts from Abramoff’s team and cooperated with federal investigators.
So when Blunt claims to oppose gambling expansion, what he actually opposes is gambling that doesn’t pay him. And now, after leaving the Senate, he’s positioned to profit from the very industry he claimed to oppose—through a family lobbying firm that keeps its client list secret.
The Cost of High Group, Low Grid Politics
This is the cost of High Group, Low Grid politics and religion in Missouri. We have voters who don’t understand they are selling out their future to individuals who don’t have any of the same commitments they do, but will use buzz words as tools without any understanding of the ideas behind them.
They will speak about education, but not give a damn about children. Their concern is the Public School Retirement Fund and the School Vouchers because they both make money for hedge fund managers who donate to their campaigns.
Blunt, Burlison, Peterson, Kuttenkuller will take an idea up only if it leads to greater power and authority for the party. The ideas themselves are disposable. What matters is whether advancing that “idea” strengthens the group’s position, expands its access to resources, or protects its members from accountability.
Consider what this means in practice:
On abortion: They’ll claim to be “pro-life” while arguing that polls matter more than principles, that we need exceptions to win elections, and that questioning this compromise makes you divisive and uncivil.
On education: They’ll champion “school choice” while funneling public money into voucher schemes that primarily benefit wealthy donors’ hedge funds, not struggling families.
On gambling: They’ll oppose “the expansion of gaming” while taking money from casino interests to block competitors, then join lobbying firms to profit from the industry after leaving office.
On corruption: They’ll speak about draining the swamp while forming the same ties to organized crime-connected gaming commissions that operate in both red and blue states.
On faith: They’ll wear the “Christian conservative” label while joining secret societies that major evangelical denominations and the Catholic Church explicitly condemn as incompatible with Christianity.
The voters think they’re supporting principled conservatives. They’re actually funding a protection racket where the price of admission is never asking what the words mean.
Following the Money: Missouri’s Gaming-Political Complex
The money trail reveals exactly how High Group, Low Grid politics operates in practice. Here’s who’s taking money from gaming interests and their auxiliaries:
Steve Tilley’s PAC Network - Former Missouri House Speaker turned lobbyist, Tilley controls six political action committees that serve as money-laundering vehicles for his clients. These PACs allow unlimited corporate money to flow to Republicans while circumventing donation limits:
MO Majority PAC
Missouri Growth PAC
Missouri C PAC
Missouri Senior PAC
Missouri AG PAC
Conservative Leaders of Missouri
Torch Electronics - Operating an estimated 15,000 illegal slot machines across Missouri, Torch has funneled over $750,000 since 2022 through Tilley’s PAC network to Missouri Republicans. Unlike regulated casinos, Torch pays no education taxes and offers no protections for problem gamblers.
Recipients of Torch/Gaming Money:
Gov. Mike Parson - Received $20,000+ from Torch Electronics. His PAC “Uniting Missouri” received $15,000 from Torch and spent $52,000 on Tilley’s aviation company. Tilley is Parson’s longtime friend and adviser.
Attorney General Andrew Bailey - Received $25,000 from Tilley PACs funded by Torch, then withdrew state attorneys from a case against Torch and hired a private law firm at taxpayer expense.
Rep. David Gregory - Received money from three Tilley PACs funded by Torch in his race for State Auditor.
Rep. Brad Hudson - Received $14,400 from multiple Tilley PACs—vastly more than any single donor could legally give directly.
Sen. Lincoln Hough - Received $10,000 from Tilley PAC immediately after Torch donation.
The Sinquefield-Tilley Connection:
Rex Sinquefield, the billionaire hedge fund manager, works in tandem with Tilley. Sinquefield donated $3.7 million to Andrew Bailey’s campaign through his own PACs, while Tilley’s gaming-funded PACs contributed another $25,000. Together, they represent the two streams of High Group, Low Grid corruption:
Sinquefield - Pushes school vouchers that enrich hedge funds while claiming to help children
Tilley - Protects illegal gambling operations that generate hundreds of millions with no public benefit
Both use the “conservative” label. Neither has any commitment to conservative principles. Both profit from the protection racket where money buys access, access buys favorable treatment, and the voters never see the real game being played.
The Pattern Repeats Across Every Issue
Once you understand High Group, Low Grid politics, you see the same pattern everywhere:
On sexually explicit materials in libraries: Missouri Representatives won’t pass laws to remove them, despite voter concerns. Former Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft provided lip service about maybe taking away state funding, but his proposal had no teeth. Did any library actually lose money? No.
