Arnold's corruption of Republican Party

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.

You really don't have a good feel for the state of public sentiment in CA.

You play down the effect of taxes: "a few temporary votes from the narrow slice of Demonrats who are now worried about taxes" You have got to be kidding me. There is a huge segment of Demonrats that are incredibly worried about taxes. The tripling of the car tax has hit all the little guys, not just the fat cats.

I know that you have a blind rage concentration on the moral issues, but that is not reflected in the CA electorate, because they do not see Arnie as a threat. He may or may not be a threat, but he is not seen as a threat by the average guy on the street.

Of course "Latinos ... do not want their grandchildren aborted". You make it sound like the Arnold Govt is going to come in and force abortions on them. Actually, even in CA those Latinos would have to decide to get an abortion themselves.

You believe that Arnold is a puppet for Wilson. I think that Arnold is his own man and is using the advice of many people across the political spectrum. I did not like a lot of Wilson's policies, but he WAS an effective campaigner. He was able to get the job done on winning elections. Utilizing him in this capacity is a smart move for Arnold.

George W. Bush ran for Congress in 1977, long before anybody even heard of Alan Keyes.

That doesn't exactly put him "in the limelight," now does it?

As for Keyes' saying good things about Bush, you'll have to point some out to me.

Keyes has said Bush is a likeable fellow on several occasions, but I didn't say Keyes said "good" things about Bush, but that Keyes supported the war in Iraq. Where did you get "good?" You certainly couldn't have been addressing anything I said. In any case, measured criticism, even above and beyond what you quoted, does not equate to "bashing." If it did, then I could cite as "praise" the quote posted earlier on this thread, where Keyes told an interviewer that he would support Bush for the 2004 election. In both cases, there is a big difference.

Serious question: At what point is one allowed to criticize someone's actions without being labled a "basher?"

That doesn't exactly put him "in the limelight," now does it?

It certainly puts him in more of the limelight than Alan Keyes. And for almost his entire life.

Thinking about this last night, it occured to me that the only time we're discussing Keyes is when we are disagreeing over some remark HE has made about George W. Bush.

You need to ask yourself why it is that the only time Keyes gains the national spotlight is when he has said something controversial about Bush and/or the GOP.

Can you name a time that either George W. Bush or the RNC has said anything degrading or controversial about Alan Keyes?

It certainly puts him in more of the limelight than Alan Keyes. And for almost his entire life.

But that doesn't exactly make your point, does it?

Now, I'm not an expert on logic. I know enough to realize there is a lot I don't know. However, when I observe that Keyes has been politically active since before Bush was ever in the limelight, you said he ran for Congress in 1977. Was Keyes using Bush when he stood up for Jean Kilpatrick and liberty in America at the U.N.? Was Keyes using Bush when he ran for the Senate in Maryland twice? When he ran for President (twice)? When he has consistently and persistently spoke out for the unborn? The answer to all questions is obviously no. Bush had nothing to do with any of those decisions, and I think you know that. Yes, Bush also ran for President in 2000, but that had no bearing, as far as I can tell or you can prove, on Keyes' decision to run. So why are you trying to change the subject? That isn't one of your strongest points. Just so I'm clear: You do have some valid points. Presentation and perception are significant portions of politics. And, like you deem Keyes, I'm certain you would consider me a political failure because I have not achieved the level of political success that Bush has, OR because I have not been able to effectively present my arguments in a way that convinces you of what I believe. That is the way things go.

That said, I'm going to offer you some unsolicited constructive criticism. Contrary to what you may think, this is NOT a personal attack. You may, of course, disregard it for whatever reason you deem appropriate, but I've noticed a pattern, which until now I have not been able to identify.

You are consistently guilty of committing fallacies in logic. More often than not, I've observed you change the subject. You do this by either 1. Attacking the person, 2. considering Style over Substance, or 3. Appeal to (dubious) authority (such as when authorities or "experts" disagree). There are a host of others, as well, but to help in this matter, I recommend a wonderful text that you can find at http://www.atomicdog.com. It is called Introduction to Logic: Evaluating Arguments. It is a good book, and the online version is terrific (Multimedia rocks). Whether or not you agree with my assessment of your arguments, you should consider this book. At the least, it will, perhaps, help you to answer my objections to your opinions, because my understanding of the content of that book, regardless of how flawed you may think it is, is the basis of most of my analyses.

Because I understand how sensitive people can get when they are criticized (no matter the spirit in which it was offered), please feel free to lay one on me. I've got thick skin, so please don't hold back. Then, if you wish, we can get back on topic.

