I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to "xpressive1515" for a beautiful illustration of the problems I've been addressing in my last two posts. When I said that many Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, are incapable of critical thinking, and that most conservatives are "inexcusably myopic" in their views on the sanctity of life, I didn't expect to have my statements underscored by such a pointed object lesson.
This individual disliked my assessment of the moral questions raised by the killing of non-combatants in war. They began charitably enough, noting that I am a product of the "extremely liberal" northeast. Unfortunately, I can claim no such excuse for the unconventional opinions expressed here. I am actually the product, by the grace of God, of a west coast navy pilot with excellent critical thinking skills and a southern preacher's daughter with a passion for history. They conspired to instill in us a love of learning, and encouraged us to study God's word and grapple with the difficult questions raised by our studies rather than simply trying to clone themselves. My grandfather was the only member of his gun crew to survive Okinawa. I have ancestors who fought in WWI, both sides of the War Between the States, the War of 1812, the Revolutionary War, and the French and Indian War. I am married to the granddaughter of, not one, but two navy captains. I live in an extremely conservative area, one of the heaviest Republican concentrations in the country. I am actually a Republican myself. In short, the explanation offered for my inability to reconcile the concept of justice with the killing of civilians is insufficient. I must accept full responsibility for my opinions.
The aforementioned charity, besides being misplaced, was remarkably short-lived. This individual began by taking issue with the concept of "innocent civilians," stating a biblical principle dealing with man's relationship to God and arrogating that principle to the question of man to man relationships. They further developed this fallacy by stating that "justice sometimes requires the killing of one's enemies to right wrongs" and invoking the bombing of Hiroshima, Hanoi and Iraqi and Afghan villages as examples. No attempt was made to demonstrate the assertion, so naturally, I asked what connection, if any, existed. Specifically, I inquired as to "the connection between justice as you understand it and the preventable deaths of non-combatants who have no control over the political, strategic or tactical actions of their nation's military?"
At this point, our xpressive friend had four options: (1) - attempt to demonstrate the justice of the actions in question; (2) - revise the history of the actions themselves (a common technique known as lying); (3) - try to redefine the concept of justice to reconcile the two; or (4) - ignore the question altogether. Quite honestly, I expected the first - or at the very least I hoped for it.
Instead, our friend offered an eight point rebuttal that consisted of transparent fallacies and other minor irrelevancies, none of which brought any new or old information to bear on the question. As an explanation or defense of the author's opinion it is unworthy of attention, but taken as an example of a decrepit state of mind that is all too common, it may be worth a cursory examination.
Passing over the first item for lack of words with which to answer it, we come to a sarcastic expression of regret that our military was not informed of the injustice of wiping out two entire Japanese cities to avoid the necessity of an invasion. Actually there were Americans who spoke out against our adoption of the Nazi method of air warfare at the time. The military leaders who made that decision justified it on strategic grounds, for the obvious reason that it could be justified on no other. I personally reject the notion that the only options were a wholesale slaughter of civilians or a long and bloody invasion. The bomb could have been used against the Japanese fleet or against land based military assets. Negotiations could have been opened with the Japanese with a real likelihood of success, considering the fact that their backs were to the wall. Since neither of these alternative steps were taken, we will never know whether our choices were really as limited as indicated. Regardless, bombing non-combatants to bring one's enemies to the table is morally indistinguishable from killing a murderer's family members to help bring him to justice.
The third item misquotes my assertion that Vietnam posed no credible threat to Americans, presumably because our friend was unable to dispute the actual statement. It is much easier to make one's opponent say what one wishes he had said and then attack the straw man than to go to the trouble of inventing historical details out of thin air. Items four and six allege similarities between my position and those of Carter and Obama, more evidence that the author didn't bother to read my previous posts to understand the perspective that so grated on his nerves.