On abortion: Missouri Senators killed Abolishing Abortion legislation—not because they’re “pro-choice,” but because actually abolishing abortion would eliminate a fundraising issue and force them to commit to an idea rather than just use it as a tribal marker.
On political appointments: Missouri Senators supported Dave Schatz’s appointment to Franklin County as presiding Commissioner—not because he’s the best candidate, but because he’s part of the group. He only worked to eliminate competition for the Outfit (Gaming Commission) rather than gambling itself.
On constitutional principles: Missouri Representatives like Darin Chappell pride themselves on the Constitution but will not uphold it. Why? Because “upholding the Constitution” is a useful slogan, but actually doing it might threaten group interests.
On local party politics: Don Carriker presides over Christian County Republicans and claims he will spend $5,000 on a billboard to stop abortion. But in the background, he tried to force Burt Whaley out of the race to replace him with Tom Franiak—a more controllable, establishment candidate. The billboard is performative. The backroom maneuvering to maintain control is real.
The pattern is always the same:
Public position: We’re pro-life, pro-Constitution, protecting children, fighting corruption
Private reality: Don’t actually pass effective legislation because that would threaten the protection racket
When challenged: Attack the questioner as divisive, extreme, or not a team player
This is High Group, Low Grid politics in its purest form. The ideas are props. The group is everything. And anyone who asks “What do these words actually mean?” is a threat to the entire system.
Abortion is a buzz word for these people. Child porn is too. These people don’t really want to see change. They want to belong to the group. They want to fly to the island and be wined and dined.
That’s why they’ll put up billboards but not pass legislation with teeth. That’s why they’ll give speeches about protecting children but take money from gambling operations that put slot machines where kids can access them. That’s why they’ll claim to be “pro-life” while killing abolition bills. That’s why they’ll talk about the Constitution while refusing to uphold it.
The issues aren’t real to them. The issues are membership cards. Say the right words, wear the right label, and you’re in the group. Actually try to solve the problems? That makes you dangerous, because solving problems would:
Eliminate fundraising opportunities
Require commitment to principles over tribe
Potentially threaten other group members’ interests
Force everyone to choose ideas over identity
High Group, Low Grid politics doesn’t want solutions. It wants solidarity. It doesn’t want change. It wants belonging. It doesn’t want to abolish abortion or remove child porn from libraries. It wants to use those issues to maintain tribal cohesion while the real business—money, power, access—continues undisturbed. No matter how much these issues compromise their souls, they see their path to heaven through the group.
The Prophetic Alternative: High Grid, Low Group
And if anyone who is High Grid (principled ideas) but Low Group (identity doesn’t come before ideas) challenges them, they say they aren’t “true conservatives.”
This is my final proof that Group/Grid theory illuminates what is really occurring rather than the obscuring of linear thinking. When someone operates from High Grid, Low Group—the prophetic or individualist position—they:
Follow truth regardless of social cost
Hold firm to principles while refusing to subordinate them to tribal loyalty
Ask “What do these words actually mean?”
Expose contradictions between claims and actions
Won’t accept “that’s just how politics works” as an answer
The High Group, Low Grid establishment must destroy these people, because prophets threaten the entire system. They can’t be bought (they don’t need access). They can’t be controlled (they don’t need group approval). They can’t be silenced (they value truth over belonging).
So the establishment uses the only weapon they have: excommunication. “You’re not a real conservative.” “You’re being divisive.” “You’re helping the other side.” “You don’t understand how politics works.” “You’re too extreme.” Or like Carriker, he called me out for defending truth and exposing him.
Just like the Fundamentalists who tore apart the Missouri Baptist Convention—using doctrinal litmus tests not because they cared about doctrine, but because they wanted to control who belonged to the group—the High Group, Low Grid individuals I’ve exposed, using their own words and history, are doing the same thing to the Republican Party.
They’re not building a movement around ideas. They’re building a protection racket around identity. And anyone who threatens that racket by actually believing the ideas must be expelled.
This is why:
Eric Burlison can be a Freemason and still be “conservative”
Camellia Peterson can push hedge fund schemes and still be “conservative”
Roy Blunt can take Abramoff money and still be “conservative”
They can kill abolition bills and still be “pro-life”
They can refuse to remove porn from libraries and still be “protecting children”
Tom Estes, Chief of Staff to Senator Rick Brattin and on Rex Sinquefield’s payroll, can compromise his pastoral role to sell out conservative ideas
Sherry Kuttenkuller, Legislative Aide to Senator Adam Schnelting, uses her role to attack conservatives who understand first principles which lead to the concept that all human life is God-given
Don Carriker, a once-a-year Catholic, can attempt to rule Christian County politics by removing all conservatives to gain access to powerful politicians he controls and compromises
But if you actually believe those things and try to act on them—if you’re High Grid, Low Group—you’re suddenly “not a real conservative.”
