This is Not Your Grandfather’s Country
Years ago, during the First Gulf War, I asked one of our editors whether he objected to the protestors who burned American flags. He replied, "It's not my flag, it's not my country." I respected his opinion, though I wondered at the time if it was not a bit extreme. But every day there are news stories that tell us this is, indeed, not our country and, what is more, the people to whom the country now belongs, don't want anything to do with us.
Item: Chick Fil-A is being hounded by authorities in Chicago who object to what they invariably describe as the "anti-Gay" attitudes of the company's CEO. His crime against humanity is not to believe in same-sex marriages. In other words, an attitude shared by 99% of Americans a generation ago is now not only rejected but anathematized. Mayor Rahm Emanuel weighed in on the controversy, declaring, "Chick-Fil-A's values are not Chicago's values." One more good reason for sane people to get out of Chicago!
Of course, the Jewish Imanuel does share values with the raving anti-Semite Louis Farakhan, whose help in fighting crime he is publicly welcoming. Why not hire the Latin Kings and the Gangster Disciples? Does Imanuel really not know that the only reason the Black Muslims oppose gangs is because they are rivals? Talk, sometime, to people on the shtreet [sic].
On a slightly more serious note, the Obama camp is attacking the Romney campaign for remarks allegedly made by an unnamed staffer. The staffer, explaining Romney's trip to England, is supposed to have said (according to the Telegraph) something like to the effect that the Obama White House has failed to understand the "Anglo-Saxon heritage" shared by the U.S. and Britain. Another staffer is quoted as saying, "We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he [Romney] feels that the special relationship is special. The White House didn't fully appreciate the shared history we have."
Team Obama is venting the usual outrage over racial insensitivity. If the staffers, whoever they are, actually said these things, no one knows exactly in what context. The most obvious point is that the anti-European Obama administration, which sent back a bust of Winston Churchill given as a present, and which has made clear its contempt not just for British but for all European and American traditions, cannot understand such quaint notions as the rule of law.
But what if they meant more? What if they had the nerve to declare that the United States was founded by British people, that our language and traditions are English, and that immigrants and aliens, while welcome, have a duty to assimilate to our way of life and not expect us to cater to such native traditions as the lawless rioting on display by the Mexicans in Anaheim in recent days?
This is what everyone outside of New York believed until a generation ago, and even if times and circumstances have changed, is it really so terrible to mouth a platitude that was once in every history and civics textbook?
The simple answer is, yes, it is so terrible. In today's America, everything our ancestors believed is now condemned not only as wrong but also as disgusting. It's not our country any more and hasn't been for some time, and all the Americans who voted, last time around, for Barack Obama are without exception the enemies of whatever our country used to be.
This includes not just the odd Neocon but also the so-called Obamacons who regarded him as the lesser of two evils. Who could possibly regard the disciple of Jeremiah Wright as the lesser evil? Who but the Wall Street Journal "conservatives" or single-issue wonks who despise what little they know of their country's history and traditions?
It is time to quit pretending: the American left is both anti-American and main- stream. How bizarre they mean seem to normal people--however many normal people are left--they are in a position to redefine not just the normal, but the good, the true, and the beautiful. They can be voted out in the next election, but unless conservatives and Republicans find the guts to tell the truth and defend what is left of the real America, it will not matter.
By telling the truth, I do not mean insulting people for their race, ethnicity, religion, or bedroom behavior. I do mean, however, that we have to be clear that American "values" are not universal and abstract, as the Neoconservatives would have you believe--this abstract Americanism is an unfailing sign of the neoconservative disease. Our "values" are the product of thousands of years of historical development, in Europe and here in North America. If we reject our history, our religion, our moral and cultural traditions, we are also rejecting everything that makes life possible in this apocalyptic world.
Then it is not enough to reject the Anti-Americans--the Obamas and Imanuels--but also the pseudo-Americans who try to harness whatever decent instincts are left and put them into the service of an equally pernicious ideology of American imperialism.
Entries(RSS)
Thanks, Dr. Fleming, for another fine article. I wonder if folks living during any historic seismic shift have realized what was happening. While I don't claim a great deal of insight, I can't help feeling that we're at such a time, but instead of serious adult conversation about what's at stake, we're treated to the petty more-of-the-same nonsense from "conservatives" and petty more-of-the-same EVIL nonsense from the Left. Let me amend that: both sets of nonsense are EVIL!