Item five bothered me, I confess. The invocation of "the spirit of '76" brings the methodical revision of our history into sharp focus. The spirit of '76 was a passion for freedom and a grim determination to protect one's liberties, family, neighbors and homeland at all costs. Professional soldiers invading a foreign nation unprovoked have nothing in common with those farmers and tradesmen who stood together on their own soil to defend their homes and repel an invader.
And then, the coup de grace! I am a suspected North Korean who may have received assistance with voting from ACORN. How will I ever hold up my head again in cyberspace after that brilliant rebuttal?
Actually, the mere fact that xpressive1515 hit "submit" on that comment should be enough to shame him or her into hiding for a while. While I don't expect that to occur, I hope this display of foolishness will serve to prompt more thoughtful consideration of the fundamental question here by those who possess the requisite cognitive skills. I have many good friends who disagree with me, and all of them could have done a better job of defending their position. But none of them are able to address the real reason that conservatism is dying. Until Americans begin to associate conservatives with intellectual honesty and consistency again, they will not recognize true conservative thought as superior to liberal emotionalism, because what passes for conservative thought today is mostly parrotted, euphemistic party-speak.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Civilian Casualties
In my last post I accused John McCain of having "almost certainly killed more unborn children than his opponent." I qualified that statement as follows: "I am not referring to so-called “collateral damage,” but to the calculated, indiscriminate bombing of residential areas for the dubious purpose of breaking the will of an enemy nation. The failure of conservatives to be honest about the nature of such tactics damages our pro-life stance as deeply as bailouts damage our claim to fiscal responsibility."
Needless to say, this accusation didn't sit well with many readers. I anticipated some reaction, hence my reference to conservatives being "inexcusably myopic" on the issue of the sanctity of innocent human life. But in general, the criticism was thoughtful enough to prompt me to reconsider whether my statement was defensible, or at least to explain it further.
I based the accusation on the fact that John McCain was shot down over Hanoi (hardly a military target) during his 23rd mission as part of Operation Rolling Thunder. Estimates I've seen of civilian deaths from Operation Rolling Thunder range from 52,000 to over 150,000. Granted, I don't know what specific targets McCain bombed. In his own memoir, however, he states that he was shot down over "the heart of Hanoi" as he completed his bombing run. Perhaps there was some legitimate military target in "the heart of Hanoi" - but I doubt it.
I responded to one friend as follows: "My own dad bristled at that paragraph, and asserted that I didn't understand the nature of the war or the real targets of the bombing. Since I wasn't even alive at the time, I'm not inclined to argue the point. The fact is, however, that our modern military paradigm is more like that of Napoleon Bonaparte than the Just War doctrine Christians historically held to. Our massive nuclear arsenal is largely targeted at cities, not military targets (or so we're led to believe). If I charged John McCain personally with wrongs that are the fault of our larger foreign policy, it is because he has largely supported that foreign policy, and aspires to be the next "decider" without addressing the immorality of the direction it has taken us. I apologize to anyone, veteran or otherwise, who was offended by the accusation leveled at McCain, but I stand by my belief that one cannot be an advocate of preemptive, aggressive war, or any war merely for the protection of so-called "economic interests" and make a legitimate claim to being pro-life."
Even nominally christian nations like France, Germany and England historically recognized that purposely attacking unarmed civilians was dishonorable and unjustifiable. We look back with horror on military crimes like the Glencoe massacre or the sacking of the Palatinate. Future generations will judge us no differently.
Needless to say, this accusation didn't sit well with many readers. I anticipated some reaction, hence my reference to conservatives being "inexcusably myopic" on the issue of the sanctity of innocent human life. But in general, the criticism was thoughtful enough to prompt me to reconsider whether my statement was defensible, or at least to explain it further.
I based the accusation on the fact that John McCain was shot down over Hanoi (hardly a military target) during his 23rd mission as part of Operation Rolling Thunder. Estimates I've seen of civilian deaths from Operation Rolling Thunder range from 52,000 to over 150,000. Granted, I don't know what specific targets McCain bombed. In his own memoir, however, he states that he was shot down over "the heart of Hanoi" as he completed his bombing run. Perhaps there was some legitimate military target in "the heart of Hanoi" - but I doubt it.
