Posted on 10/13/2007 9:53:21 AM PDT by wagglebee
There are many instances where pragmatism has its place. In its purest sense, pragmatism is simply engaging in conduct that emphasizes practicality. For example, if I decide to spend $60 for a pair of pants that will last me several years rather than spend $20 for a pair that may not make it past the first outing it could be said that my decision involved the exercise of pragmatism.
That may work for pants but it doesn’t work for principles. Pragmatism may work well in the fashion world but it has no place in the world of public policy. There are many well meaning, passionate, evangelical believers who have reached the conclusion that when it comes to the 2008 race for the White House it is better to vote for a candidate who can win than to vote for a candidate who can truly lead. It is this kind of misplaced pragmatism that has the potential to permanently remove the voice of evangelicals from the political arena. Our seat at the table of ideas should be more precious to us than the results of one election cycle.
Let me be clear…. I do not want to see Hillary Clinton become the President of the United States. I believe her brand of big government socialism combined with her moral sophistry would drastically change the face of American culture. From government sponsored health care to government censored Christian speech another Clinton presidency would lead us into a financial and spiritual bankruptcy that could require decades of recovery time.
If we select a genuine conservative as the Republican standard bearer and lose we will recover to fight for our principles another day. But if we run a pseudo conservative and lose we will find ourselves with no principles left to fight for. We will have sacrificed them on the altar of expediency. And if we run a pseudo conservative and win we will find ourselves with no principles left to live by for we will have sacrificed them on the altar of pragmatism.
For years the blue blood, country club Republicans have resented the fact that they have had to come to religious conservatives with political hat in hand in or order to get elected. The instant they believe they can win without us they will put their hats back on their heads and give us the back of their hand. Rudy Giuliani’s current lead in the national polls gives the blue blood their best hope to regain control of the party from what is in their minds, the “great unwashed religious right.” Even if Republicans lose the White House in 2008 if Giuliani is the party’s standard bearer the establishment Republicans will have won a great victory. They will have successfully relegated religious conservatives to nothing more than a vocal irritant to be tolerated but not taken seriously.
When you examine the biblical story of Jacob, Esau, and Isaac (Genesis 25-27) the parallels to the current political climate in the Republican Party are startling. First, Esau comes home from working in the field to find Jacob slaving over a hot pot of stew. Esau is desperate for a meal and begs Jacob for some of the stew but Jacob sees an opportunity in Esau’s desperation to take something precious from him. Jacob says, “Sell me your birthright as of this day.” Esau reasons that his birthright, which was given to him by God, will not do him any good if he dies of hunger so he pragmatically agrees trading what was given to him by God for what was provided for him by man. Rather than stopping to think there might be another way to find a meal Esau, out of pure desperation, exchanges the eternal for the temporal. Perhaps he believed that as long as he would receive the blessing reserved for the first born he could afford to part with his birthright. But later, Jacob dressed up like Esau right down to gluing goat hair on his hands and the back of his neck so that Isaac (who by this time was blind) was deceived into giving away the primary blessing of God.
In the first part of the story Christians who settle for a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rights candidate as the standard bearer for the Republican Party are like Esau, so desperate for the provision of the momentary relief of our grievance that we are willing to sacrifice the security of holding onto our principles for the future. In the second part of the story the Christian right resembles Isaac, who was blindly tricked into giving away God’s blessings by one who had the appearance of the real thing. And what was the end result for Esau? He lost both his birthright and his blessing; one because of the boldness of Jacob who took advantage of Esau’s desperation and the other because of the blindness of Isaac who had lost his ability to see past mere outward appearances.
May God protect us as believers from trading the birthright of America and the blessings of God for a bowl of political porridge and a bill of pseudo-conservative goods.
The time for the “practicality” debate is AFTER the primary not before.
Has Guiliani won? Is he to be coronated or elected?
Has he EARNED an actual majority of the vote?
Has the race been fixed and nobody got the memo?
This is a time to vet the candidates.
This is a time to examine their positions.
If and when Guiliani loses the primary race, this entire debate becomes moot.
Pragmatism also means that you have to accept the notion that not only is nobody perfect, but that nobody is ever going to be in total agreement with you. Therefore, if you must choose someone, choose whoever most closely matches your core values.
Pragmatism also means that whoever is elected will have to compromise what they believe in to some extent, but you want them to keep *their* core values as well.
Now Washington, D.C., is a place of IOUs. This means on one hand “If I vote for your bill, then you will vote for mine”. But on the other hand, it also means, “If you vote *against* my bill, then I will vote *against* your bill.”
But it gets more complicated. This is because the vast majority of bills never make it to law. So often politicians vote for a bill even though they *know* it will fail. But the same politicians would vote *against* the *same* bill, if they knew it was going to pass.
And bills also change many times during their passage from committee to law. And the House version of the bill has to be justified to the Senate version of the bill, often with bizarre modifications.
