Perusing blogs today, I could not help but note a touch of despair. Shanan Trail is switching parties. Consent of the Governed depicts a suicidal Republican Party. The QuipSpot wants to sue the Republican Party for false advertising. And Paul’s Ponderings seems to be where I have been for awhile as he asks, “Where have all the true conservatives gone?” And in a small quote in Paul’s entry, I see a kernel of what I believe is really the source of the problem with this presidential election.
Conservatism is about the role of government in our lives. Part of the problem is that the term conservative has been hijacked by people who believe that it is the government’s role to promote their ethic.
The underlying problem here, and I think it is behind a lot of the despair as well, is that we all place far too much importance on the Federal Government, and on the executive especially. As our culture changes, we seek not increasing ministry opportunities, but amendments. When we become concerned about what the schools down the street are teaching, we don’t arrange meetings with teachers, administrators and school board officials. We all but bypass the local political process in our rush to put our issues in front of the central government. We have stopped thinking about conservatism as a governing principle, and begun looking at it as a set of issues.
Take a look at point six of the 1860 Republican Party platform:
6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensible to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans, while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded.
The Republican Party was founded on this idea, only to what? Bring its own brand of reckless extravagance to every department of Federal Government? Including a few that did not even exist at the time? So is it time for a change?
If so, we are going to have to look at another issue that really girds our current dilemma. Our complete lack of interest in local affairs. If we as conservatives truly believed that the best government is the one that is “closest to the people,” we would show remarkably more interest in local politics. Instead, we focus on the presidency and when it looks like that may be lost, we decide to stay home.
But what about the rest of the ballot? And those politicians who will be governing closest to us? As The Lady Logician notes, there are a lot of passionate, hardworking conservatives still in office. Find out who they are and give them your support.
And in case you are wondering what that picture up there has to do with this entry, the second edition of The Heart of the Matter is up! And my article for this month deals directly with this issue: Freedom is not a gift, fighting for educational liberty.
[tags]election, 2008, Republican, conservative[/tags]
Terrific thoughts! What I keep thinking is that people that are socially conservative (ie., anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage) but not politically conservative are voting Republican because, “I would never vote for someone who isn’t pro-life.” I am conservative, not necessarily Republican. I want a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedoms. It appears the Republican party now represents pro-life Democrats.
I think the collective church has spent far too much time, money and effort trying to legislate the fruits of spiritual warfare. Jesus did not tell us to take over the government; he told us to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”
Most of my adult life, I have gone into the voting booth and voted for the lesser of two evils. This year the candidates will be so close in ideology and voting record that I think they are essentially the same. I may end up living in a country with bigger government, high taxes and less freedoms… but it won’t be because I used my vote to put those decision makers in office.
I have to disagree with you slightly on one point, Dana. Freedom is a gift that was bought for us by the generations that were before us. The question is, I think, will we pay for the gift the way that they did, and will we be able to pass it on to the next generations? Like the gift of life, freedom has to be nutured and guarded, or it will certainly perish.
Profound statement, but nurtured is spelled with two Rs.
Dana, this post is great. Very well said and it identifies the exact problem.
When I was in bed thinking about what to post this morning, I realized that I need to stop talking about the election. I feel like I am going off the deep end just thinking about it. It is time to really focus on what conservative principles are.
So many people who come to my blog assume that “conservative” means banning abortion and gay marriage! Obviously there is work to be done educating people.
Dana, thanks for continuing to be a voice of calm and steady reason.
Julie, I love this line: “It appears the Republican party now represents pro-life Democrats.”
I think your point about our trained impulse to jump to fixing the local problems with a centralized ’solution’ is true. At the same time, the local problems have become so centralized in bureaucracy.
The IL High School Assoc. has rules about local athletics, quiz bowl, et al. The IL School Board has rules about how to deal with families leaving the schools. Our representatives have tacked on laws on top of laws. The NEA and the AFT have rules that govern most of how the schools are run. A suggestion was also made on the Illinois Review to be more involved in the local school districts and their budgets. Creating Smart Education in Illinois
I haven’t quite given up that there is a little green in the wasteland of local governance that might make a difference for activists. But if apathy reigns with the majority, I’m not sure what can be done.
You know what bugs me about IL Republicans and our nat’l Republican Reps. Their platform speaks of “limited government”, but they are not about limited government. Paul’s quote above is dead on.
The boys asked me yesterday if I was a Republican. I’m registered, but I told them, “not anymore.”
I was talking to a mom at our mom’s meeting last night, who feels disenfranchised because we haven’t had our primary, yet and anyone she “might” have voted for has dropped out.
I appreciate your words on what it used to mean to be Republican and Conservative.
I hope you are right that a revolution can still take place in the hearts and minds. Ha! As a partial preterist, I guess I should be praying for that.
You know, I skimmed over the national party platform, and there wasn’t much about limited government in there. It is still in my state party’s platform, but even in it, you can see the beginnings of that tendency.
We are all looking to government to solve our problems. And we get upset with how our neglected local government acts, we try to fix it by going higher. Local politics can be swayed by an incredibly small but vocal minority. That is good for homeschoolers, but any issue group can profoundly effect government at this level.
But we have all been sort of conditioned to think, “That is bad; there ought to be a law…”
Julie, I think you are right. But I also think there are a lot of people who are socially and politically conservative who will choose to vote for their narrow set of issues before they would even think about the “rest of the package.” I don’t mean that to belittle anyone’s stance on voting pro-life or any other issue.
But it gets to be a problem, because the Republican Party now figures it can count on a large number of votes from one group based on at least pandering to these issues, even though the actual chance of much changing is slim.
And then there are those I’m hearing more about recently that believe it is all in God’s hands and thus don’t vote.
Great post - as usual.
We are witnessing a party shift spurred on by the media. The MSM is doing a great job of framing the debate and leading the sheeple.
They do it by media coverage blackout (i.e. not delivering full and balanced information to the masses) and by repeating the message they wish everyone to hear. While the message is different then Paul Joseph Goebbels’ the tactics are the same.
Can everyone imagine that we cannot even have a complete primary season without candidate manipulation to drop out? The folks in the remaining primaries should be fuming angry that their choices are being removed.. and to them I say write and call the FEC and file a complaint today!
Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463 (800) 424-9530 In Washington (202) 694-1000
From 8:30AM-5:30PM ET
** As our culture changes, we seek not increasing ministry opportunities, but amendments. When we become concerned about what the schools down the street are teaching, we don’t arrange meetings with teachers, administrators and school board officials. We all but bypass the local political process in our rush to put our issues in front of the central government. We have stopped thinking about conservatism as a governing principle, and begun looking at it as a set of issues.**
I think this may be because so often, on the local level, we are dismissed and it is that mentality of “going to the top/over their heads” that drives many people.
I personally enjoy working on the local level and do it often, in whatever way I can at the time.
I think your point is a good one and I wish many more people would take it seriously… I think they just need direction on how to do that.
The IL Republican party platform trots out Equality, Freedom, Opportunity, Less Government, Low Taxes and Strong National Security with… ahem a deep respect for each individual, the family and community. But they also mention that they plan To ensure that high quality healthcare is available throughout our State in both rural and urban areas. pffftt
I did enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of the IL Republican Conference Chair who introduced a bill to make it easier for municipalities to have those horrid stoplight video cameras.
Less government, deep respect…my eye.
A state that has a motto like Live Free or Die seems to get it: From the CSM:Smile. You’re on candid cop camera.