I responded to one friend as follows: "My own dad bristled at that paragraph, and asserted that I didn't understand the nature of the war or the real targets of the bombing. Since I wasn't even alive at the time, I'm not inclined to argue the point. The fact is, however, that our modern military paradigm is more like that of Napoleon Bonaparte than the Just War doctrine Christians historically held to. Our massive nuclear arsenal is largely targeted at cities, not military targets (or so we're led to believe). If I charged John McCain personally with wrongs that are the fault of our larger foreign policy, it is because he has largely supported that foreign policy, and aspires to be the next "decider" without addressing the immorality of the direction it has taken us. I apologize to anyone, veteran or otherwise, who was offended by the accusation leveled at McCain, but I stand by my belief that one cannot be an advocate of preemptive, aggressive war, or any war merely for the protection of so-called "economic interests" and make a legitimate claim to being pro-life."
Even nominally christian nations like France, Germany and England historically recognized that purposely attacking unarmed civilians was dishonorable and unjustifiable. We look back with horror on military crimes like the Glencoe massacre or the sacking of the Palatinate. Future generations will judge us no differently.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
In Defense Of The Write In Vote
As a Christian, libertarian constitutionalist, I find myself in an interesting position this election season. Faced with two Presidential candidates who seem to be running on nearly the same platform, a write-in vote seems to be the only sensible option. However, everyone I talk to wants to convince me that to write in a presidential candidate is to abandon my civic duty and hand America over to “them.” Opinions differ as to who “they” are, but generally “they” are whomever one wishes to blame for the undeniable problems facing us all as Americans. After discussing this perception with nearly every person I encountered this week, the urge to defend myself has become irresistible.
In historical terms, perhaps the most significant aspect of this election will be the unprecedented willingness of the American people to accept whatever is set before them as genuine, no matter how demonstrably false it may be. From the remarkable conversion of a former governor of Massachusetts (remarkable at least for its timing, if nothing else) to the inspiring lies of “a Chicago thug”, Americans have shown a gullibility that is unrivaled in western history. Half a century of dumbed-down education, coupled with purposeful indoctrination and mind-numbing entertainment, has left many Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, unable to think critically about even the most transparent fabrications and blatant contradictions.
Friday morning, while quietly working at a barn near Coatesville, I encountered a raving individual who warned of the attacks America will suffer when we are deprived of George Bush’s guiding hand. When I reminded her that the deadliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor occurred on Bush’s watch, she launched into a tirade on the ruin Obama would bring to this country, ending with a vow never to wear an Islamic head-scarf. I quietly assured her that it was unlikely she would be forced to wear a veil under an Obama administration, and that I had no intention of voting for Mr. Obama, to which she replied, “Yea right. You’re such a liberal, of course you’ll vote for Obama – don’t give me that!” I had to laugh, because it was the first time in my life that I’ve been called a liberal. But the worldview she demonstrated is no laughing matter. She did not know me, and nothing about my comment bore any relationship to the size or scope of government; in other words, what I said was neither liberal nor conservative, it was a simple statement of fact. But she had evidently been programmed to make judgments about what liberals and conservatives believe without having the slightest clue what the terms mean.
Three hours later, in another barn, the client’s husband walked in with a large zoning regulations book under his arm. I was wearing a Ron Paul shirt, as usual; he had a McCain sign in his front yard. In answer to my greeting, he asked if I was ready for “share-the-wealth” Obama, adding that Obama would probably take ninety-five percent of everyone’s land and give it to squatters, because “property rights don’t matter” to him. He then turned to his wife to show her the zoning regulation their neighbor was in violation of. Apparently they live in a “Rural Conservation District” where no new buildings are permitted, with the exception of farm-related structures under twenty-five feet in height. His scoff-law neighbor was constructing a barn that exceeded the height limitations, and he was on his way to file a complaint. He apparently never considered whether a significant moral distinction could be made between taking one’s property outright on one hand, and simply denying them the use of it on the other.
