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.
The California Senate voted to approve AB205 by a margin of 23-14 on August 28, 2003. On August 28,2003 Tom McClintock had a town hall meeting where he made his opposition to AB205 known once again.
On August 23, 2003 in a candidate questionaire published in California papers McClintock was the only candidate who said he would veto AB205.
Those are the facts of the matter.
I am a Keyes supporter and am almost always in agreement with him and I would not at all advance the idea that Keyes "likes and approves of President Bush" (though I am aware that some do).
The thing is, the 9/11 charge (which I've not seen proven) aside, I maintain that Keyes spoke of Bush's decision as evil and not Bush himself.
And to some degree, I agree with that. I do not think that is criminal to say, I think I make evil decisions on a regular basis. People can and do get it wrong sometimes.
My personal assesment of Bush is that he appears to be a very sincere Christian who WANTS to do the right thing whenever he can, but at the same time, there are several places in which I think that he did not, in fact, do the right thing. I do not, in many instances, approve of his work - and neither does Keyes.
My response to those who are beating the "evil" dead-horse is this:
So what if he did call Bush evil? What is the upshot of that? It's a far stronger statement than I would make, but on the stem cell issue and many more, lots of people agree with Keyes positions - are we all anethema because Keyes' rehtoric is a bit over-the-top?
Keyes is most certainly not perfect nor the epitomy of the ideal Republican or the ideal conservitive (news flash: Bush ain't either) but his IDEAS are second only to those of Ron Paul (if that) in terms of being ideally conservitive. And if Keyes only serves to be a megaphone for the IDEAS, then so be it - it's the IDEAS which are important.
A decision I'm certain Keyes would call an evil decision
He would call it an evil decision because it WAS an evil decision. RR would probably agree if his mind hadn't been destroyed by Alzeimer's disease.
I have made evil decisions too, and I would think most people on this thread have as well. Jesus Christ changes people's hearts and their way of thinking when he comes into their lives. I wouldn't make those decisions today, and neither would RR who became a born again Christian late in his life.
I'm still confused. The bill would have passed anyway, obviously, but if McClintock was so opposed to it, why wasn't he there to vote his convictions - just as a matter of principle?
LOL, really. You pop up at the oddest moments. I have stayed out of the fray, I'm not a Californian after all, but the distortion of facts riased the hackles.
Not a lot of absolute truth at FR vis a vis Conan vs Tom the Archconservative.
McClintock to Hold Statewide Town Hall Meeting on Thursday August 28, 2003
Senator Tom McClintock is only major candidate for Governor who has accepted this historic opportunity.
Roger Hedgecock, the San Diego talk show host responsible for tens of thousands of recall signatures in San Diego County, is on a well-deserved vacation and has offered his popular show as a forum for the major candidates for Governor to interact with the voters of California.
"Senator McClintock said YES immediately and is looking forward to hosting Roger's three-hour show," said campaign director John Feliz. "Our campaign is very simple, we have the best candidate with the best message of hope and opportunity for California and this gives us the opportunity to talk with voters in Southern California and across the state via the Internet."
Senator McClintock will host the Roger Hedgecock show on Thursday, August 28th, from 3-6 pm on KOGO, AM 600 on the radio dial. Internet listening is available at www.KOGO.com.
"There will be no guests, no carefully selected audiences or prepared speeches," said Senator McClintock. "I am excited about discussing my plans for California with the people who will make the final decision on October 7th and taking their calls for the entire three hours."
In-and-of-itself, a perfectly legitimate - and true - statement. Whether or not the analogy appliues directly to Bush is a matter of debate. But it is a legitimate political opinion to hold to aledge that a candidate or office-holder is not true to the principles expected of him by his supporters.
I live in the home state of Trent Lott. I have voted for him often. And I have not one whit of hesitation to say that he was not completely faithful to the ideals he espoused in his continual compromising instead of standing firm.
Another example: Do you suppose Ronald Reagan would be completely happy with the decisions made by Sandra Day O'Conner? He PUT her there but he can also, if he chooses, render an opinion that she was "the bullet that kills" in that, unexpectedly, she has been a key vote in the faliure to roll back abortion in this country.
Another example: if Tom Ridge or Colin Powell or Christy Whitman had been the nominee, would it have been terribly wrong to point out that they were "euthinasia" to conservitivism?
IF - and I emphesize IF - it were true that Bush were a moderate in conservitive robes then wherein would lie the error in making the above statement about the dangers of allowing such subtle deception to undermine the movement? The point of debate is not, if you are rational, whether Keyes' statemtn is appropriate in general - but whether it is appropriate when applied to Bush in particular.
And THAT is something people of good conscience can disagree about.
OF COURSE, hosting Roger's radio show was MUCH more important than doing what he was elected to do, and MUCH more important than voting his principles.
I'm curious, not arguing just like to hear your thoughts, what would happen if the "far right" staked out their position and the far left staked out their's and the rest had to pick one or the other?
Galloup in the same poll said that of the whole (i'd have to look through my note to find exact figures) the combined total of "Very Liberal" and "Somewhat Liberal" were almost exactly what the "Very Conservitive" total was. something like 5% for Very and 15% for "somewhat and 20% for very con. And then some 40% said "Somewhat Conservitive" and the other 20% was "Moderate."
The implication of this poll (which was taken sometime in the late 90's) is that when the left and right are clearly defined, the right starts with a bigger base and the larger part of the crowd "in the middle" sypathizes with the right than with the left.
Now, there is a real weakness to this in that it does not distinguish between social conservitives and fiscal conservitives, but I'd be inclined to think that if the two extremes were staked out and commited, that more would, even ifreluctantly, go right than go left.
Of course, there is to possibility of a third candidate in the middle, but for the sake of this point, considering just the two options, what are your thoughts?
McClintock and his supporters have been saying that when election day comes, WE should do the right thing and vote our principles (i.e. vote for McClintock) even if McClintock has no chance of winning, and even if it might end up throwing the election to Bustamonte - because it's the right thing to do, and because it just might make the difference, and he might just win if everyone votes their conscience.
However, on this issue, although McClintock stated he was vehemently opposed to domestic partnership benefits, and although he had been elected and was getting paid to represent his constituents on this and other issues, he had "more important things to do" than vote against AB 205 - even if it was the right thing to do, and even if it might have made a difference.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems hypocritical to me.
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.