The Republican Party's Lack of Commitment To Conservatism

Covenant News ^ | 10/4/03 | Chuck Baldwin

[truthandlife]

If there is anyone left who truly believes the Republican Party is committed to genuine conservative principles, the candidacy of bodybuilder/actor Arnold Schwarzenegger to be California's next governor should be enough to set the record straight.

Despite Schwarzenegger's extreme liberal views, he has won praise from Republicans nationwide. On virtually every issue worth noting, Schwarzenegger comes down on the left side of the page.

Schwarzenegger is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rights, pro-gun control, pro-green, and pro-illegal immigration. He even said that Clinton's impeachment made him "ashamed" to call himself a Republican.

Furthermore, Schwarzenegger's immoral escapades make even Bill Clinton look unsoiled. He once bragged in an Oui magazine interview about participating in sex orgies, not to mention his repeated admissions of drug use.

In spite of his personal and philosophical discrepancies, Schwarzenegger has received accolades from notable conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson, not to mention practically the entire national Republican hierarchy.

Writing for The New York Times, Frank Rich correctly observed, "It is hilarious to watch conservatives, the same conservatives who often decry phony Hollywood liberals and their followers, betray their own inviolate principles to bask in Arnold's hulking movie-star aura so that they might possibly gain a nominal Republican victory in the bargain."

By supporting a liberal such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republicans demonstrate that they have no real loyalty to conservative principles. Beyond that, by supporting Schwarzenegger, they have turned their backs on a true conservative gubernatorial candidate, Tom McClintock.

However, people who are paying attention know that this is the rule, not the exception, for the Republican Party. In race after race, Republican heavyweights will throw their support behind a liberal candidate and will starve out a conservative candidate. This is not an accident or a coincidence. It is the party's plan A. The Republican Party no more desires conservatives in political office than the Democratic Party does, and people who think otherwise are only deceiving themselves.

At some point, conservatives must awaken to the reality that they do not have a political party in Washington, D.C., that represents them. They must, at some point, be willing to abandon the Republican Party and unite around a party and a candidate that will courageously and consistently promote their principles. Can I get a second for Judge Roy Moore and the Constitution Party?

[bootless]

Absurd. Without the Evangelicals the Republican Party would have gone the way of the Whigs in the 1970s.

Face it. Without Evangelical Christian social conservatives, Dems would own both houses of congress and the White House, the 1994 Republican landslide would have never happened, and this forum (if it existed at all) would be filled with speculation as to which Rockefeller/Gerald Ford clone would be most likely to give President Gore a good run before losing in 2004.

Amen. I can't even believe I'm reading a post on FR that getting rid of the "religious zealots" from the GOP & conservative movement can be a good thing in any way.

For those of us who believe - and even those who don't, but respect those who do - it's crucial to realize that without this faith, the United States would not have ever been the shining city on the hill to Americans and to the rest of the world. What would a world without America look like? Dark, brutal, and dangerous.

The key difference between a free, Constitutionally based country with a basis in Judeo-Christian ethics and any other country is that we know that man is not perfectible on earth. Other governments that operate by the Rule of Man, not Law, believe that man is perfectible on earth - and that they are the ones to implement, and force, that so-called perfection. It's a recipe for tyranny.

To the OP, I see your profile page seems to equate fundamentalism with "stagnation and disaster." That depends what kind of fundamentalism you're talking about. Islamic fundamentalism? For sure.

But here's the thing. For a long time, there has been a huge difference between pure faith, as intended from the beginning of Christianity, and bad religion - twisting that faith for earthly goals of power, influence, and yes, oppression. But Christianity, as shown by Jesus, is a faith of freedom.

Sadly, many people worldwide have been exposed to bad religion and seem to think that's what Christianity is as well. But it's not. Why is it that Christianity is banned on pain of torture and death in tyrannical countries like North Korea, China, the Middle East, and so on? If it didn't lead people to freedom, despite their earthly oppression, they wouldn't care.

Just think about that for a moment and see if you still think that getting Christians out of the GOP is such as good idea.