My sympathy goes out to the McClintock supporters for whom the end is here.
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.
But the funny thing is that you are not bright enough to realize that it may be one of the chief reasons you can't get past square one.
Half the battle of persuasion is charm and personality. Since it seems to be a big void in the world of "superior conservatives", you will likely never advance very much.
If you were close to as wise as you think you are, you would have figured this out long ago.
Which, if you bothered to read it, is almost exactly what I said was Howlin's best point. What I find interesting (probably what you would call "laughable," if the tables were turned), is that you have a tendency to ignore valid arguments and concessions in defense of good for the sake of victory towards the advancement of something bad. That, I shouldn't have to tell you, is no victory.
And you know the meaning of victory?????? That's funny. What victories can you chalk up for those who think as you do?
Again, you missed the point. Whether or not a message is of value, if the listeners can't get past the stench of conceit and condescension, the words fall on deaf ears.
IOW, it takes more than a good command of the language and ideas. If they cannot be "successfully communicated", they have little, if no, impact.
For the second time to you, I agree, and have said so, now, three times on this thread.
Most of the rabid fans of these "purity" preachers only chide the people who haven't been persuaded. Rarely are they willing to see that the problem may be the deliverer; not the recipient.
Yet, they constantly berate the ones that have not bought the preaching and only exacerbate the problem.
One is easily led to believe that either they are too foolish and self absorbed to realize this or their agenda is other than what they claim.
Post 787 to Howlin:
Just so I'm clear: You do have some valid points. Presentation and perception are significant portions of politics.
Now, I don't squarely put the blame on the messenger, because the listener also has some responsibility to retain some sort of fealty to the English language when interpreting remarks, but in any case, the practical effect of not being able to communicate an important message, regardless of where the fault lies, is exactly the same.
I do appreciate that acknowledgement and I do see a responsibility on both sides, but..........
A much bigger percentage of the onus lies with the speaker. It is he or she that wishes to reach those who have not yet listened. He/she must first get their attention and do so in such a way as to draw them closer and begin the art of persuasion
If that is not first accomplished, all the rest is an exercise in futility. Therefore, the first adjustment of attitude must be made by he/she who seeks to change minds. Only if and when that happens can the recipients start to bear some of the responsibility.
Thus far, many messages are only heard by the choir because the rest have been turned off immediately. If pride does not allow the speaker to realize his/her own shortcomings, there can't be much reason to expect success.
Herein lies the basis for so many of the arguments. Instead of constructive discussion of how to move from point A to point B, the purists spend 99% of their time chastising the unpure for their supposed failings and stupidity. That is NOT a formula for success.
This is true, but where you and I probably part ways is the particular behaviors a speaker must exhibit in order to fulfill that responsibility. I don't believe there has been any historical instance where one just political body has defeated another unjust political body by withholding the truth from the public arena or taking the side of the enemy in order to achieve some sort of temporary "victory." If you can cite one, I'm all ears, though.
I don't see incremental progress as "taking the side of the enemy". I know some disagree.
It is nearly impossible to get everything conservatives may want, so often we have to settle for a foot in the door with hope of opening it more and more. Sadly, there are far too many liberals in this country to expect a miracle transformation.
Therefore, the ability to turn people in another direction is rare. If one has a God-given talent for speaking, it would be more beneficial to show an understanding for many different perspectives, rather than the ol' hammer to the head.
It also serves only the real enemy, the hard left, when we eat our own. They delight in the likes of Alan Keyes and McClintock. Divide and conquer is alive and well and very effective.
So.......if conservatives of any degree want to move the ball, they have to be willing to be patient, don't look gift horses in the mouth,and recognize the most dangerous enemy.
It should be realized that more converts will be won with a gentle education than a scolding and belittling lecture from a person who, for all intents and purposes, makes his/her enemy the less conservative of the Republicans rather the hard core leftist Democrat. Some common sense has to be brought to the table.
I believe that the grossly inflated egos of the with-friends-like-this-who-needs-enemies "leaders" will forever be a stumbling block for many conservative issues.
It is difficult for a lot of their followers to see how they affect the unconverted. But maybe some need to stop and ask themselves why the message is stifled. Other than the constraints of the infamous liberal media, what is the reason for the stagnation? If that question is never contemplated, I doubt things will change.
That brings me to my final assessment of a Keyes type of wannabe leader. Since their tactics never seem to evolve and success is not measurable, what are they really concerned about?
I believe that being the crusader for all the unrealistic purists has proven profitable and therefore, the purist "leader" must continue with a message of perpetual dissatisfaction. Without this, they may find themselves having to earn a living the hard way.......getting a job and actually producing something worthwhile.