I have long felt I am one of many observers up on a ridge line looking at a train track down in the valley below. Two locomotives are headed for each other on a collision course at full steam. The outcome is inevitable, but all but a few pay any heed to the coming disaster.
There was a God in His heaven who doeth all things well before America-as-we-know-it, and there will be One after (Praise Him!), but it is so very sad to see what's coming. Hopefully, something of the culture with the values that formed the country I love will remain somewhere in this former union.
"Years ago, during the First Gulf War, I asked one of our editors whether he objected to the protestors who burned American flags. He replied, "It's not my flag, it's not my country."
Sounds like Sam Francis. At least I hope it was him.
I have had this attitude for almost 15 years and it really has helped my mental health.
Rahm is right. My values are not Chicago values - or American values. And I laugh whenever someone expects "tolerance" or an open mind from these people. Or even a "well, he's an old, white, Southern Christian so let's just ignore him as he'll be dead soon."
George Wallace better not talk about "our values" and exclude people who fall outside these values. That would be fascism.
But when the right kind of people talk about "our values" it is only common sense, love, tolerance, compassion and justice to exclude those who don't bow to them.
Truth #1 : "It is time to quit pretending, the American left is both anti-American and main stream. They can be voted out in the next election, but unless conservatives and Republicans find the guts to tell the truth and defend what is left of the real America, it will not matter..."
Truth #2 : "Our "values" are the product of thousands of years of historical development, in Europe and here in North America. If we reject our history, our religion, our moral and cultural traditions, we are also rejecting everything that makes life possible in this apocalyptic world."
Truth # 3 " It is not enough to reject the Anti-Americans--the Obamas and Imanuels--but also the pseudo-Americans who try to harness whatever decent instincts are left and put them into the service of an equally pernicious ideology of American imperialism."
Thank you, Dr. Fleming. I admire your tenacity, your courage and understanding. I imagine most of what you have written above could be managed as a hate crime by the leaders of both parties so as to exclude such truths from any type of serious public debate. As one writer once said years ago : "In an article entitled "Unpatriotic Conservatives: A War Against America," former Bush "axis of evil" speechwriter David Frum tagged Pat Buchanan, Eric Margolis, Bob Novak, Charley Reese, Tom Fleming and other conservatives with the new scarlet A, the dreaded "anti-American" label. What this means, of course is that the definition of acceptable opinion is narrowing even further -- by the decree of writers whose skills Joseph Goebbels might envy."
The damned fools now have their party and their issues of great American importance. Let them win with them.
"Who could possibly regard the disciple of Jeremiah Wright as the lesser evil? "
Well John McCain did cast a very dark shadow.
But hey, don't blame me. I voted for Baldwin.
I first felt different from the mainstream during the Vietnam war as a young sailor walking the streets in Boston but also in Italy......we were different than 'them' long haired, doping college kids who sneered at us and called us baby killers. Something happened in the late sixties which created 'them' who hated everything that the old America stood for over two hundred years and 'us' who loved and fought for our country despite its imperfections. Most Americans of a half a century ago thought that General Robert E. Lee was a great American and he was lionized by the entire country during the Civil War centennial. To the 'them' of the present day, the great man is considered a racist traitor and as a result most school children do not know of him....but most know the 'accomplishments' of Cesar Chavez. Dr. Fleming is right that the 'them' has become a majority and control the government. media, academia and most of the professions. Even in our major corporations, they nest in HR departments and demoralize the achievers with 'them' programs such as affirmative action and diversity training for every known alien species except white heterosexual males, In 2012, we are fighting a rear guard defense as 'them' waves of abortion, pederasts, gun control, bicycle helmets, media pornification and globalist supporters keep us moving backwards as millions of young people are brainwashed to become 'them' by the public schools and the media onslaught of promoting neo-pagan values.