As an active Ron Paul supporter I’ve had the opportunity to work with people of vastly different political persuasions over the past year. Dr. Paul’s simple message of smaller, less intrusive government across the board appeals to Americans from all backgrounds, and for many reasons. I know social conservatives who supported him because he was the only candidate to do more than talk about ending the abortion holocaust. I know fiscal conservatives who supported him because he was the only candidate to address the federal government’s real spending problems (guns and butter) instead of simply spouting one-liners about the bridge to nowhere. I know anarchists who supported him because he wanted to end the massive, corrupt money-laundering institution known as the DEA. I know liberals who supported him because he was willing to face the reality of a nine trillion dollar national debt and call the real culprits out. Ron Paul made a tremendous effort to educate his supporters on the essential principles of individual liberty and free-market capitalism. I believe he achieved a great deal in that regard. However, now that the primary is over, there are still a few confused folks among us. One fellow Paulite recently informed me that I must vote for Obama, because a third party vote is really a vote for McCain and an endorsement of the last eight years of aggressive war and massive deficit spending. Another urged me to vote for McCain, because a third party vote is really a vote for Obama and a Marxist America.
I have news for both of them: elections aren’t lotteries and the object is not to pick a winner. Democratic elections only work when the voters choose candidates that represent their views. Always voting for the lesser of two evils is essentially the same as always playing defense – there’s only one possible outcome. The choices get worse every time.
I believe a good government is one that (a) protects the citizens from outside threats, (b) punishes violations of individual rights and mutual contracts and (c) otherwise leaves people alone to do as they choose. On Friday last week, Rush Limbaugh gave a similar definition for conservatism. Essentially he stated that true conservatives want a small state that defends the citizens and nothing more. Rush, if that is a conservative I’ll start calling myself a conservative again – but what in the name of sanity does that definition have in common with the Republican Party’s recent record, or the current GOP platform and ticket?
My wife and I discussed this subject with a couple from church last week. They defended Bush and other election-year conservatives because “they’re under so much pressure, you know. The media is so liberal, the schools are so liberal, the career bureaucrats in Washington are so corrupt – they’d really like to do more for us but their hands are tied.” Nonsense. Pressure comes with the job. If you can’t handle it resign so we can elect someone who can. Liberal media coverage occurs because there are dedicated big-government liberals in the media. If conservatives would expend one fourth of the hot air they waste complaining about liberal bias on a cogent argument for less government, addressed to the American people instead of to the choir, things might change for the better. We just had six years of a Republican administration with a GOP-controlled Congress and a 7-2 Republican appointed Supreme Court. They could have abolished the DoE; instead they increased its budget by over fifty percent. They could have fired half of the bureaucrats in Washington; instead they hired thousands more. Their hands were tied by greed and cowardice (mostly greed), not by liberals.
I’d like to vote for a candidate who will put pressure on the statists for a change. Bush promised to do just that, but instead he has collaborated with them on every domestic policy issue except gun control. Even there he’s done absolutely nothing but maintain the Clinton status quo. We don’t need a president who will “reach out” to big government statists. We need a president who will use his office to further true conservative principles: one who will fire bureaucrats, disband unconstitutional agencies, secure our own borders for a change, and be honest with the American people about the seventy trillion dollars in promised entitlements they aren’t going to get.
We had such a candidate in the primary election. His emphatic rejection by the Republican Party is sufficient proof that they have no inclination to give more than lip service to true conservative principles. But just to underscore that point, they chose instead a candidate who has never even pretended to be conservative until this election. That the man who brought us the infamous McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act should be allowed to call himself a conservative now speaks volumes about his party’s lack of sincerity.