But there's no evidence to suggest this is true.

Thank you for clarifying. I will also add that being against partial-birth abortion doesn't make one conservative. That, I think, is why having a few members who oppose the horrific procedure will not substantially harm the Democratic Party. There is very little logical difference between the two positions. The first group, which believes abortion is okay until the baby is completely out of the womb, think the right to life comes from a woman's choice. The second group, which generally supports "the right to choose" except when the baby is, in their estimation "viable," thinks the right to life comes from them, or a majority.

Gee, do you plan to test me after I do all that? You see, there's your and Keyes' problem right there. You talk it to death, and then insinuate that the person you're "discussing" something with needs to be "educated" because they aren't capable of understanding the English language -- or what Keyes means.

And no, Keyes wasn't "using" Bush back then, which makes my point. Nobody knew who he was back then. He was just another government worker. He may have been active in politics, like most of always have been, but lately, the only time he makes the news is when he criticizes Bush.

One of your problems is that you assume this is a debating society, with people scoring points. It's not; it's politics; rough and tumble, you know? You simply cannot LOGICALLY win.

As for your opinion of me and the "requirements" you set forth for my edification, you may think I'm obtuse; you may well think I'm a "lightweight;" you may think I'm not a "real conservative;" but, as I have said numerous times before, I'm happy in the company I'm in -- and I'm happy that most of us share the same opinions, goals, and reasonableness and acceptance of things that go on in the real world and willingness to work to better this country; I'm especially happy about how the majority of folks around here feel about Bush and Keyes. We're working FOR something, not against everything.

Your ideas are just that -- ideas -- and you've never been required to put them into action, since Keyes has never had an elected office. I can see how, sitting on the sidelines, it might be easier to just pontificate on "how it should be done." Those who actually get elected by a majority of people and take office have to live in the real world.

I'll quote again what somebody said about Keyes people:

"And, obediently, his army follows, tearing down instead of building up, dividing instead of joining forces, evidently delighting in being purer-than-thou rather than in actually moving the ball forward and doing something to roll back the culture of death."

Since by now it should be quite obvious to you that I do not like Alan Keyes, nor his tactics, and since it's obvious from your last post to me that you consider me incapable of carrying on an "intelligent" debate -- and since, regardless of what anyone may think, Alan Keyes is irrelevant -- let's just agree NOT to discuss this anymore.

BTW, I'm not so dumb that I don't realize that you weren't able to quote one time when either George W. Bush or the RNC has spoken ill of Alan Keyes. Too bad the same can't be said of Alan Keyes.

Let's just give it a rest; you can comfort yourself knowing you've enlightened me, however "unsubstantive" I may be.

Well Howlin, I was hoping you and I could have a nice, amiable discussion. I didn't mean to offend you, but was trying to offer some friendly constructive criticism, because we weren't getting anywhere productive. I'm not sure what to make of it that you take offense to that, but I don't have to understand it; I just need to accept it.

I didn't answer your question, incidently, because it was beside the point. I have plenty of criticisms of President Bush that have nothing to do with Keyes or anything I have heard him say, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Why does it matter? You are, again, changing the subject, which draws the discussion, again, to my previous post.

Also, when you say, "the only time he makes the news is when he criticizes Bush," and call Keyes "irrelavent," this is demonstrably not true. In fact, this article does not deal with Bush, yet Keyes has been the subject for --what-- nearly 800 posts? Some people, though they claim otherwise, still find him relevant. There is a disparity between what some say and what they do.

you consider me incapable of carrying on an "intelligent" debate

Not true. I believe you are capable. Otherwise I wouldn't even bother to engage. But have it as you want it. Whether or not we can agree on Keyes' relevance, we CAN agree that, to you and a nearly unanimous majority of FReepers here, I am irrelevant. You need not humor me, and I need not humor you. I wish you the best of blessings, and with the way things are going in this country, I likewise hope you are right. Unfortunately, though, hoping doesn't make it so.

Keyes does not expect to "appeal" to the etc. He bears witness to the Truth

So, Keyes is a prophet of the Old Testament mold. If he intends to be someone who tells it like he sees it, who doesn't care what people think of him as a spokesman for his views, who is content to put his oar in the water ever election and garner 3% of the vote, then who can complain about him. But I've concluded that in terms of presenting a compelling message, the messenger is just as important as the message. Keyes' message may be the truth, as you say, but it's often hard to hear it because his tone is like fingernails on a blackboard.

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.