Mr. Mulvey:
I believe you're right. So many of us were - in many senses rightly - put off by the long-haired, radicals of the 60's. I was just a kid then,growing up in the Southern California, but I found them revolting, standing for nothing my very blue collar, Southern family believed in or valued. But the reaction to all of that by folks like me and my family who were fundmentally conservative was to embrace a false dichotomy: if I'm not an unpatriotic hippie freak, then I must embrace an all-war-any-war, support-the-troops-at-any-cost view of things (Of course even more unsettling was the discovery that those radicals were in part right, at least when it came to the Vietnam War, but that's a subject for another discussion).
In short, our native patriotism - a proper love for kith and kin - has been perverted to embrace a statist, globalist nationalism that is entirely antithetical to it. Once again, however, I find myself preaching to the proverbial choir.
No, it is quite wrong even to suggest that McCain's undoubted evils could cause an otherwise sane person to consider, even for a fleeting second, voting for Obama, much less giving him public support as some conservatives did. Those who pretended that the wars were a big issue should have, would have known better if they had paused for a moment to consider the actions of earlier candidates who had campaigned against a US war. Anyone remember Lyndon Johnson? Obama did exactly what any sane person knew he would do, that is, he carried out the Bush-Cheney policy. Then why would any supposedly anti-war person have supported Obama? I think everyone knows the answer:
It is either because they are incorrigibly stupid or because they hate Israel far more than they love their own country. Having been candid on the sins of Israel, I do not have to apologize to anyone when I say that as much as I dislike the Israeli leadership, I am forced to acknowledge Israel as an ally--admittedly an unreliable and even faithless ally--in a part of the world that hates us. Of course, some of that hatred--though by no means all--stems from our support for Israel, which led us into three wars in recent years. Yes, we should force the Israeli government to toe the line, but to subordinate all notions of national interest and justice to one overriding concern--hatred of Israel because it is supported by the Neocons who got you fired or hindered your career--is to be a jackass. In the fable of Apuleius, the sinful man who got turned into a jackass is returned by Isis to his human form. In America, however, conservative jackassitude--whether of the libertarian, anti-war, Neocon or NeoChristian variety--is a permanent and indelible condition.
Dr. Fleming,
I think I agree with your comment above, in fact I know I agree with it. I must say, however, that as you have said several times before a choice between the lesser of two evils is still perplexing and should not be taken too seriously by anyone. It is still a kind of dishonesty to promote Romney among serious men given the facts of his candidacy as if he could make any difference whatsoever at this point.
I think one can justifiably vote for Romney without for a moment imagining he can do any long-term good or even that he would if he could. The best case that one can make for him are, second, that he has had some practical business experience and can read a balance sheet--unlike, apparently--anyone currently in the Democratic Party today, and, first and foremost, that he does not hate us in every fiber of his being.
Dr. Fleming,
Thank you for the response. And of course it is, true. Oh, t'is true, t'is true. Even in the 21st century it is still more noble to fall in love with a woman, a dog or a horse --- but not a politician!
When I Was One-and-Twenty by A. E. Housman
When I was one-and-twenty
I heard a wise man say,
"Give crowns and pounds and guineas
But not your heart away;
Give pearls away and rubies
But keep your fancy free."
But I was one-and-twenty,
No use to talk to me.
When I was one-and-twenty
I heard him say again,
"The heart out of the bosom
Was never given in vain;
'Tis paid with sighs a plenty
And sold for endless rue."
And I am two-and-twenty,
And oh, 'tis true, 'tis true.
In a place like Chicago, the sentiment of friendship wastes away, and only become people you are compelled to be with, or really people to be taken advantage of.
The law of the jungle really rules. Power is all that is accepted, and the root of power is money. The only relationship becomes self-interest and exploitation.
Of course people act like they care about others, as not to reveal the truth, which is a self-centered animal with a lust for wealth. Professionals you deal with put on a good show to ensure satisfaction, but are essentially indifferent to your welfare, and really just think of you as a mark to be taken advantage of.
In a place like this, feeling like this is your country is just about the same as the sentiment an animal has about the jungle.
Nenad writes: "In a place like this, feeling like this is your country is just about the same as the sentiment an animal has about the jungle" Yes, it is not beautiful when men and women are more feral than good. While it may be true that modern states reject the idea of man being a metaphysical animal and therefore, a mere animal, there is nothing lovely or true about the consequences of such " hard, cold realities."