Over the last two weeks I’ve received no less than a dozen mailings from the Republican Party. Only two of them even refer to McCain. The other ten assure me that Barack Obama is not who I think he is. (I still think he is who I think he is … but that’s neither here nor there.) Of the two that refer to McCain, one spoke of his military service and his time as a POW. The other, which I received yesterday, features a full color photo of McCain and Hillary Clinton, side by side, beaming at each other. On the back is a ringing (hollow, that is) endorsement of Ms. Clinton by Senator Joe Biden, and inside is the following message from McCain:
“Senator Hillary Clinton blazed a trail for future generations of women. She fought for working families, and she heard your voices… Most importantly, Senator Clinton knows how to reach across the aisle to solve problems. Both she and John McCain have shown the American people results, not pretty words… I share Senator Clinton’s goal of promoting women to more important roles throughout our government. By the end of my first term, I promise you will see a dramatic increase in the presence of women in every part of the government.”
Now friends, if John McCain wants my vote this isn’t exactly the way to go about securing it. I don’t like the idea of a friend of Ms. Clinton in the Oval Office, or any other office, for that matter. The notion that Ms. Clinton has done any favors for working Americans is an insult to Americanism. The idea that she and John McCain want to solve my problems isn’t encouraging, and the thought of a dramatic increase in anything related to government doesn’t appeal to me either.
Most McCain supporters I talk to are really anti-Obama activists who feel that they must support his opponent to prevent his election. They fall generally into two camps: some fear Obama’s Islamic connections and others fear his Marxist rhetoric. Neither group recognizes that they are pawns in a game of international chess. We have been slowly implementing Marxism in this country for seventy years, regardless of which party controls Congress or the White House. In 1936 Albert Nock made this observation regarding the Republican response to Roosevelt’s election:
“In the nature of things the exercise of personal government, the control of a huge and growing bureaucracy, and the management of an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, are as agreeable to one stripe of politician as they are to another. Presumably they interest a Republican or a Progressive as much as they do a Democrat, Communist, Farmer-Labourite, Socialist, or whatever a politician may, for electioneering purposes, see fit to call himself. This … is now being further demonstrated by the derisible haste that the leaders of the official opposition are making towards what they call "reorganization" of their party. One may well be inattentive to their words; their actions, however, mean simply that the recent accretions of State power are here to stay, and that they are aware of it; and that, such being the case, they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management. This is all that "reorganization" of the Republican party means, and all it is meant to mean; and this is in itself quite enough to show that any expectation of an essential change of regime through a change of party-administration is illusory. On the contrary, it is clear that whatever party-competition we shall see hereafter will be on the same terms as heretofore. It will be a competition for control and management, and it would naturally issue in still closer centralization, still further extension of the bureaucratic principle, and still larger concessions to subsidized voting-power.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, not much has changed. And in spite of the rhetoric, neither Obama/Biden nor McCain/Palin represent the possibility of change. Certainly Obama is a socialist. But the reason neither McCain nor Palin have had the courage to say so is because they are too. Listening to Governor Palin may be refreshing in many ways, but she is the chief executive of the most socialist state in the union. And John McCain, in addition to supporting numerous socialist government programs (including the recent financial bailout/earmark bill) has advocated socialism in speeches and debates even during this campaign.
The final argument usually advanced is Obama’s cold-blooded disregard for human life, as evidenced by his positions on abortion. This happens to be one area where conservatives are inexcusably myopic, and consequently the area where I am most likely to make them very angry. I concede that Obama’s disregard for human life is greater than many animals. I cannot imagine how anyone could support a candidate who holds to such a despicable ideology. But innocent human life is threatened in many places besides the abortion clinic. Uncomfortable as the thought may be, John McCain has almost certainly killed more unborn children than his opponent. The circumstances are mitigating, it is true. But I have never understood how conservatives can wax eloquent about the unborn while stoically defending the intentional slaughter of civilians during wartime. I am not referring to so-called “collateral damage,” but to the calculated, indiscriminate bombing of residential areas for the dubious purpose of breaking the will of an enemy nation. The failure of conservatives to be honest about the nature of such tactics damages our pro-life stance as deeply as bailouts damage our claim to fiscal responsibility.