In that most representative of public assemblies - the bustling House chamber of the New Hampshire State House - there’s an old rebellious notion: In matters of personal responsibility, don’t always err on the side of safety. After all, it’s the only state not to require that adults wear seat belts.
So when a bill came up in early April to consider allowing robotic traffic cameras at the busiest crossroads, mocking laughter from the gallery preceded the measure’s demise.
“The idea that we were going to be photographed [by the government] was anathema to most of us,” says Neal Kurk, a Republican from Weare, N.H.
I’m so jealous.
Direction about how not to do that could be helpful too — blaming the godless press and Nazis, for instance.
After I read this to my husband, he said that whoever wrote it deserved a medal.
He needed some inspiration today. I may have already told you, but my optimist husband has been morphing into a pessimist. So thanks for the admonishment!
I agree that we put to much importance on the federal government and not enough on the local level. But I think another reason for the despair is that the president represents us to the world. He is not a king, but he does influence the country. Think of the sexual misconduct of Clinton while in office. Okay, wait. Don’t really ponder it, but it is easy to see the negative example for young people especially.
Ethics do matter, but not exclusively. And this is were I keep running into a problem. I want a small government conservative with good character. Thankfully, some do exist. As you so eloquently stated, we just have to find them.
I agree with you, Renae. Character is important, and so is the presidential office. But if we were more diligent in knowing who we were voting for at the local and state level (for those who bother to vote at all in these elections), there would be a much better pool to draw from when it gets to national offices.
It isn’t very common for someone to walk off the street and gain national office. They generally have a long history in politics in their home states. A long time to build up good politicians.
Dana,
Thanks for the link to my post. My perspective started from events at the local level, then moved to issues with the big ‘R’ at the state level. When the people of the great state of Ohio did not vote for the party leaders’ preferred ‘R’ candidate in the last gubernatorial primary, the leaders proceeded not to back the primary winner in the general election.
I have friends running for city council seats as Republicans. I greatly admire and respect what they are doing. Everyone should be involved. My concern is that local, regional and state politics have become the farm system for the national big box parties.
Funny, though, we home schoolers don’t look at private and public schools and say, “Well, it’s not that bad. Have heart, and be encouraged.” No, we instead looked for a way to solve the problems we saw with giving our children an appropriate education. If we would only consider our voting decisions with as much weight, for all levels of government.
Where have the conservatives gone? That’s a good question, but I think it is the wrong question. Instead of still trying to find ourselves a political home, we should be forgetting about the big ‘R’ and the big ‘D’, and finding the best candidates for what we believe. Here is a post that defines more options that look more like what conservatives believe.
I wasn’t criticizing your post or your stance in the least…just wanted to be clear on that. But there is a lot of frustration out there. Although I don’t think the Republican Party has gone back on its promises. I skimmed through the book they wrote in ‘04 defining their platform. It isn’t based on small government conservatism.
My concern is that local, regional and state politics have become the farm system for the national big box parties.
That is sort of my point. The leaders we elect in our communities will lead in higher office later. We need to find the best and encourage and support them now. If we are worried about what any of the candidates will do as president, it is more important than ever to vote this November…and to know the other candidates on the ticket. I’d love to see the other offices swing right before 2010.
And Republicans aren’t really straying that far because they didn’t vote for McCain. He won in blue states and where Democrats and Independents could vote. His nomination will hardly represent the base of the party who were split among three to four candidates, depending on the state you are looking at. Unfortunately, not only will he be on the ticket, but he will strongly influence the party platform.
And while we may not like our two party system, it has its advantages. What do you think would be different in a multi-party system?
In one of your previous posts, you said, “Maybe once we are recognized by the market, homeschooling will finally be more universally accepted.”
I often feel like that with politics. It’s obvious that a number of us are not drinking the political kool-aid, yet we go into the voting booth holding our nose, voting for the lesser of two evils, all in the name of hope. Or, to paraphrase Michelle Malkin and others, thinking that “it will get better”.
For better or worse, we are a market-driven nation. That includes our politics. Each of us, regardless of political persuasion, has been placed into a little box called a “voting bloc”. Karl Rove and James Carville figure they know how we will vote before we actually do. I don’t know what is scarier, that they make the prediction or that they are frequently right.
We have allowed ourselves to be categorized. We may all say we are free thinkers, but come election time, we fall right back into old habits. We fear throwing away our vote if the big ‘R’ candidate doesn’t win. We won’t look at the truly conservative candidates in the big ‘R’ party because pundits and party leaders tell us they are not electable (i.e. not polished). So we look for rock stars, not governors, and throw all sense of self-governance out the window, hoping against all hope that this time, just maybe, this time, the lesser-of-two-evils-candidate will actually do one or two things right and change the country around.
It’s as you said: generally, we want government to do for us. I want to find the candidates that will leave me alone to do for myself. Both parties, at the double-A (county), triple-A (state) and major league (national) levels are full of statists who recognize that giving citizens more is a meal ticket to getting elected, while making citizens accountable is a ticket to political disaster. (See herefor my ramblings on our enabler society.)
But, I digress. You asked what additional parties would accomplish. In short, I think they accomplish the following:
- Force the market to recognize the parties. Third parties are still novelty fodder today, but they should be taken seriously. They haven’t hit the tipping point yet. Why? Because we’re so afraid of being the vote that turns the country upside down by letting the “other” party gain or maintain power. We don’t vote our conscience; we vote our party.
- Force media to move away from the us/them model of political talk that fills the airwaves today. Otherwise, they would lose their market. Fox got big because they filled the void for conservatives (although I would say Republicans more so than conservatives).
- Reduce the chance of one party having majority or super-majority rule in the House or Senate (state or national levels), thereby slowing down the need for government to “do”.
- Give more options for the thinking voter to consider. Wouldn’t you rather make your own choice, than have the options whittled down to two for you every election?
- Force the two big box parties to reconsider their platform, because they will need to re-position themselves in the marketplace. Right now, they have no incentive to do that.
I’m not saying three or more strong parties would be perfect, either. Three people arguing could get loud and ugly. Two people who should be arguing, but don’t because they share the power, is even uglier in my opinion.
The reason I ask is because I was once an advocate of a multi-party system. Everyone gets a voice. Germany is set up so that there are two ways to gain office. Each party submits its list of candidates and the people vote. You can get in by a direct vote, meaning more people voted for you than anyone else. But if the party gets at least (10%?) of the vote, the party is awarded however many seats proportional to the amount of votes the party received.
They have two major parties, the CDU and the SPD, the FDP between them and a plethora of minor parties which routinely are represented.
There is almost never a large enough group to get anything done, so politics is continually driven by compromise as differing parties hash out their differences to form coalition governments.
Really, what you see is what we have here. Everyone compromises and is forced toward the middle, which slides continually to the left. And I would argue that slide is happening faster because the CDU does not have to cater to the “right” side of its party. There is nothing to slow it down.
As I read the posts it is interesting to see a complaining spirit of the US political system as it exists; dominated by the MSM’s chosen candidates from 2 primary political parties. This is the way it has been for years and finally this year, 2008, we have an opportunity to break out of the big D big R mentality and elect a president who represents true conservative principles.
BUT, we continue to complain that we must go into the voting booth and vote for the lesser of 2 evils. We do this because we don’t recognize the opportunity that is before us.