As St. Augustine and St. Thomas have said, it is evident that the same material goods, as opposed to those of the spirit, cannot at one and the same time belong integrally to several persons. The same house, the same land, cannot simultaneously belong wholly to several men, nor the same territory to several nations. As a result, interests conflict when man feverishly makes these lesser goods his last end.
St. Augustine, on the other hand, insists on the fact that the same spiritual goods can belong simultaneously and integrally to all and to each individual in particular. Without doing harm to another, we can fully possess the same truth, the same virtue, the same God. This is why our Lord says to us: "Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God and His justice; and all these things shall be added unto you." (7) Failure to hearken to this lesson, is to work at one's destruction and to verify once more the words of the Psalmist: "Unless the Lord build the house..
n other words, once citizens have been reduced to thinking of themselves as animals -- then politics is all about the economy -- and of course you have accurately described the descent. "The law of the jungle really rules. Power is all that is accepted, and the root of power is money. The only relationship becomes self-interest and exploitation."
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
Actually one can refer to McCain's statement "We're all Georgians now!" during the brief 2008 Russo-Georgian war and the obvious desire of McCain's warped, black-smoke choked, Cromwellian soul and that of his neocon advisers to lob cruise missles at the Cathedral of the Holy Assumption in Moscow for creating such an impression of the man regardless of his views on Israel. But as I said, I voted for Baldwin so I'm content to know I don't have to make deals with the devil to preserve "my grandfather's country" to which those of that generation and those after them did much to dismantle before I was even born.
It sad to witness the advance stages of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) where irrationality replaces one's contempt for a typical, tedious and rather timid at times figure in the White House. Then again what's there to complain about? If you're a gun dealer Barak Obama is the best man to sit in the Oval Office since, well...since Bill Clinton! They're certainly enjoying an economic recovery. Indeed the same seems to be true for Conservative INC. No President it seems has helped sell more magazine subscriptions, sell more books and helped raise more money to raise more money than Obama. If what passes for conservatism these days is the ideology of fear rather, than say of prudence and wisdom, then happy days are indeed here again because the barbarian isn't just at the gate anymore, he's inside the White House.
If we wish to use the business acumen of Mitt Romney to argue that he's at least worth something, then we might as well hold up your next-door neighbor's rummage sale on the same level as Bain Capital. Because that's how Romney made his money, buying up companies and selling off the pieces like an unopened croquet set you got as a Christmas gift and haven't even bothered to open the box yet. I hope no confused him with his old man who made his money making real things like cars or anti-aircraft guns during World War II. Those funds went into schooling "Mitt" at elite prep schools and Harvard Business and Harvard Law to become the kind of businessman who basically makes up most American (oh excuse me, transnational) corporations you find today. If you think that's the kind of person who should be President, go right ahead and pull the lever. But given their economic record when given power, why would anyone would think any Republican politician, promising continued Federal goodies to farmers, senior citizens, oilmen, small businessmen and defense contractors (in other words, their "people") without raising revenue to pay for them can read a balance either is rather strange.
But you believe pulling the lever for Romney is going to put the country back in the hands of the "normal" people then write-in Clark W. Griswold's name and vote for him because you'll be voting for the same person. I would advise you to look at the way the Romney campaign attacked Telegraph, of all newspapers, for misquoting him saying both the U.S. and the U.K. share a common Anglo-Saxon heritage. That is a true statement and is as much true for Barak Obama's Kenya as well. And Mitt Romney doesn't want to own that statement and basically said a conservative newspaper either made-up or misquoted that statement . So there you go. You can blame the "60s" or hippies or the Black Panthers to your heart's content, but one of the biggest drivers of the U.S. you see and hate today is same corporate world from which Mitt Romney springs from. The people who set the tone for the culture, the people who draw up the diversity policies for personnel codes, the people who fire you for non-PC speech, the people who give money to EMILY's List, all of this relates back to how the business world operates in this day and age.
Romney may not "hate" you in the sense that you may believe Obama does, but the damage he can do or not fix what has been done, is all the same and perhaps worse when he grins, sticks out his hand and says shake it, he's your friend.
