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.
George W. Bush ran for Congress in 1977, long before anybody even heard of Alan Keyes.
I'd even venture to say that, considering who his father is, he's been politically active in one way or another all his life.
As for Keyes' saying good things about Bush, you'll have to point some out to me.
Is it in his "I'm Not a Bush Republican" speech, the one where he said
Many conservatives believe that the Clinton presidency was the most dangerous time we have faced, as Americans and conservatives, in the history of the country. I do not share this belief. Rather, I believe that we are now entering that most dangerous era. For the bullet you hear is not the one that kills you. Organized and conscious advocacy of the principles that have made American liberty possible since the founding is unlikely to die at the hands of an explicit and avowed enemy like Bill Clinton. It is actually more likely that conservatives will passively accept political euthanasia for their cause at the hands of someone we have too readily believed could be entrusted with its wise care.
Or maybe you meant this one:
I've been watching closely, and I have not seen a single serious Bush administration initiative that corresponds in reality to the agenda of liberty and of conservative principles.
There were many heated threads at the time over what was said and what was meant. Opinions were divided then; opinions are still divided.
Some of the FReepers who were there were insulted and walked out. That much is true; they came back and reported it on threads here. Just because others weren't insulted doesn't mean it didn't happen.
There's probably no need in fighting through it all again, but Howlin is correct that there were FReepers AT THE SPEECH who reported that Keyes had said Bush was evil, and who walked out and stopped being Keyes supporters because of that speech.
Not grieving at all but celebrating the revelation of truth that has come from this situation. On the right, there is nothing to grieve. We retain our principles whether as to Catholicism or conservatism.
It is our opponents who will grieve and the grieving will start when Arnie, manipulated by Wilson, jacks their taxes and does all those other Wilson things.
May Catholicism be restored in Fort Worth by the appointment of an Athanasius as its bishop, prepared to cleanse the stables. May Republicanism be restored in California when Arnie and his puppetmasters have been disposed of.
It is also always worthwhile when one who claims Catholicism while supporting pro-aborts and pro-lavenders identify himself for he is and thereby makes obvious his disobedience to and deviation from the Faith.
Your pal Bishop Delaney is the Forth Worth bishop who imported his "old pal", a lavender priest already discredited in Rhode Island to run the Fort Worth "Catholic" diocesan BOY SCOUT program and also allows you to preach. Explain if you will, the good Catholicism of that appointment and that friendship when it leads to an appointment to give Fr. Lavender access to young boys.
Whether Keyes said so or not, it would be quite obvious. I don't remember him saying he is morally superior to you as Catholic or as Republican. He did not need to say so since that is patently obvious on both counts.
If you are a big "ten commandments" guy, you should remem,ber not to bear false witness. On thatI agree.
SCA 90 may not be desirable legislation but it is not anywhere near on a par with AB 205. All SCA 205 did, according to your description, is to make Prop 13 applicable to Lance's transfer to Bruce.
How do you suppose the members of the groups opposing SCA 90 lean in the gubernatorial race? I am having more than a little trouble imagining Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum supporting the Schwarzenkennedy.
Wha you guys consistently ignore is that Arnie is the disastrous Wilson redux or he would not have had Wilson as campaign manager. The California GOP simly refuses to recognize that Wilson's elitist liberalism on taxes, social issues and overt racism against Latinos (which has cost the GOP in California MANY votes) is the root of GOP failure in Caligornia. Now, while Arnold rakes in out of state special interest dough (Arnie for sale to the same interests as Doofus) and Vegas casino money, the Wilsonites want to spend their time whacking McClintock for being supported by California's Indian casinos. If you ran an Indian casino, wouldn't you try to stop Arnie when he is in bed with your Vegas competitors?
That celebrity liberal Arnie has access to liberal money via Buffett and Wilson and other media advantages does no change the essential fact that to support im is to surrender on the installment plan.
No harm done and no big deal in any event compared to ACTIVELY supporting child killing and lavender agendas as Arnie and his puppetmaster do.
You are complaining because he was campaigning against your non-officeholding candidate. People in both parties and of all persuasions make this silly complain in every election and others, similarly diverse, dismiss such complaints out of hand.
Hypocrisy is vastly overrated as an objection as well. It is usually used to claim moral equivalency when none exists.
Finally, it is relatively easy to "count" votes in advance in a forty-member state senate. It is far more difficult to "count" in advance the votes in the general electorate. Pollsters try and usually (including, I will admit, this recall and the election of a replacement) do a fairly good job of polling on the who will you vote for type of question once they have properly qualified the respondent as a probable voter which most do. Nonetheless, it is important that CONSERVATIVE voters vote in elections and vote as CONSERVATIVES and take nothing for granted.
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.