If you are still reading this post I’m honored, to say the least. I understand to some extent why most of you will choose to vote for John McCain, but I firmly believe that God will turn this election where He chooses. My responsibility is to vote in a way that honors Him. Based on that conviction, I will be writing in Ron Paul. If Obama wins, we will have what we deserve, and conservatives will be forced to deal with the massive executive branch they have built falling into the hands of an unprincipled liberal. If McCain wins, we will still have what we deserve, and conservatives will have the opportunity to see their own candidate sell them out repeatedly. Perhaps they will be treated to more Clinton-style scandal, a la Republican this time. Either way, I’ll be able to sleep at night, something that all this writing is currently preventing.
In historical terms, perhaps the most significant aspect of this election will be the unprecedented willingness of the American people to accept whatever is set before them as genuine, no matter how demonstrably false it may be. From the remarkable conversion of a former governor of Massachusetts (remarkable at least for its timing, if nothing else) to the inspiring lies of “a Chicago thug”, Americans have shown a gullibility that is unrivaled in western history. Half a century of dumbed-down education, coupled with purposeful indoctrination and mind-numbing entertainment, has left many Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, unable to think critically about even the most transparent fabrications and blatant contradictions.
Friday morning, while quietly working at a barn near Coatesville, I encountered a raving individual who warned of the attacks America will suffer when we are deprived of George Bush’s guiding hand. When I reminded her that the deadliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor occurred on Bush’s watch, she launched into a tirade on the ruin Obama would bring to this country, ending with a vow never to wear an Islamic head-scarf. I quietly assured her that it was unlikely she would be forced to wear a veil under an Obama administration, and that I had no intention of voting for Mr. Obama, to which she replied, “Yea right. You’re such a liberal, of course you’ll vote for Obama – don’t give me that!” I had to laugh, because it was the first time in my life that I’ve been called a liberal. But the worldview she demonstrated is no laughing matter. She did not know me, and nothing about my comment bore any relationship to the size or scope of government; in other words, what I said was neither liberal nor conservative, it was a simple statement of fact. But she had evidently been programmed to make judgments about what liberals and conservatives believe without having the slightest clue what the terms mean.
Three hours later, in another barn, the client’s husband walked in with a large zoning regulations book under his arm. I was wearing a Ron Paul shirt, as usual; he had a McCain sign in his front yard. In answer to my greeting, he asked if I was ready for “share-the-wealth” Obama, adding that Obama would probably take ninety-five percent of everyone’s land and give it to squatters, because “property rights don’t matter” to him. He then turned to his wife to show her the zoning regulation their neighbor was in violation of. Apparently they live in a “Rural Conservation District” where no new buildings are permitted, with the exception of farm-related structures under twenty-five feet in height. His scoff-law neighbor was constructing a barn that exceeded the height limitations, and he was on his way to file a complaint. He apparently never considered whether a significant moral distinction could be made between taking one’s property outright on one hand, and simply denying them the use of it on the other.
As an active Ron Paul supporter I’ve had the opportunity to work with people of vastly different political persuasions over the past year. Dr. Paul’s simple message of smaller, less intrusive government across the board appeals to Americans from all backgrounds, and for many reasons. I know social conservatives who supported him because he was the only candidate to do more than talk about ending the abortion holocaust. I know fiscal conservatives who supported him because he was the only candidate to address the federal government’s real spending problems (guns and butter) instead of simply spouting one-liners about the bridge to nowhere. I know anarchists who supported him because he wanted to end the massive, corrupt money-laundering institution known as the DEA. I know liberals who supported him because he was willing to face the reality of a nine trillion dollar national debt and call the real culprits out. Ron Paul made a tremendous effort to educate his supporters on the essential principles of individual liberty and free-market capitalism. I believe he achieved a great deal in that regard. However, now that the primary is over, there are still a few confused folks among us. One fellow Paulite recently informed me that I must vote for Obama, because a third party vote is really a vote for McCain and an endorsement of the last eight years of aggressive war and massive deficit spending. Another urged me to vote for McCain, because a third party vote is really a vote for Obama and a Marxist America.