So all too commonly, you will see politicians vote on a bill one way in committee and another way on the floor, because it is almost a completely different bill.
To confuse the issue further, what a bill is called may have little to do with what is in it, or the bill may do exactly the opposite of what it proposes. And since the bill is actually written *not* by congressmen, but by their aides, the infamous “Hill Rats”, you not only have to trust who you vote for, but the character of the people they hire as staff. Otherwise good and necessary bills are often laden with pork, sometimes to kill them.
Often issues are so complex that it is terribly hard for anyone to even explain it, much less what they think of it. There are almost NO simple issues, except the public demands that politicians treat important issues like they are simple.
Beware those who demand “yes or no” stands on complicated issues. Take opposition to abortion, for example. A politician says he is opposed to abortion, but what does he really mean? For example, if you inquire further, he might answer like this:
Opposed to Roe v. Wade? Yes.
Federal funding for abortion? No.
What if the mother’s life is in danger? Maybe.
In case of rape, incest, and pregnant child? Maybe.
Federal law prohibiting all abortions? States’ rights.
What about the “day after” pill? Yes.
Other contraception? Yes.
Prosecuting legal abortion doctors? No.
etc.
Now, and ideologue might insist on either total adherence to “pro-abortion” or “anti-abortion”, but they never ask the internal questions within the issue. They are more concerned with the politician bowing before them and their agenda item than “pragmatic” results. They are also often indifferent to most other issues.
So when you look out at the field of candidates, what must really be your guide, again, are two things. Does the candidate agree with my few, core values, and second, does he have the strength of character to keep to those core values, when faced with endless compromises he might have to make to get what he wants.
With whomever the GOP nominates, YOU have a chance to influence who the next 3 candidates for the Court will be. 3 Leftists, Stevens, Ginzburgh and...I am drawing a blank are very doubtful to last from now to 2013 With Hillary you have NO chance of influencing who replaces them.
That is the ONLY thing Christian Conservatives should be thinking about going into 2008.
The goal of CONSERVATIVES is to make sure that the GOP nominates a CONSERVATIVE, thus it is MANDATORY to do anything necessary to defeat Rooty Toot. Now, I understand that this might not have the support of your WAnker comrades, but that’s how CONSERVATIVES feel.
Sorry buddy. Rooty has said he believes Ginsberg to be a strict Constitutionalist judge.
Ha. I guess in his world of liberal thinking, she is. I can say at least he is an honest liberal.
Yes, I too believe Duncan is THE principled candidate and I pray for his race.
Rudy is a straw dog. He cannot be nominated. He doesn’t have enough support. The highest I’ve seen him poll is 38%. Most of the time he’s around 30%. That is nationwide. Given the many conservative states, he’ll do worse than that.
That is not a fruit of the spirit. That is a product of human hubris and arrogance.
I believe this best describes you and Rudy.
Sorry, your post is you descibing you.
“The goal of CONSERVATIVES is to make sure that the GOP nominates a CONSERVATIVE, thus it is MANDATORY to do anything necessary to defeat Rooty Toot. Now, I understand that this might not have the support of your WAnker comrades, but that’s how CONSERVATIVES feel.”
Wanker....your UK slip is showing :-)
Rudy will expose his past, and the scandals will take care of the rest.
That title is a perfect example of hubris and arrogance, not Christian humility, at work. NO one is asking Christian Conservatives to give up anything. What they are being told is they do not get to impose their personal whimsy on everyone around them by fiat. That they have to actually work for the prize. This is this person's ego speaking, not the spirit
Rooty is a liberal, there is NOTHING conservative about him.
Why would ANY president ever nominate judges who have political views that are totally different from their own?
Are you actually that obtuse?
If conservatives go along with the GOP nominating a liberal, we have given up EVERYTHING. Rooty Toot is as liberal as ANY candidate who has ever sought the 'Rat nomination, you and your FRiberal ilk seem to think that this isn't a problem -- you couldn't be more wrong.
“Rooty is a liberal, there is NOTHING conservative about him.
Why would ANY president ever nominate judges who have political views that are totally different from their own?”
Rudy has the pragmatism of a trained ape : )
They are not trying to impose their views on you. You are so blind and so full of hubris that you cannot see.
Vote for Rudy if you wish. That does not give you a right to impose your will on Christian conservatives and browbeat and bully people into accepting your view.
Simple concept that seems to evade you.
Face it, you will have to win without their vote. Good luck.
The bluebloods and Hillaryphobes can shriek and scream and hold their breath until they turn blue. There are millions of us who will not compromise.
Never. Never. Never.
I actually held my nose and voted for both Bushes. I cannot do that with Rudy.
BTTT
What part of "principles" and "convictions" and "integrity" do you not understand? Silly name calling like this does your cause no good.
Kettle, meet pot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.