Posted on 10/06/2003 8:23:46 AM PDT by kellynla
I have an urgent message in my heart, and I will speak plainly about it, as I feel I must. It concerns Tuesday's recall election in California. First, two unhappy facts must be faced.
On all the matters that touch upon the critical moral issues, Arnold Schwarzenegger is on the evil side. This is a fact. A mere list of the positions he supports is enough to make this plain: abortion as a "right," cloning of human beings, governmental classification of citizens by race, public benefits for sexual partners outside of marriage, disrespect for property rights against environmental extremism, repudiation of the right to bear arms – no more need be said to show that this candidate is wrong where human decency, human rights and human responsibility bear directly on political issues.
A second fact is this: Unnaturally divorced from these issues, conservatism mutates into mere immoral greed, to match the immoral lust of contemporary liberalism.
Accordingly, there is no choice in the California Recall race for people of good conscience except Sen. Tom McClintock.
But many good people – and especially conservatives in California – are in denial. They do not, or will not, see that they have but one choice.
What makes this so hard for some who profess to be conservatives to understand? Apparently, it is fair-seeming, "pragmatic" arguments that we must grasp a victory for "our party," and that it is shrewd for Californians in the present election to choose the "lesser of two evils." Let us consider the wisdom of these arguments.
First, as to our "victory." Last week, we saw Schwarzenegger does not deny habitual crude offenses against young women. Rather, he theatrically, vaguely and impersonally apologizes for them, before a roaring crowd of adoring fans, admitting neither any connection between action and character, nor any need for genuine penance or reformation. Arnold had, he says, no "intention to offend." And he "apologizes" from the stage while his hired guns blame the whole thing on a vast left-wing conspiracy. Cheers. Adulation. Let's move on.
Does this remind you of anything? The Republicans who vote for Schwarzenegger will owe Bill Clinton an apology for having given the nation the impression that they sincerely believed character to be an issue for those claiming high office.
Our "pragmatic" fellow Republicans, yearning for Arnold to be governor because of what they imagine he will do on this or that particular policy of secondary importance, seem quite willing to forget what Washington, the Father of this Republic, always kept in mind – that the most powerful education our children get is the good or bad example of those in authority.
Such "pragmatism" seeks foolishly to raise to the level of grave responsibility and high leadership in the Republican Party a man whose prominence will establish in the public mind the false notion that Republican attacks on Clinton's lack of character were simply partisan ploys. The problem with "speaking no ill" of fellow Republicans, and expressly shielding such "leaders" as this man, is that we must be ever after silent in the face of the very defects we would loudly and rightly call to account in a Democrat, a Libertarian or anyone else.
Such silence reduces all talk of morality to a cynical, partisan show – which precisely serves the purposes of those who are trying to drive every shred of moral concern from our political discussions. This outcome is an enduring defeat that overshadows any transitory victory of office-holding.
Now, as for the "lesser of two evils." It is true that we must sometimes act so as to accept something bad, intending to avoid something worse. But this truth does not apply to the California Recall for two reasons. There is not merely an acceptable, but an outstanding third option before the state's voters; and a victory for Arnold will be worse than a failure to replace the Democrats, bad as they have been.
"Republicans" like Schwarzenegger enjoying power and prestige are a worse evil than the Democrats. Because they wear the Republican label, they defuse the opposition that would otherwise be roused against the positions they take. They operate in politics as the AIDS virus operates in the body – it fools the cell into thinking it is a defender against infection, all the while silently reprogramming that same cell to work for the death of the man.
A sign of the extent of this infection is the position many who think of themselves as principled conservatives are now taking in California. Not long ago, the question facing conservatives was whether to support candidates whose commitment on the most critical moral issues was in doubt. Now many so-called conservatives are eagerly surrendering to the political triumph of a man who aggressively advertises himself as an enthusiastic liberal on the most important of these issues, the matter of life and death.
Failure to address fundamental moral issues has already brought this republic to the brink of death. The issue of abortion, for instance, does not present us with a challenge of "more or less," in which we can rest content with only marginal progress, much less accept stalemate or conduct a limited retreat. Such a strategy may well be the permanently wisest course in some economic, or diplomatic matters.