I have news for both of them: elections aren’t lotteries and the object is not to pick a winner. Democratic elections only work when the voters choose candidates that represent their views. Always voting for the lesser of two evils is essentially the same as always playing defense – there’s only one possible outcome. The choices get worse every time.
I believe a good government is one that (a) protects the citizens from outside threats, (b) punishes violations of individual rights and mutual contracts and (c) otherwise leaves people alone to do as they choose. On Friday last week, Rush Limbaugh gave a similar definition for conservatism. Essentially he stated that true conservatives want a small state that defends the citizens and nothing more. Rush, if that is a conservative I’ll start calling myself a conservative again – but what in the name of sanity does that definition have in common with the Republican Party’s recent record, or the current GOP platform and ticket?
My wife and I discussed this subject with a couple from church last week. They defended Bush and other election-year conservatives because “they’re under so much pressure, you know. The media is so liberal, the schools are so liberal, the career bureaucrats in Washington are so corrupt – they’d really like to do more for us but their hands are tied.” Nonsense. Pressure comes with the job. If you can’t handle it resign so we can elect someone who can. Liberal media coverage occurs because there are dedicated big-government liberals in the media. If conservatives would expend one fourth of the hot air they waste complaining about liberal bias on a cogent argument for less government, addressed to the American people instead of to the choir, things might change for the better. We just had six years of a Republican administration with a GOP-controlled Congress and a 7-2 Republican appointed Supreme Court. They could have abolished the DoE; instead they increased its budget by over fifty percent. They could have fired half of the bureaucrats in Washington; instead they hired thousands more. Their hands were tied by greed and cowardice (mostly greed), not by liberals.
I’d like to vote for a candidate who will put pressure on the statists for a change. Bush promised to do just that, but instead he has collaborated with them on every domestic policy issue except gun control. Even there he’s done absolutely nothing but maintain the Clinton status quo. We don’t need a president who will “reach out” to big government statists. We need a president who will use his office to further true conservative principles: one who will fire bureaucrats, disband unconstitutional agencies, secure our own borders for a change, and be honest with the American people about the seventy trillion dollars in promised entitlements they aren’t going to get.
We had such a candidate in the primary election. His emphatic rejection by the Republican Party is sufficient proof that they have no inclination to give more than lip service to true conservative principles. But just to underscore that point, they chose instead a candidate who has never even pretended to be conservative until this election. That the man who brought us the infamous McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act should be allowed to call himself a conservative now speaks volumes about his party’s lack of sincerity.
Over the last two weeks I’ve received no less than a dozen mailings from the Republican Party. Only two of them even refer to McCain. The other ten assure me that Barack Obama is not who I think he is. (I still think he is who I think he is … but that’s neither here nor there.) Of the two that refer to McCain, one spoke of his military service and his time as a POW. The other, which I received yesterday, features a full color photo of McCain and Hillary Clinton, side by side, beaming at each other. On the back is a ringing (hollow, that is) endorsement of Ms. Clinton by Senator Joe Biden, and inside is the following message from McCain:
“Senator Hillary Clinton blazed a trail for future generations of women. She fought for working families, and she heard your voices… Most importantly, Senator Clinton knows how to reach across the aisle to solve problems. Both she and John McCain have shown the American people results, not pretty words… I share Senator Clinton’s goal of promoting women to more important roles throughout our government. By the end of my first term, I promise you will see a dramatic increase in the presence of women in every part of the government.”