Why have we avoided Dr. Ron Paul’s name? Why do we continue to complain about the “system” and about not having “conservative” candidates to choose from? The limited government, pro-life, pro-conservative candidate has now FINALLY broken into the big R party and can actually make a difference in taking the R party back to it’s founding principles, but yet we complain.
Why are we refusing to get behind Dr. Ron Paul? Why do we sit at a distance and complain about the big R party, when we can now actually do something about it in a significant way? One of the important roles the President of the US is to define his party’s platform. There are very few (none in my state that I know of) who are taking back the R party from the position to which they have been elected. Most people complain about the R party and are apathetic. They threaten to go to another party and in essence get nowhere. They blog about not having a true conservative to support and vote for anymore and that the R party has left it’s conservative roots. But yet, so many of us continue like sheep to follow the drivil of the MSM.
I have said it in other posts, Ron Paul is finally the conservative candidate we have all been wanting, but yet, we complain.
I have been active in local politics and governance and it is just as rigged as the national arena. In my town, in my state, you do not get elected to office without the big R or the big D behind your name. Then, once you are elected and you don’t toe the party line, you are marginalized and basically put out to pasture, isolated from any work within the party. You loose local and statewide support from the party and eventually fade from the political scene. It takes a strong, principled, wealthy person to be able to overcome this…and while you are out slaying dragons, your family sits at home wondering where daddy is and maybe we will read about him in the paper or see him on TV.
My hat goes off to Dr. Ron Paul for his persistant passion to continue the fight. We must rally behind and support the true conservative candidates WITHIN the mainstream parties. We must also support candidates outside the party, but frankly, they have much less chance of effecting any kind of change. Injecting them into the big R is probably a much more effect process. Maintaining the R behind our own names allows us the opportunity to effect change within the party, but still allowing us to vote for other conservative candidates as they come from other parties.
absolutely.
As a poll official, I worked 5 election days last year. I spent most of those days reading magazines. Last tuesday however, we were inundated and nearly ran out of materials, there were so many people.
Where were they for the local elections?
Brian, I’m going to say the same thing I did to Paul on his site. I think you falsely connect a rejection of Dr. Paul with a rejection of limited government. There are a number of issues which have lessened his viability among Christians. I am not saying any of these are right or wrong on their own, but I think that you can’t so easily dismiss people’s discomfort with him with a discomfort with conservative values:
1) Even some libertarians, upon hearing his name floated, reacted by questioning, “OK, but do you really want libertarianism connected with him?”
2) He has had a difficult time separating himself from his supporters which include white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. (I’m not saying that is his fault with that.) His appearances on the Alex Jones show do not help that.
3) Many conservatives place the war in Iraq as a priority.
4) The surfacing of his old newsletters have brought even Reason magazine, which has always supported him, around to an uneasy relationship…or so it seems to me, anyway.
5) He isn’t that well known and most of what people know about him is based on brief snippets and other people’s summaries. And the infamous “Paulbots” peppering comment boxes across the political blogs.
He may have been the only “true conservative” in the race, but he had a difficult time really getting his message out, so to speak. I don’t think that is a failure of a conservatism, really.
On an aside, I am not sure if this is a peculiarity of Nebraska politics, but we have a lot of local politicians which are unaffiliated. The same movement that brought us the unicameral brought with it an attempt to do away with party politics. But it may also be that in this state, politicians realize that “unaffiliated” is more palatable than “Democrat.”
We must rally behind and support the true conservative candidates WITHIN the mainstream parties.
I agree wholeheartedly. And yes, it is difficult on the local level, as well. But I think that is largely because not that many people get involved. I have been toying with the idea of voting for Paul for one reason…the tiny amount of influence any delegates will have on the formation of the party platform at the convention. : )
Brian,
On our primary date, I probably will vote for Paul. Knowing that he won’t be elected, though, I am looking around for other viable conservative candidates that are not affiliated with the Republican Party.
If an industry had two super-powers who duopolized all power, price, and control, we’d be crying collusion or anti-trust. Funny that we don’t like it when business engages in this activity, but that we enable it in our political parties.
I really enjoyed your article in Heart of the Matter!
Dana,
I am just totally misunderstanding people’s complaints.
Most of the posts in this discussion are complaints with no resolutions.
When a solution is presented, Ron Paul, you again complain about irrelevant issues:
“1) Even some libertarians, upon hearing his name floated, reacted by questioning, “OK, but do you really want libertarianism connected with him?””
Who cares what the label is? Are we about people having the right labels in front of and behind their names? Does “libertarianism” mean anti-conservatism or anti-Christian?
“2) He has had a difficult time separating himself from his supporters which include white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. (I’m not saying that is his fault with that.) His appearances on the Alex Jones show do not help that.”
Again, who cares WHO supports him and the shows he has appeared on. Could you not support Ronald Reagan because he appeared on liberal CBS? NBC or ABC? Why would Christians separate themselves from Alex Jones? Should we instead flock to and give credibility to people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Rielly? Who are the “right” people who Christian political candidates should be associated with? Almost every talk show host out there has some sort of twisted agenda. Who have you personally deemed worthy to be associated with (and thus are the “proper” associations)? I like Kevin Swanson, Gary DeMar, David Barton, Chuck Misler, but then again, are they aren’t true talk show hosts and are they too “out there” for Christians to embrace?
“3) Many conservatives place the war in Iraq as a priority.”
I believe you are implying that “winning the war in Iraq is a priority”, and I would suggest that “mainstream conservatives” place WINNING the war as a priority. I will give you that this is a point of contention between what I would call “true conservatives” and “mainstream conservatives”. I don’t say this to be contentious, but I have not seen a biblical and constitutional (the doctrines that define true conservatism) argument that supports winning the war in Iraq. I have seen arguments based on speculation, hearsay, and popular opinion, but these do not support biblical and constitutional positions on the war (we’ve discussed that in other postings).
“4) The surfacing of his old newsletters have brought even Reason magazine, which has always supported him, around to an uneasy relationship…or so it seems to me, anyway.”
I don’t read or know anything about Reason magazine and their biblical, political or philosophical positions. But Ron Paul has clearly addressed the misinformation people have propagated about him at:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1025
“5) He isn’t that well known and most of what people know about him is based on brief snippets and other people’s summaries. And the infamous “Paulbots” peppering comment boxes across the political blogs.”
And this is a failing of Dr. Paul? People’s unwillingness to seek truth is based on their own apathy and fear and is not a reason to discredit a political candidate.
Dana, again, I highly respect your insight and knowledge in a broad area of issues, but the 5 reasons you state above for not supporting Ron Paul are purely speculative opinions based on flat out lies, hatred, hearsay, and fear of what Ron Paul stands for. They are reasons touted by popular opinion rather than facts.
As I have said before, Ron Paul is the first candidate I have seen in recent years to stand for positions much more in line with early Republican platform. HE IS NOT PERFECT, nor am I claiming him to be so. We are fallen and failed society, we will not see a perfect candidate until our Lord Jesus returns. BUT, he does support every conservative position which the conservatives of 1860 would support.
Rick,
“I am looking around for other viable conservative candidates that are not affiliated with the Republican Party.”
The problem with this philosophy is that it quickly judges, discriminates, and/or eliminates someone purely because they are labeled with an R. I want to believe that there are Rs out there who will embrace true conservative principles. Ron Paul is developing a large following (which includes are large number of Rs) who are fed up with mainstream R.
McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, Dobson, etc can continue down the RINO patch, but there are many other people wanting to turn the party back to the conservative roots. I hope it continues without having to jump ship to another party. I will still continue to support conservative candidates outside of the R party, but I am not totally ready to dismiss the conservatives who still carry the R.
Brian, I know there are real conservatives in the Republican Party. Even ones in office. I read some of their remarks in the paper, online, and have read some of their responses to the letters homeschoolers have been sending in regards to the bill we are fighting here in Nebraska.
I would prefer to see the party move back to its roots, and I haven’t lost hope of that happening. If it doesn’t, I think we likely will see a split in the party…but of course, the Democratic Party is suffering some of the same forces within it.
And don’t be so quick to dismiss the “Christian Right” as not really understanding what it means to be conservative. Those I know are very frustrated with the Republican Party and feel they have given it their allegiance too long. It is just that they tend to look at single issues and place them far above all others. So we get President Bush and the real hardline “religous right” people I know are fed up with him, with many even calling into question whether he really is even Christian.
If Obama were pro-life and all other candidates were pro-choice, I think they would vote for him because of that alone. It isn’t that they necessarily are liberal, it is just a conscience thing. They cannot vote for a murderer, and that is very much how they see this issue.
Brian, please read my entire comment, especially this part:
I am not saying any of these are right or wrong on their own, but I think that you can’t so easily dismiss people’s discomfort with him with a discomfort with conservative values:
The point of what I listed was not to question Ron Paul, but to look at the concerns people have. You cannot so easily dismiss them, or you have dismissed a lot of true conservatives who may differ on some aspects or may only know what Paul stands for based on a few sound bytes. The rest of what you wrote doesn’t really address what I was trying to say because I was not attacking Dr. Paul. Only citing the concerns I have read and I think it has a lot to do with the problems Dr. Paul has had gaining any support outside the internet.
I also disagree with this:
As I have said before, Ron Paul is the first candidate I have seen in recent years to stand for positions much more in line with early Republican platform.
The early Republican platform was based on a single issue and led to the Civil War. Ron Paul stands on the other side of that, another issue that is probably not going to sit well with a lot of conservative Republicans. Abraham Lincoln was their first champion.
Point three on the platform:
3. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population, its surprising development of material resources, its rapid augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for Disunion, come from whatever source they may: And we congratulate the country that no Republican member of Congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of Disunion so often made by Democratic members without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce those threats of Disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendency, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant People sternly to rebuke and forever silence.
Shawna, thanks for reading it!
Brian,
You missed my first statements in the paragraph you referenced. You know, the ones that said, “On our primary date, I probably will vote for Paul. Knowing that he won’t be elected, though….”
On Election Day, I will still vote for someone. If Paul is not the Republican candidate, then my vote will likely go to a third party candidate. May I remind you that Paul was a third party candidate in 1988, when he ran for the Presidency as the Libertarian Party candidate. Would you have voted for him then, when he stood for the same things as he does now? Or would you only vote for him because he is a Republican again?
Dana,
You said, “And don’t be so quick to dismiss the “Christian Right” as not really understanding what it means to be conservative. Those I know are very frustrated with the Republican Party and feel they have given it their allegiance too long.”
But yet, they are slow to embrace Ron Paul and will allow the MSM and the Republican Party to dismiss him without reason, thus contributing to the deception themselves. The open avoidance of Dr. Paul by the Christian Right is just as obvious as it is with the MSM. If they are so frustrated with the party, they have a clear and obvious opportunity to change things, but, they sit on the sidelines debating if they can support a candidate like Romney or Huckabee with no mention or consideration of Ron Paul.
I consider myself to be the “Christian Right” as are many people I have talked to. When I mention Ron Paul, I get, “I don’t even want to hear about that Libertarian wacko” or “I thought he dropped out of the race a long time ago” or “he isn’t even electable, he isn’t a real candidate”, and on and on. These are the same people who claim to be the Christian Right, but they are listening to the MSM AND the “Evangelical Christian” leaders. The Christian Right is just as fractured as the Republican party because we have been secularized and brainwashed by the MSM, public education, and even our own pastors in our churches.
I am more upset with the Christian Right because WE should know better. I can’t expect the liberal left to know that they have lost their way because they stumble around in the dark. But I certainly can expect those who claim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to not fumble around in the dark and blindly follow misguided leadership (who in turn are following the ways of the world).
This election process has, more than any ever, enlightened me as to the darkness that surrounds the Evangelical Christian community and how the world has so influenced us. There is such a great divide between Ron Paul and the other candidates that it is just so obvious how the Republican party has lost its way and Evangelical Christians have followed right along with it over the cliff.
It was once claimed that IF every eligible Evangelical Christian voted values, we could change the course of any election. That has not occurred in any of the primaries yet. The Evangelical vote has been spit between practically every candidate, with the least amount of votes going to Ron Paul. The “leadership” of the Evangelical community has endorsed every single other candidate from Giuliani to Huckabee and thoroughly confused their sheeple followers. I am not aware of one mainstream “evangelical leader” that has supported Ron Paul. Why is that? I believe it is because they do not want their own “ratings” with the MSM to be hurt. It is about them rather than about the candidate or the principle.
This is why I am hard on the Christian Right and the Republican Party. Both seem to be going the same direction.
Rick,
Knowing what I know TODAY about Ron Paul, I would have voted for him as a Libertarian in 1988. In 1988, I was blindly following Republican and Evangelical leadership.
Your comment “On our primary date, I probably will vote for Paul. Knowing that he won’t be elected, though….” makes it sound like you are voting for the lesser of 2 (or 3) evils. Maybe I misunderstood. I wish we had more Ron Paul types in the Republican party and has Dana has pointed out, she knows a lot of conservative Republicans. I wish they were in my state, but we are a blue state and it is tough to find conservatives. But now that Ron Paul has made a statement, the revolution begins and people will hopefully gravitate to and recognize the truth in the message.
Dana,
I don’t quite understand what you mean by:
“The early Republican platform was based on a single issue and led to the Civil War. Ron Paul stands on the other side of that, another issue that is probably not going to sit well with a lot of conservative Republicans.”
Are you saying that Ron Paul is in favor of Disunion today?
Dana,
You said, “The point of what I listed was not to question Ron Paul, but to look at the concerns people have. You cannot so easily dismiss them, or you have dismissed a lot of true conservatives who may differ on some aspects or may only know what Paul stands for based on a few sound bytes. The rest of what you wrote doesn’t really address what I was trying to say because I was not attacking Dr. Paul. Only citing the concerns I have read and I think it has a lot to do with the problems Dr. Paul has had gaining any support outside the internet.”
I don’t want to make this a personal attack of what DANA said and what BRIAN said, but yet you have posted the complaints that OTHER people have with Ron Paul, thereby giving credence and validity to their complaints. You did put in the disclaimer that you did not know if they were right or wrong and now you distance yourself from their supposed complaints. You wanted “to look at the concerns people have” and I have presented to you how baseless those concerns are…not to attack you, but to discredit the concerns.
Reading all the posts in this topic (which is what I was trying to address), people seem to be complaining about the lost direction of the Republican party. It is easy to complain about something, but complaining and offering no solutions doesn’t really help the discussion or the process, it’s just complaining.
A solution has been laid before us. Do we grab it, wrestle with it, discuss it, or do we follow the rest of the party, ignore it and hope it goes away.