But a nation that sanctions abortion as America does now has crossed fundamentally from blessings to curses. If we do not correct our course, we live in the last era of true liberty in America. To be a moral conservative in our time is to understand this fact, and its implications for our politics. This deep truth, not ephemeral poll numbers, is what the truly practical statesman must keep in mind.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is of the party of surrender on the question of life. Indeed, he stands with, and has always stood with, the enemy. He asserts that there is a fundamental "right to choose" death for the innocent unborn. The justification offered by his collaborators for allowing such a surrender by a "leader" of the GOP, our national pro-life party, is that the evils of a Schwarzenegger victory will be less than the evils of a Davis or Bustamante victory. This justification cannot be defended by anyone who truly believes that moral issues are of critical importance.
The essential primacy of the moral issues is precisely what conservatives supporting Schwarzenegger are forgetting, for all their alleged political shrewdness. This forgetfulness suggests a profound lack of wisdom, a loss of vision of the truly big things. In these days of fateful decision for self-government, loss of vision of the end is a worse fault than the lack of shrewdness about the means.
The Schwarzenegger corruption of the Republican Party – and apparently, of a significant portion of the conservative leadership of that party – in the name of victory threatens to undermine the very reason for the party's existence.
The worst enemy Republicans face in the political realm is not the Democrats, but the power of evil that lurks in all hearts. In the context of this true reality, the decision to vote for Schwarzenegger is not a clever tactical calculation. It is a strategic blunder. Troy did not fall until the Trojans brought the horse into their city. The Greeks offered them a false victory, and so destroyed them. The leadership of the California Republican Party does not appear much wiser than the Trojans', nor, I fear, will its fate be any happier.
Why have Arnold's "conservative" supporters been so sure from the beginning that the apparent electoral weakness of McClintock, the choice of merit, was not due to their failure to support him, as they bowed before an idol of false pragmatism?
It seems that many California Republican leaders never even seriously considered the recall as an opportunity to make their real case to the people of California. As I write this, the under-funded and under-reported McClintock defeats Bustamante in head-to-head polls, with Arnold off the ballot. A vast majority in the state understands even now that Tom McClintock is the candidate most able to handle California's fiscal crisis. Californians told pollsters, by a two-to-one margin, that McClintock won the debate, that two-thirds of them also said would be crucial to their choice on Oct. 7.
The recall had providentially presented Californians with the prospect of electing a principled moral conservative statesman to handle a crisis of government fiscal and budget policy that he has spent his entire career preparing to face. McClintock's predictable surge in the polls from an asterisk to nearly 20 percent, as voters began to focus on the question of who would replace Davis, and before his widely watched victory in the debate, positioned him for a final surge to victory.
California Republican leaders could have viewed this moment of opportunity through the lens of the statesman, not of the director of sitcom casting. But instead of uniting behind the obvious man of the hour, they increasingly viewed McClintock's surge as a problem, and have done their best to sabotage it.
All the clever calculations of "conservatives for Arnold" utterly disregard the demoralizing effect of such pragmatism on those who do respect their moral obligations – voters and prospective candidates alike. Such game-playing feeds the cynical reaction that disparages stands of principle as unrealistic and impractical. It tempts those who should rally round the courageous leaders raising the standard of principle to abandon them instead. All the while, our pragmatists mouth hollow words of praise for those, such as McClintock, who have consistently demonstrated their willingness to do what is right.
Tom's supporters are called arrogant for persisting in making moral judgments. Think about that for a moment. Why is it "arrogant" to act on what human beings can know, rather than to act as if we had knowledge that can only belong to God? Is it humble to have more faith in what the pollsters extrapolate in the present, and consultants predict about the future, than in what the Lord and reason have revealed to us all as the unchanging moral truth?