Because you’ve revealed that the words are empty. You’ve exposed that the group has no principles, only interests. You’ve shown that “conservative” is a membership badge, not a substantive commitment.
And the protection racket cannot tolerate that truth.
The Uniparty Revealed
Democrats are High Group, Low Grid. They can change their policies on a whim. Yet, so can these new Republicans. They are the same type of people as the worst Democrats.
Fundamentally, Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker could change places and party identities and you couldn’t tell the difference in their actions. Pritzker made his money from Bally’s Casino and the Outfit—I mean, the Chicago Gaming Commission. Both are High Group, Low Grid. Both prioritize tribal identity over principles. Both do business with organized crime-connected gambling interests. The only difference is the color of their jerseys. Like Pritzker, Kehoe takes gaming money through Tilley’s PAC network, then rewards gaming-friendly politicians with appointments while facilitating gambling expansion as Governor creating favorable regulatory environments for Chicago’s gambling, but not Missouri’s gambling machines.
Tilley donates to Republicans so they will be owned by the Mob. That’s not hyperbole. That’s the documented reality. Torch Electronics and TNT Amusements operated 15,000 slot machines. The Chicago Gaming Commission has repeated mob connections, but were tied to the Riverboat Casinos in Missouri Tilley funnels money from these operations to Missouri Republicans. Those Republicans then refuse to crack down on certain gambling businesses, but will do so for ones that can’t pay enough protection money. It’s a protection racket—literally.
This is what the Uniparty actually is: High Group, Low Grid politicians on both sides who:
Change positions on ideas and principles whenever convenient (Low Grid)
Maintain fierce tribal loyalty to their team (High Group)
Do business with the same corrupt interests behind the scenes
Use different vocabulary to fool their respective bases
Destroy anyone who actually holds principles and refuses to play the game
If you don’t understand what it means to have unprincipled leaders who only care about the group identity for their own enrichment, then you shouldn’t vote.
Because your vote isn’t choosing between principles. It’s choosing which brand of corruption you prefer. It’s choosing whether you want your children’s future sold out by people wearing red jerseys or blue jerseys. The selling out is the same. Only the marketing differs.
Just like the Fundamentalists who tore apart the Missouri Baptist Convention—using doctrinal litmus tests not because they cared about doctrine, but because they wanted to control who belonged to the group—the High Group, Low Grid individuals I’ve exposed, using their own words and history, are doing the same thing to the Republican Party.
They’re not building a movement around ideas. They’re building a protection racket around identity. And anyone who threatens that racket by actually believing the ideas must be expelled.
But if you actually believe core conservative ideas and try to act on them, you’re suddenly “not a real conservative.”
Because you’ve revealed that their words are empty. You’ve exposed that the group in power has no principles, only interests. Being Republican is a label with value, but only group value.
And the protection racket cannot tolerate that truth. But they can tolerate abortion, gambling, human trafficking, and Mob-style murders.
David Rice is an investigative journalist who is High Grid, Low Group. He doesn’t care if he gets a badge for joining or if he receives a pat on the back. He cares only if he can move the needle toward the truth, sometimes by dragging it through piles of political and religious sewage.
If you want to get involved, stop voting for people because they have the right identification papers. Get off your ass and run and don’t let the system corrupt you.
Comparing the SBC to the Uniparty? Is your position really that fundamentalists within, kicking Luciferians and NCC affiliated doctrine out of the association is "high group" because they didn't mimic the NCC enough? I'd have to say get used to disappointment there! They didn't join the NCC citing no scriptural basis compelling them to ecumenicism. They made Blunt president of SBU, but by that time the directors reflected the same kind of diversity we see in the NCC!
What's with all the salt at Southern Baptists specifically? In my own research, they along with Southern Presbyterian are the only two protestant denominations who've rejected Rockefeller and Alger Hiss' National Council of Churches along with it's Luciferian, globalist doctrine.
I do agree there's uniparty collusion going on, but tie the issue closer in my mind to money and our current Weimar conditions. Which makes VLT and the pushing of vice onto the public even more sinister from these republicans. I don't even call them conservatives.