Again, I don’t want to sound confrontational, but I do want to understand why people complain about Ron Paul (even if we are presenting and disclaiming other people’s complaints) and distance themselves from supporting him? We shouldn’t be concerned about what the MSM and baseless attack groups are saying, but what do we the people think about a solution to the conservative base of the Republican Party?
Dana,
Perhaps I am also guilty of dismissing the Christian Right (and I consider myself to be one too) as misunderstanding conservative government too. And, this has come to me this election more than ever before. Why? Because I couldn’t get over the whole Huckabee thing. As Governor, Huckabee demonstrated that he pro big-government, he raised taxes and he is more than soft of issues surrounding illegal aliens. As Spunky pointed out, his policies increased restriction on homeschoolers.
Yet, many Evangelical supported him. HSLDA and James Dobson have both endorsed his candidacy. I would much rather vote for a person based on his policies than his (or her) religion. I personally found this scary. Sad and scary.
Julie, Dobson did endorse Huckabee, but I think it is significant that he waited until now. When he had a choice between McCain and Huckabee. Earlier in the race, Huckabee was acting a little put out, as if he expected the endorsement with the Iowa victory. I never expected an endorsement of Paul because the gay marriage thing is just such a big thing to them. It is a big deal to a lot of Christian voters. Big enough to swallow some liberal policies to get it….
And Ron Paul has support in odd places:
http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2007/12/long-anticipated-glenn-beck-interview.php
That didn’t really surprise me. It is widely speculated that the ghost writer that is responsible for those newsletter Paul has taken the heat for was Lew Rockwell…or Gary North, Rushdoony’s son-in-law. The writing sounds like him, anyway. And he served on Paul’s staff during his Libertarian bid for the presidency.
Chalcedon never came behind Huckabee:
http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2007/12/homeschoolers-holding-up-huckabee.php
He isn’t the candidate of the Christian Reconstructionists, as much as he has been given the label.
Brian, let me go through this point by point to see if what I am saying can be made a little clearer:
But yet, they are slow to embrace Ron Paul and will allow the MSM and the Republican Party to dismiss him without reason, thus contributing to the deception themselves.
I really think you have to step away from the rejection of Ron Paul as a rejection of conservatism. And blaming the media. And the Republican Party. And “sheeple,” although I am glad you didn’t use that term. I’m just adding it because that is what I’ve heard in other discussions. : ) When we dismiss people as ignorant without looking at truly why they have made the decisions they have made, we learn nothing and we get nowhere.
There are three possibilities for the rejection of Ron Paul:
1) People were rejecting Ron Paul.
2) People were rejecting Ron Paul’s ideas.
3) People were not informed enough on what Ron Paul was really saying to make a wise choice.
It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if people only understood the issues like I do, they would decide as I do. Thus they are not informed. But disrespecting those we oppose does not generate healthy debate. It generates the flame wars I have stepped out of multiple times.
The open avoidance of Dr. Paul by the Christian Right is just as obvious as it is with the MSM.
Who is the Christian Right? Dobson? He only just now made an endorsement. Rushdooney? He sides with Paul. Renew America, Alan Keyes’ site? They certainly prefer Paul to Huckabee. They have no end of disdain for Huckabee. And again, do not dismiss them simply on the basis of rejecting Ron Paul. You have not yet discovered why it is they have done so.
If they are so frustrated with the party, they have a clear and obvious opportunity to change things, but, they sit on the sidelines debating if they can support a candidate like Romney or Huckabee with no mention or consideration of Ron Paul.
And again you equate Ron Paul with conservatism. He certainly has a great number of the qualities as we’ve discussed. But there are a few issues which are huge to Christian voters, for better or for worse. All three of them are not exactly represented in Dr. Paul. Give them the respect to at least acknowledge that maybe their views are based on something other than ignorance, even if they have come to a different conclusion.
I consider myself to be the “Christian Right” as are many people I have talked to. When I mention Ron Paul, I get, “I don’t even want to hear about that Libertarian wacko” or “I thought he dropped out of the race a long time ago” or “he isn’t even electable, he isn’t a real candidate”, and on and on. These are the same people who claim to be the Christian Right, but they are listening to the MSM AND the “Evangelical Christian” leaders.
Maybe. But passing them off as beholden to the MSM isn’t going to change any hearts or minds, either.
The Christian Right is just as fractured as the Republican party because we have been secularized and brainwashed by the MSM, public education, and even our own pastors in our churches.
That is a pretty harsh assessment, and made only on the basis that they haven’t come behind Dr. Paul? Again, you really have to look at what they are rejecting and why.
I am more upset with the Christian Right because WE should know better. I can’t expect the liberal left to know that they have lost their way because they stumble around in the dark. But I certainly can expect those who claim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to not fumble around in the dark and blindly follow misguided leadership (who in turn are following the ways of the world).
I am sorry, but the test of one’s Christianity is not their support of this one candidate. I know that isn’t exactly what you are saying, but you are getting close.
This election process has, more than any ever, enlightened me as to the darkness that surrounds the Evangelical Christian community and how the world has so influenced us. There is such a great divide between Ron Paul and the other candidates that it is just so obvious how the Republican party has lost its way and Evangelical Christians have followed right along with it over the cliff.
You are still equating a rejection of Dr. Paul with a rejection of conservative values…Christian principles, even. But we haven’t yet explored what people are rejecting. It is an important thing to look at, because it really should focus the discussion for the next four years.
If every EC voted values, we would all vote for Huckabee. The “values voters” vote two issues: abortion and gay marriage.
That has not occurred in any of the primaries yet. The Evangelical vote has been spit between practically every candidate, with the least amount of votes going to Ron Paul.
So we don’t march to the beat of a single drummer, after all? : )
The “leadership” of the Evangelical community has endorsed every single other candidate from Giuliani to Huckabee and thoroughly confused their sheeple followers.
Oops, I guess you did pull sheeple into it. But I don’t think this is fair. You are assuming these candidates don’t express their views on government or that they would choose Paul “if they only understood.” That isn’t productive.
I am not aware of one mainstream “evangelical leader” that has supported Ron Paul. Why is that? I believe it is because they do not want their own “ratings” with the MSM to be hurt. It is about them rather than about the candidate or the principle.
Maybe. And maybe they want the gay marriage amendment and do not think that drugs and pornography should be state issues.
This is why I am hard on the Christian Right and the Republican Party. Both seem to be going the same direction.
Are you saying that Ron Paul is in favor of Disunion today?
No, I am saying that he says that Lincoln waged an immoral war and desired to solidify and strengthen the power of the central government. He does not have nice things to say about Lincoln, or the Civil War, and yet this is the foundation of the Republican Party. I was only objecting to the claim that he was closer to the founding principles of the Republican Party.
I don’t want to make this a personal attack of what DANA said and what BRIAN said, but yet you have posted the complaints that OTHER people have with Ron Paul, thereby giving credence and validity to their complaints.
No, that is not what I have done. I did exactly what I said I did. You asked why Ron Paul was dismissed and I gave the answers that those who have dismissed them have given. If you want to claim “media bias” and “brainwashed sheeple” go ahead, I guess. But I don’t think it will help us truly understand what is being rejected. There are concerns. The degree to which they are untrue or not Paul’s fault are interesting, but we would then need to look at each of these and see how to approach them. I don’t think it is preferable to pass off people’s objections so flippantly.