We cannot know the future. We cannot even be sure of how things stand at the moment. But one thing we can know with certainty is that many California Republicans now openly prefer a candidate they acknowledge to represent evil (the "lesser" of evils, as they call it, is evil still) over one who represents what they know to be good. Only God can have full and certain knowledge of the circumstances, of who is winning and a more viable candidate. The future lies in the care of Providence. But decent men can have certain knowledge of the right, of which candidate stands for moral truth and which against it.
Instead, the "pragmatic tough-mindedness" of our strategists of Republican "victory" leaves a good, courageous and decent leader like McClintock to his own devices, and studiously avoids examining the hard consequences of that abandonment. What could still be a moment of principled Republican unity behind a candidate uniquely qualified to address the crisis in California, threatens to become instead a nationally watched step in the moral suicide of a great party.
And here the circle of surrender is completed. Conservative leaders abandoning both principle – and principled men – do so, they say, because a decent political agenda cannot win at the polls. And yet, by this very abandonment, they pursue a persistent and thoughtless course destined to ensure the very scarcity of moral leadership they claim drives them to vote for Arnold. Surely there is no foolishness like the wisdom of the proud.
So much for the strategists, and their specious arguments. Now, one brief word to the citizens.
At the end of the day, it will not be leaders, but citizens, bold to vote their consciences, who will prevail. Or, not daring to do so, who will prove the ultimate cause of defeat and disarray. No religious conservative can deny that it is a serious moral obligation of religious political leaders to stand against abortion. And yet pro-life Christians voting for Arnold would neglect the obvious corollary – that it is the moral obligation of Christian voters to support pro-life leaders, such as Tom McClintock, when they take the right stand, especially against so-called Christian politicians like Schwarzenegger, a professed Roman Catholic, who is violating this obligation of his professed faith.
This nation desperately needs leaders who have the courage and integrity to stand without apology for policies that are morally right. If we have any such leaders left, it is surely thanks to God's grace and providence – and no thanks to the wisdom of self-terminating conservatives.
I pray to God that decent citizens will choose one of the few such men left to us in this hour of judgment for California and America.
I also haven't seen the magnificent Jean Kirkpatrick lowering herself to endorse Arnie nor would I expect to see her do so.
LMAO!! 80%? Wow. Perhaps you could easily come up with a laudrey list of conservative things Arnold has PROMISED to impliment.
Incrementalism? You mean you support banning semi-auto firearms along with "sniper rifles" and you have no problem with illegal immigration?
No. I don't believe in making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Being pro-life is not only a litmus test for being a Republican but also a litmus test for being a civilized human being.
Here is my post back to Black Elk: It is your litmus test, Black Elk. It is how you judge who is worthy and who is not worthy of being a human being.
Except for the p*ssing contest you and I are involved in, I’ve spent my time on this thread suggesting that being a Republican doesn’t necessarily mean being a conservative. In my answer to Black Elk, I was saying that pro-life was Black Elk’s litmus test… it didn’t mean that pro-choice Republicans were not Republicans.
Then here comes you: Surely you wouldn't dare say that ABORTION is how you judge who is worthy and who is not worthy of being a human being. Certainly it isn't A WOMAN'S CHOICE that is the arbiter of that distinction. You wouldn't dare say that here, would you? Because guess what? That's what Arnold believes. He won't say it in so many words. It comes with the euphemistic package, "pro-choice," but that is really what he's saying.
I called this post incoherent.
You clarified your post by saying: You said someone gets to make a distinction about who should and shouldn't be a human being on the basis of their pro-life views. However, it is actually the "PRO-CHOICE" people who are making that case. Arnold is one of those making that case. I don't know if you are pro-abortion or pro-life, but if you are pro-life and admonish others for judging "who is worthy and who is not worthy of being a human being," you've also condemned your friend, Arnold. If you are pro-abortion, you are a hypocrite of the worst kind.
No… my post was calling Black Elk’s litmus test his own personal litmus test and not a litmus test for Republicans. I was talking about the narrowness of his view as the one true litmus test… not whether I thought his view was correct or not.
Do you get that distinction?