Now friends, if John McCain wants my vote this isn’t exactly the way to go about securing it. I don’t like the idea of a friend of Ms. Clinton in the Oval Office, or any other office, for that matter. The notion that Ms. Clinton has done any favors for working Americans is an insult to Americanism. The idea that she and John McCain want to solve my problems isn’t encouraging, and the thought of a dramatic increase in anything related to government doesn’t appeal to me either.
Most McCain supporters I talk to are really anti-Obama activists who feel that they must support his opponent to prevent his election. They fall generally into two camps: some fear Obama’s Islamic connections and others fear his Marxist rhetoric. Neither group recognizes that they are pawns in a game of international chess. We have been slowly implementing Marxism in this country for seventy years, regardless of which party controls Congress or the White House. In 1936 Albert Nock made this observation regarding the Republican response to Roosevelt’s election:
“In the nature of things the exercise of personal government, the control of a huge and growing bureaucracy, and the management of an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, are as agreeable to one stripe of politician as they are to another. Presumably they interest a Republican or a Progressive as much as they do a Democrat, Communist, Farmer-Labourite, Socialist, or whatever a politician may, for electioneering purposes, see fit to call himself. This … is now being further demonstrated by the derisible haste that the leaders of the official opposition are making towards what they call "reorganization" of their party. One may well be inattentive to their words; their actions, however, mean simply that the recent accretions of State power are here to stay, and that they are aware of it; and that, such being the case, they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management. This is all that "reorganization" of the Republican party means, and all it is meant to mean; and this is in itself quite enough to show that any expectation of an essential change of regime through a change of party-administration is illusory. On the contrary, it is clear that whatever party-competition we shall see hereafter will be on the same terms as heretofore. It will be a competition for control and management, and it would naturally issue in still closer centralization, still further extension of the bureaucratic principle, and still larger concessions to subsidized voting-power.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, not much has changed. And in spite of the rhetoric, neither Obama/Biden nor McCain/Palin represent the possibility of change. Certainly Obama is a socialist. But the reason neither McCain nor Palin have had the courage to say so is because they are too. Listening to Governor Palin may be refreshing in many ways, but she is the chief executive of the most socialist state in the union. And John McCain, in addition to supporting numerous socialist government programs (including the recent financial bailout/earmark bill) has advocated socialism in speeches and debates even during this campaign.
The final argument usually advanced is Obama’s cold-blooded disregard for human life, as evidenced by his positions on abortion. This happens to be one area where conservatives are inexcusably myopic, and consequently the area where I am most likely to make them very angry. I concede that Obama’s disregard for human life is greater than many animals. I cannot imagine how anyone could support a candidate who holds to such a despicable ideology. But innocent human life is threatened in many places besides the abortion clinic. Uncomfortable as the thought may be, John McCain has almost certainly killed more unborn children than his opponent. The circumstances are mitigating, it is true. But I have never understood how conservatives can wax eloquent about the unborn while stoically defending the intentional slaughter of civilians during wartime. I am not referring to so-called “collateral damage,” but to the calculated, indiscriminate bombing of residential areas for the dubious purpose of breaking the will of an enemy nation. The failure of conservatives to be honest about the nature of such tactics damages our pro-life stance as deeply as bailouts damage our claim to fiscal responsibility.
If you are still reading this post I’m honored, to say the least. I understand to some extent why most of you will choose to vote for John McCain, but I firmly believe that God will turn this election where He chooses. My responsibility is to vote in a way that honors Him. Based on that conviction, I will be writing in Ron Paul. If Obama wins, we will have what we deserve, and conservatives will be forced to deal with the massive executive branch they have built falling into the hands of an unprincipled liberal. If McCain wins, we will still have what we deserve, and conservatives will have the opportunity to see their own candidate sell them out repeatedly. Perhaps they will be treated to more Clinton-style scandal, a la Republican this time. Either way, I’ll be able to sleep at night, something that all this writing is currently preventing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)