I think an honest person needs to ask himself/herself if the virtue of aforementioned "leaders" is for real. Are they seeking to serve mankind or only themselves?
Of course that begs the question: Who is eating whom? Also, who do we consider "our own" if not those who hold our views?
Anyone who sincerely feels what you imply here should simply leave the Republican party and be a bonafide opposition instead of lingering within the party boundaries to soak up any benefits they might grab.
That would be honest. but probably not financially wise.
I ask again. Is their virtue for real?
It wasn't an implication. It was more of a request for an explanation. I find it interesting that you are more than willing to expunge those from the party who insist on maintaining the moral integrity of the party, but you welcome those who, through their actions and infiltration, are destroying it. They do not want the same things I want, or the same things I presume you want. They are, in fact, actively trying to change what the party stands for. I know you disagree with my assessment, but that is the way I see it.
I ask again. Is their virtue for real?
I haven't seen evidence to make me reasonably think that their professed beliefs are not true beliefs. The integrity of their virtue is for God to judge, and likewise, I haven't seen evidence to make me think it is insincere.
It may come to the point, as you imply, that people like me are rejected by the Republican Party. I hope that day never comes, and I will take no comfort in seeing the demise of the once-great organization. We can only do what God has given us the ability to do, and reason with the wit God has given us. I may be wrong, but so far I don't think I am.
Best to you.
My sympathy goes out to the McClintock supporters for whom the end is here.
That said and as far as party goes, I think that there is still room for differences within the party and the various opinion holders can strive to change the minds of others while still uniting to fight the more egregious wrongs of the liberal Democrats.
An example would be the ever hot issue of abortion. I am a stalwart pro-lifer and cannot understand how any person could believe differently. BUT.....there are decent people who do and the reasons are varied. I cannot comprehend it, but I will never bring them to see it through my eyes by being hateful or mean about it.
I can justifiably be determined and stubborn, but what good will I bring to the argument if I treat them as unworthy of my patience?
Don't you see that the in-fighting is playing right into the hands of those who would rob this country of everything we want to see?
Does it not make much more sense to deal with the differences in a civil way and remain united in the common causes?
I suppose I could sum it up as believing that if I set an unattainable goal with an unrealistic time expectation, I am doomed for disappointment and failure.
Likewise, if I am able to realize that I can work with those of a different mindset and perhaps bring them to some agreement with me, I have stepped forward and am that much closer to what I'd like to have happen.
When ubelievers, if you will, are told they are evil, ignorant and have no conscience, they become enemies, of a sort. The chances of breaking through to their hearts is often lost.
There can be strong disagreement without the vitriol and finger pointing. In the absence of bad feelings, good things can be accomplished.
One never knows when the hardest heart will soften, but I can almost guarantee it won't be at the end of a sword.
ubelievers = unbelievers
Pataki (a nominal but renegade Catholic like Arnie) sells out the GOP by supporting abortion (he is trying to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortifacient "morning after" pills, for instance). The legislation will be struck down by the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals as an infringment of freedom of religion as many circuits have already ruled.
Pataki sells out the GOP by supporting the lavender agenda. He is essentially Cuomo in GOP drag just as Arnie is Cruz or Doofus in GOP drag.
Neither Pataki nor Arnold are going to cause the election of a conservative US senator or even the defeat of Boxer, Feinswine, UpChuck or the Hildebeast. Neither are going to carry their states for Bush. They have no influence over those elements of the electorate which might make the difference because they have totally sold out on the issues that matter to those groups (abortion, lavenders, guns, taxes on working class folks, spending for "the arts!!!!!."
If Demonrats want money and programs and social leftism, they vote Demonrat and get the brand-name product. They do not defect to Pataki or Arnie for such purposes. If some constituent groups want social conservatism (i.e., opposition to abortion, opposition to lavender agendas, support for marriage and family and religion over those who attack religion), they will turn to the brand-name GOP unless its leaders like Pataki and Arnie sell out. If the issue is economics, Catholics who ARE Catholic, Orthodox and Chassidic Jews, Evangelicals, Latinos, Blacks, et al., will often and usually vote Democrat. If the dividing line is social issues, a principled GOP has the gun hand.
You are being sold a bill of goods. Reagan nearly carried Ed Koch's New York City with the support of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Schneerson and that support has never gone and will never go to Muffy and Skipper down at the polo club. Likewise, poorer Evangelicals and Catholics voted for Reagan but not for Pataki or other sellouts.
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.