Here is how I responded: I hate to break it to you, but Arnold isn't my friend. I think it is laughingly funny that you automatically judge me because you think I'm pro-choice (even though you did give me the benefit of the doubt)... and if I'm pro-choice, I can't possibly be for McClintock. Second of all, I'm not the one who made the distinction. Black Elk did... You are prime example one for my entire argument on this thread... Thank you for being so accommodating.
Remember, This all started because I challenged Black Elk’s litmus test for Republicans and civilized human beings.
Next, came your response: If I gave you the benefit of the doubt, then I did not judge you. However, because you implied your position, the argument still stands. You believe it is up to a woman's choice to determine who has a right to live and who does not. You admonished Black Elk for "making that distinction," which was exactly the point I made, which you did not address.
My position was neither implied nor stated. I did not admonish Black Elk for making that distinction… I admonished him because of the narrowness of his litmus test for all Republicans. I think you can be pro-choice and still be a Republican and a civilized human being.
Then the p*ssing contest began (and I have enjoyed it thoroughly… I love to watch you get all smug as you condescend and instruct me on my behavior. That was worth the laugh…)
Here’s your response to me… acting all parental and such: Don't be mad at me. I'm just the messenger. I am not upset by the fact that you won't respond to logic. If you did, you wouldn't be pro-choice, because being pro-choice is logically indefensible when based on correct premises. I doubt you want to reject the premises (though you may), but if you did, I would let that argument rest on its own merit.
Let’s see… an argument about a litmus test turned into to one where I am pro-choice and that makes me unable to respond to logic.
The issue was never whether I was pro-choice or not, or whether I supported Arnold or not. The issue was whether pro-life is the only litmus test for being Republican or a civilized human being. I disagreed with Black Elk. The rest is you twisting the post and having fun jabbing me with your put-downs.
For the record, I am pro-life… and I would have voted McClintock.
When you are drowning (and it is your own fault for trying for years to marry "fiscal conservatism" to the ethics of social revolutionaries), your rationality is not at its sharpest as anyone can see from the willingness of otherwise sensible people (SOME of you) to trade every principle for a false mirage of miniscule tax relief. I hope you are prepared to be honest when Arnie, Wilson and Buffet slam you with the biggest tax increase in Gollyvornia history exceeding even Pete Wilson's first year thievery.
If you think of Arnie, Wilson and Buffett as ropes, remember that they are kind of ropes one finds dangling from the gallows.
If you allow your situational interpretation of "good" to become progressively worse, you sure as hell are not working toward "better".
Purchasing a few brief moments of political viability at the expense of the freedom of those to come has to be the epitome of "immoral greed" of which Keys speaks.
Supporting taxpayer funded abortions. Yet you keep trying the Roe v Wade dodge.
So, there are no hierarchies in your world? If one favors Arnold, then one is "immoral"? How stupid!
No wonder McClintock has faded into insignificance.
For the record, then, this is what you said. "It is your litmus test, Black Elk. It is how you judge who is worthy and who is not worthy of being a human being."
However, that is not what BlackElk said. His distinction was "civilized human being," not merely a human being. Big difference.
Second, you said, "and if I'm pro-choice, I can't possibly be for McClintock."
First of all, I mentally changed "if" to "because," and my lumping together of you and Arnold was a logical progression of that error. That is my mistake, and I apologize. Beyond that, I never said a pro-choice person couldn't be for McClintock. I did, however, say that being pro-abortion is logically idefensible when starting from the correct premises.
Now, you've made several assertions about "you" not being able to block other people outside of conservatism from coming into the Republican party. You are correct if by "you," you mean me or any other individual. However, the Republican Party can, if they so choose. I don't know of any pro-slavery expansion Republicans in 1861. Do you? Similarly, if abortion is not wrong, then nothing is wrong, and the Republican Party should not have to apologize for standing against the slaughter of the unborn. They can exclude the pro-aborts if they choose, and I think doing this the right way actually adds credibility to the argument against abortion.
Thank you for finally addressing my statement. It wasn't a trap you would have fallen into if you are pro-life. It could have been more easily resolved, but at least we are now on the correct issue.
I am hoping for a defeat of the recall to let the dems get full credit/blame for what the state will look like in a few yearas.
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.