You did put in the disclaimer that you did not know if they were right or wrong and now you distance yourself from their supposed complaints. You wanted “to look at the concerns people have” and I have presented to you how baseless those concerns are…not to attack you, but to discredit the concerns.
But in so doing, you failed to see the point. That people are rejecting something, but it isn’t conservative values. They are rejecting Ron Paul personally in some areas (regarding the conspiracy stuff, old newsletters, etc.), some issues (especially his stance on the war, although that has also brought in a lot of support but also his statements about the Civil War and Lincoln) and there is the fact that much of what Ron Paul has to say cannot be discussed so easily in a quick soundbyte. Or at least he has not been effective in figuring out how.
There is another point we haven’t discussed, but why is Obama getting so much support and actually challenging the Clinton “machine?” He inspires people, even though he doesn’t say much. Reagan said a lot more, but he had the same effect. He made a connection and inspired people. Paul lacks that charisma.
Again, I don’t want to sound confrontational, but I do want to understand why people complain about Ron Paul (even if we are presenting and disclaiming other people’s complaints) and distance themselves from supporting him?
If you really want to know, than you really have to look at what they say, not your biases against them. Meaning you have to look at the money he has raised from fringe groups, old newsletters and all of that and not just pass it off as a reaction to media bias.
I don’t know if you realize this, but the commenters in this thread tend to be Paul supporters or at least have talked about him favorably.
And I don’t see the complaining you keep bringing up. I actually see people frustrated with this election changing focus to the future and the work that lies ahead.
A solution has been laid before us. Do we grab it, wrestle with it, discuss it, or do we follow the rest of the party, ignore it and hope it goes away.
Again, I don’t want to sound confrontational, but I do want to understand why people complain about Ron Paul (even if we are presenting and disclaiming other people’s complaints) and distance themselves from supporting him? We shouldn’t be concerned about what the MSM and baseless attack groups are saying, but what do we the people think about a solution to the conservative base of the Republican Party?
I think we have to respect those who have rejected Dr. Paul and see what it is they are rejecting. It will help us as we frame the debate, how we present our case and who we select to represent conservatives in the future. Never underestimate your enemies. How much more so should this apply to those who are most likely to be swayed in the debate?
Also interesting when we speak of Dr. Paul and the “Christian Right.”
Howard Phillips, Doug Phillips’ dad is behind him. Members of Vision Forum appear to be behind him, warning specifically against Huckabee. (And not bothering to mention McCain.)
Dana,
It looks like we are talking past each other.
Why did James Dobson not support Ron Paul?
Why did FOTF-PAC not talk about Ron Paul at all when evaluating candidates?
Why did Pat Robertson not support Ron Paul?
Why did Mike Farris not support Ron Paul?
Why do evangelical Christians I talk to not support Ron Paul?
I don’t know the answers to these questions.
You presented several items from what you have heard people say:
1. They don’t like the Libertarian label.
Since this is a lable others have slapped on him, I don’t see what this has to do with being President of the US.
2. They don’t like some of his supporters.
Again, I don’t see what this has to do with being the President of the US. Are these “questionable” supporters NOT US citizens? I am sure there are some supporters of every candidate that we all don’t like.
3. They don’t like his position on the war in Iraq.
As I said before, why don’t they like his position? What is wrong with it? They don’t think we should pull out of Iraq. Again, why should we not pull out of Iraq? And on the discussion goes both sides basing their opinions on conjectures and hearsay.
4. They don’t like the lies that were spread about old newsletters.
Again, this has been addressed by Dr. Paul.
5. They don’t know much about him.
I guess I just don’t get it. That is like saying I don’t like to ride a bike when I have never ridden a bike, never seen a bike and know nothing about a bike.
6. They don’t like his statements about Lincoln and the Civil War.
I do not have a complete and exhaustive understanding of history and cannot argue this point one way or the other. Dr. Paul is entitled to his opinion. How does this opinion change or impact the decisions he will need to make as President of the US?
The things I have heard from the evangelicals I have talked to include:
1. Ron Paul is not electable.
True, but neither is any other candidate who people don’t vote for.
2. Ron Paul is not THE candidate.
I don’t quite know what this means. It is similar to he is not electable.
3. Ron Paul is a Libertarian.
No, he is registered and represents the Republican Party of Texas in Congress.
Where are the complaints that he is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-tax, pro-big government, anti-military, pro-entitlement programs, pro-department of education, pro-amnesty, he is on divorce number 4, he regularly uses tax payer dollars for personal indulgences, etc? What about the real issues that are important to this country?
Or, maybe I just don’t understand political process anymore and it is more about how people feel about someone rather than the character and positions of the man.
I do not want to dismiss the concerns of others, but then again, I guess I can’t say anything to someone when they complain about the color of my tie or that they don’t like chocolate ice cream, nor do I really gain any understanding of why they don’t like the color of my tie or why they don’t like chocolate ice cream.
My dad put it well after Super Tuesday…personalities won, issues lost.
Ok, I don’t think there is any point in going in the circle again. If you want to believe that everyone who rejected Paul did so because of either ignorance or because they aren’t really conservative, that is fine.
This is fully irrelevant:
I do not want to dismiss the concerns of others, but then again, I guess I can’t say anything to someone when they complain about the color of my tie or that they don’t like chocolate ice cream, nor do I really gain any understanding of why they don’t like the color of my tie or why they don’t like chocolate ice cream.
That has nothing to do with any of the difficulty Ron Paul has had in gaining attention outside the internet.
I don’t think it moves us forward in trying to look for someone to represent conservative views in the future, but there isn’t much point going in the loop again.
I do enjoy the discussion, but I don’t know where to go from here.
Dana,
I am being serious, is there any way to answer the questions of why Jim Dobson, Pat Robertson, Mike Farris did not support Ron Paul based on what they have said?
Do you know why? I don’t and have been trying to find out, because I respect the opinion of these men and other evangelicals I have talked to, including you.
“I don’t think it moves us forward in trying to look for someone to represent conservative views in the future, but there isn’t much point going in the loop again.”
IF Ron Paul wasn’t labeled a Libertarian by other people; IF Ron Paul was not connected to the old newsletters; IF Ron Paul was deemed “electable” but the MSM; IF Ron Paul did not receive the support of fringe groups; IF Ron Paul spoke out in favor of winning the war in Iraq; IF Ron Paul was supportive of President Lincoln; IF Ron Paul was charismatic…would you then be willing to discuss the other issues that define a conservative found within the ideas and principles of Ron Paul?
Do you have other names of leaders who represent ideas and principles of conservatism that we need to consider when looking for someone to represent conservative views in the future? Who are these men and what are their core values and principles that allow them to represent the conservative views?
Dana,
I got thinking about what I am asking above and it struck me that you and I differ on the information we seek and the way we process it (could be part of the differences God has designed into genders).
I would say we both seek men of God for positions of leadership, but then how that is manifested in the person is where we begin to separate. I am pretty cut and dry looking for the principles behind the man. You on the other hand possibly look at the expression of the principles and the external results (what other people think and feel) of these expressions.
I don’t give a whole lot of value to what others think or feel (therefore, your comment about me dismissing other people’s concerns); but instead I look for concrete specific facts of support or violation of the principles and values a leader may hold. I am perfectly comfortable with a principle driven leader who does not “connect with the crowd”. It appears that you may value how a man connects with the crowd as a determination of a man’s ability to lead. A man’s ability to garner support, determines his ability to lead. I know you care about the principles behind the man, but you may also hold that if he can’t gain support for his views, then there is something wrong with the man and we must look elsewhere for leadership.
This may be why there is a separation within the conservative side of the Republican Party, a seperation amoung conservatives, and a separation amoung Christians. When some people are seeking the outward expression and others are seeking the underlying principles, the desired leadership could look radically different. It is rare to find a leader who can do both. Barak Obama seems to connect with people, but the underlying principles are flawed. Some may have not agreed 100% with all of Ronald Reagan’s principles, BUT he expressed himself exceptionally well and therefore, more people gravitated to him and supported his principles. He defined and represented some key conservative principles, but there is no way to claim that he was perfect in all areas.
I am one who gravitates to the issues rather than the personality. Others may gravitate to the personality and the issues are not as defining.
Well, like I said, I respect your opinion and I hope others have learned a bit from our exchange. I am still interested in exploring the possibilities of future conservative leaders, who they are, what they stand for, and the changes we need to make in this country.
God bless you and your family.
Brian
Finally, something related to education and politics!
Brian wrote:
“I am perfectly comfortable with a principle driven leader who does not “connect with the crowd”. It appears that you may value how a man connects with the crowd as a determination of a man’s ability to lead.”
Dr. Howard Gardner, Harvard education professor and cognitive scientist, is one of the world’s foremost experts on leadership. There is no such thing as leadership, in the absence of ability to connect with the crowd and the times. (Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are two examples he profiles in a book of extraordinary leaders, so it’s not a matter of conservative or liberal.)
Here’s a blurb for “Leading Minds: an anatomy of leadership” for example:
“Leading Minds addresses a crucial and often ignored component of leadership — the mind. What distinguishes the mind of an effective leader, and what is the mentality of his or her followers? Gardner links the study of creativity with the study of leadership to demonstrate the many similarities between traditional creators (artists and scientists) and leaders in business, politics and the military. He argues that the key to leadership is the creation of an arresting story — one that grabs the followers’ attention and inspires them to greater efforts. . .”
And in “Changing Minds” (which I’ve also read) Dr. Gardner goes further, to how each of us can effectively lead our own minds rather than follow the crowd. All good stuff!
” Changing Minds
Harvard Business School Press
Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner offers
insights into the phenomenon of changing minds.
Why is it so mysterious? How do people become set in a certain way of thinking? And what does it take to change a perspective? As he did previous books about intelligence, creativity, and leadership, Gardner challenges traditional thinking.
He draws on decades of cognitive research to show mind change not as a sudden “epiphany” but as a gradual process that can be actively and powerfully influenced. He identifies seven levers that aid or thwart the process of mind change and provides an original framework that shows
how individuals can align these levers to bring about significant changes in perspective and behavior.”
If you wanted to serve your unsuccessful candidate well, you might send a box of Gardner for reading during the off-season?
Hi Dana!
I thought you might be interested in knowing that there is an independent conservative movement gathering steam to oppose any effort to promote, support, or endorse Senator McCain as the Republican nominee for President in 2008: http://nowaymccain.com
I think you will appreciate the wording in the two resolutions.
~Heather
Brian,
If you would read any of Dana’s other posts, you would realize that she is an objective, thoughtful, and thought-provoking individual. Your comments about education and gender are way out of line. If you noticed the name of this blog, it is **Principled** Discovery.
You may want to take a few steps back.
Brian, I see what you are saying, but I disagree a little.
I would not have brought any of the issues up if the question weren’t “Why haven’t people gotten behind Ron Paul.” I do think it is important to look at what they are saying and evaluate whether it is the person, the message, or the lack of knowledge that is the problem.
I was thinking about this last night because my last comment was more out of frustration and I realized the problem is that I strayed from my original point. The salvation of America, politically or spiritually, will not come from the presidency. Things happen the other way around. Just like Adams said the American Revolution took place in the hearts and minds of the people, and the Revolutionary War was an effect of that revolution, so it is with our liberty.
It will start in prayer, in our families, in our churches and in our local communities. When these things are in order, you will see a transformation in Washington. Washington is not the cause, it is an effect.
I think leadership is incredibly important. We need someone who is principled. But he also needs to be able to lead. A leader without principle is dangerous. A principled man without leadership abilities is just a good man standing in a vaccuum.
I was thinking about your dad’s comment about personality winning over issues, and I don’t think that is a fair assessment. Issues got Huckabee where he is. Not principles of limited government, but the issues of abortion and same sex marriage. Personality did not get McCain where he is. The issue of the war and the division between conservatives did.
Connect this to the thought I was trying to pursue with Rick…the Republican Party consists of a sort of broad coalition of interests. The main conservative issues is displayed in three prongs: the social conservatives, the economic conservatives and the strong defense group. Ronald Reagan was able to effectively speak to and inspire these groups and connect basic conservative values to the common person, bringing rise to the phenomenon of the Reagan Democrat.
We need someone who is not just right. If we really want to see a return to conservative principles, we need someone who really is a leader. It has nothing to do with personality, but with the ability to communicate a message, garner support and connect with the values and ideas of government we all share.
But again, it needs to start locally. You cannot impose liberty on a people unprepared.
Thanks, Heather. My dad mentioned voting third party this election which surprised me.
Now, if we can rework it to be for something rather than against someone, I’ll like it even more. : )
And I don’t know that LOTP is still reading this thread, but if you are, I rethought the whole freedom is not a gift thing.
I stand by it. : ) Freedom is not a gift, at least not from any man past or present. It is an unalienable right, given by God. And I’m sticking to that.
Brian,
You asked:
I am being serious, is there any way to answer the questions of why Jim Dobson, Pat Robertson, Mike Farris did not support Ron Paul based on what they have said?
And I say, yes there is. I don’t know why this gets debated so much, because it is crystal clear to me. Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani, so I’ll hold him separate. But for Farris and Dobson, I know exactly why they didn’t endorse Ron Paul:
From HSLDA-PAC’s endorsement of Huckabee:
He is pro-life. He supports traditional marriage.
Both of these men have placed a high stake on the Marriage Amendment, which Ron Paul opposes. It is a HUGE issue for them. They spent an incredible amount of time, used what power they had to activate their base against it and it failed. Honestly, I think it is this amendment issue alone that drew HSLDA-PAC to an early endorsement in the first place.
On Robertson, you’d have to ask him. From what little I’ve read, it seems to be politically motivated. There has been talk of the Christian Right breaking off from the Republican Party, and at the time of the endorsement, it looked like Giuliani was the most likely candidate.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/11/robertson_to_endorse_giuliani.html
Rick,
I didn’t mean any disdain toward Dana at all. We just seemed to be talking past each other and I could not figure out why. She was concentrating on what people were thinking about a man, where I was talking about the principles of the man.
Her last post clears this up and now I understand better what she is trying to say.
I have stuck with the conversation not to be confrontational with Dana or disparage her in any way, but because I value what she has to say and have read her other posts and found her to be very objective, thoughtful and thought provoking as you have indicated.
She and I were somehow disconnected and I just couldn’t figure out what it was.
I apologize if you or she felt any depreciation from me.
Dana,
“The salvation of America, politically or spiritually, will not come from the presidency”.
I completely agree.
“It will start in prayer, in our families, in our churches and in our local communities. When these things are in order, you will see a transformation in Washington. Washington is not the cause, it is an effect.”
Again, I completely agree.
“Issues got Huckabee where he is. Not principles of limited government, but the issues of abortion and same sex marriage.” AND “Both of these men have placed a high stake on the Marriage Amendment, which Ron Paul opposes. It is a HUGE issue for them. They spent an incredible amount of time, used what power they had to activate their base against it and it failed. Honestly, I think it is this amendment issue alone that drew HSLDA-PAC to an early endorsement in the first place.”
I agree with your assessment and this is where my frustration begins with the Christian Right.
Both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are strongly opposed to abortion and same sex marriage, they just disagree on the best and constitutional way to deal with the issues. Ron Paul has different solutions which are not the same as the CR’s solution.
The CR have been pressing these issues for years with no results. Ron Paul has been contending for different solutions, but during this campaign cycle there has been limited discussion, if any, on the merits of his solutions. Since the principles of both men are the same (opposed to abortion and same sex marriage), but the proposed solutions differ, it becomes a question either 1) the CR believes their solution is right or 2) there is too much support, time and effort for their solution to change coarse now.
The CR have not been successful in getting amendments passed and therefore have not accomplished their goals so we don’t know yet if their solution will work. This leaves the support that has been generated for federal abortion and marriage amendments as the motivation for continuing in this direction.
Ron Paul has not been able to gain the support needed for his solutions (thus our discussion about leadership), but he has made progress and maybe some day, he (or someone else) will be able to move forward with a different set of solutions that could possibly limit or eliminate abortion and/or same sex marriage in this country.
It is a bit ironic when considering your comment regarding a transformation in Washington, which I completely agree with, that the CR is looking to Washington to end abortion and same sex marriages.
Be that as it may, you have clearly delineated why the CR do not support Ron Paul and I agree with your assessment.
Dana,
“We need someone who is not just right. If we really want to see a return to conservative principles, we need someone who really is a leader. It has nothing to do with personality, but with the ability to communicate a message, garner support and connect with the values and ideas of government we all share.”
AND
“I think leadership is incredibly important. We need someone who is principled. But he also needs to be able to lead. A leader without principle is dangerous. A principled man without leadership abilities is just a good man standing in a vaccuum.”
I completely agree with the need for a principled man to be able to lead, but unfortunately we don’t have that choice and have not had the choice for years.
I am one who will support men who have the principles first and leadership second (since it is rare to find men who have both). I believe the whole thing surrounding Ron Paul is exciting because finally someone has brought the principles to national awareness. Now all we need to do is find the leader to communicate and champion the principles.
I also agree that it begins locally and I am always looking for opportunities, people and leaders locally who embrace the conservative principles. Unfortunately, the “System” makes it very hard for these people to move into positions of recognition and influence. As we wait for principled leaders and work within the system, the opposition gains ground in opposing conservative principles.
As we discussed regarding the differences between Huckabee and Paul, the conservatives are similarly different. This division is difficult to overcome. But, as you said, we must continue to pray and be vigilant. I believe the current presidential debate has highlighted the division, which is hopefully the first step in bridging the divide.
Yes, the CR is looking for a governmental solution to an issue of personal sin. But it has a lot to do with why they have made the choice they have. What does this mean for the future?
I don’t think it is helpful to dismiss them as “sheep.” We have the same values. We have the same goals. And really, we are all sheep. : )
Seriously, though, I think the best course of action is to see what holds us together and what we all can agree with…that three-legged stool Reagan so effectively held together. It isn’t impossible. But it will also take time.
Also important to note, the opposition suffers similar problems. They are not all that unified and they struggle to keep their base together. I think the one thing the Democratic Party has the advantage in is the fact that “God” isn’t so tied up with it. Meaning that compromise is a little easier, but there are times it seems to me the Democratic Party is on the verge of splitting into three or four parties, itself.
Dana,
Regarding:
“Seriously, though, I think the best course of action is to see what holds us together and what we all can agree with…that three-legged stool Reagan so effectively held together. It isn’t impossible. But it will also take time.”
“The main conservative issues is displayed in three prongs: the social conservatives, the economic conservatives and the strong defense group.”
I agree. But unfortunately, I believe we are splitting in each of these areas not so much based on the desired results, but on the methods to get there:
SOCIAL
In regards to abortion and marriage, Huckabee represents solutions by way of consitutional amendments and greater federal government influence. Where Paul represents limiting influence by the federal judiciary and then encouraging state constitution amendments.
In regards to education, Huckabee represents greater governmental influence. Where Paul again represents limited governmental influence (on all levels).
ECONOMIC
Both men may recognize the economic clilff we are heading towards, but Huckabee believes the government is the solution; whereas Paul believes the government is the problem.
DEFENSE
Both men support strong defense, but Huckabee believes our strength should be used throughout the world; whereas Paul believes it should be used within our borders and restrained throughout the world.
The popular positions have been made pretty clear during this presidential campaign. Holding the stool together is going to be tough especially in light of the dissatisfaction with the past 7 years. A split may be necessary moving Paul type Republicans (including Libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc) and conservative Democrats into one party leaving liberal Democrats in another party, and the remaining Republicans in another…? The CR may find themselves torn between the new Republican Party and the remaining Republican Party.
Our hope rests with our Lord Jesus Christ and we are reminded that the US is just a nation and not even the chosen nation of God. I believe God will continue to use this great nation as long as we serve the purposes of our Creator.
I don’t think Paul is the man that is going to do it…and it isn’t about “personality.” I’ve said before the fact that I liked him in the race and I wish he’d gotten enough traction to stay in the debates. I would like a lot of the conversation to take place on those levels.
But what you are proposing really isn’t something that unites the three main segments of the conservative movement, but rather you are asking them all to lay down something important to them. The gay marriage/abortion thing is big…I’ve had a lot of conversations even within my “circle” who share the same educational/governmental philosophy.
So is perceptions about what will happen in the area of foreign policy. I think I said in our previous conversation that I’d be easier to sway if Paul’s position were against Iraq, but a dedication to not immediately and drastically change our involvement. I do not see the inevitable resulting power vacuum as good for anyone.
The issues are not just personality, nor are they just MSM indoctrination…the MSM doesn’t support either of these aspects of the conservative movement, either.
This race has been interesting because we had three candidates, each with their strengths in a different area of what conservatives tend to look for…and Ron Paul who is something different. People gravitated toward the candidate that best reflected the values they held most dear.
But there has been a lot of apathy since the beginning. There is huge potential there for a true conservative leader. No one stood up to speak to everyone.
I feel the problem is that ‘they’ have boiled down the definition for what a Conservative is to single issue stances. Then people look to find a candidate that has the right opinion on those issues. (This goes the same for Liberals by the way.) You know what I mean, the answer on how do you feel about abortion, partial birth abortion, stem cell research, so on and so forth.
As Frank Schaeffer said in his recently published memoir, this has a splintering effect. Instead of ending up with strong leaders, who show bravery, who have a unique voice and stand up for their convictions we end up with a President who had the right stance on certain issues enough to get the funding to run for office. Many great people will never be able to run for office due to not ever being able to raise enough money. Many people showing real leadership skills in their regular lives will never be good enough for each party to consider worthy of being the Presidential candidate. “That Republican is too liberal, we don’t like Giuliani’s stance on abortion, that guy cheated on his wife” etc.
This splintering of a person’s opinions down to single issues and weeding out those who don’t meet enough of the right answers on single issues means we possibly lose some great possible candidates. And it means we may end up with a President who has answers we like better than their opponents but who may not end up doing so great in the actual job of President.