Sean is being, well, ridiculous. The question is not whether or not Romney or McCain are good and wise men but whether or not an otherwise sane conservative could be tricked into supporting Obama. His remarks on Bain are equally irrelevant. The question is not whether American finance capital plays by good rules but which candidate has management and business experience. The Democrats as much as the Republicans have written the rules by which companies like Bain operate, and it is silly to accept the arguments put forward by one of the complicit parties. I still do not know if I can hold my nose to vote for Romney, and I am not sure it would make much of a difference, but middle class people of European descent who voted last time around for Obama are Jewish capos in a Nazi camp.
PS It is far better not to vote or to vote for yourself than to encourage clowns like Chuck Baldwin. If politics is not about power, it is about principle, and Mr. Baldwin is capable of neither. My first law of politics is don't vote for anyone who won't take your call if elected. That is because the only good a politician can do is to perform some corrupt act of kindness to a friend, but to do this favor, he must first get elected. I found myself, a few years ago, arguing politics with a very wealthy couple. The poor deluded wife believed America was going to be saved by her favorite conservative senator but when I pressed the husband, he laconically replied, "I give them money so that they will protect my oil leases and other interests." A wise man of his generation, wiser than the would-be children of light who regard politics as a debate game.
The poor deluded wife believed America was going to be saved by her favorite conservative senator but when I pressed the husband, he laconically replied, "I give them money so that they will protect my oil leases and other interests."
This hits home the reason why I and so many others who were so repulsed by John McCain that we sat out 2008 (as for the "conservatives" who pulled the switch for Obama, all I can say is that in the interest of being merciful we perhaps ought to defer judgment in the hopes that they are doing some serious penance) are seriously considering Mitt Romney. Obama's electors - and lest anyone get the wrong idea of my motives, this includes that yicky postmodern wench/soccer mom depicted on the web site "The Life of Julia" - are not "my" people. Romney's electors are, at least to a greater extent than Obama's.
Dr Fleming,
Good article and replies except your attack on Chuck Baldwin.Mr Baldwin is a decent
man of principle.His efforts to turn the tide are void and insignificant but so are
( unfortunately ) also yours (and mine).
The USA (and the "West") "are rolling down hill like a snowball headed for hell",
name calling a fellow conservative and Christian an "incapable clown" will not
change this.
Best regards,
S. Donker
I thank Mr. Donker for taking the trouble to write. I beg his pardon if I have offended a friend of his, though I have to say that if Mr. Baldwin is a conservative, then I am not. I am perfectly happy to admit that Baldwin may well be a Christian--though a media preacher has to prove such a claim--and even a good husband, father, neighbor, a patriotic American. But I put the question to Mr. Donker: What can we say of a man who claims to have a religious calling, and then descends into the political arena? Of someone who without any political experience has the temerity to ask for time, money, and votes? Of a candidate who if he had any effect would have insured the election of Obama?
I would say at best Mr. Baldwin was and is a waste of time. But I think he is much worse than that. Let us set aside his Zionism and other zanier aspects of his religion and look at his "political career." After saying only a miraculous demonstration of the divine will would encourage him to run for the presidency, he did. That should be enough to convince anyone that he is either deranged or a complete fraud--I incline to the latter view. In the end he got .15% of the popular vote.
When a political tyro asks for your support, he must either be saying either that he can win or that he represents a set of core principles that will be made part of the discussion even if he loses. Obviously, Chuck Baldwin was never going to win, never going to get even 1%, which means that even if he had a distinctive and coherent set of political principles, he--unlike Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, or George Wallace--would not get his message across. But what are those principles if not the same tired set of pseudo-conservative platitudes I have been hearing for 40 years? He claims to oppose globalism but then writes a blank check to Israel, the main cause of US involvement in foreign wars.
Spare me the lectures on Christian forbearance and I promise not to lift the rock any higher off the career of Mr. Baldwin.
"It's not my flag, it's not my country."
These words hit home for me. In raising my children I am trying to instill in them some sense of the virtue of patriotism, but this is not easy given the current state of the country. I decided that, for all big occasions (e.g. Independence Day, New Years . . .etc.), we'll fly the flag of Virginia except on Memorial Day and Veteran's Day (on which we'll fly both the American Flag and the Flag of the Confederacy, to honor all of those who served and died for their country). But I can't lie to my kids and pretend that this is a great country. I can only point to the times when it was a great country, and make them learn about the Civil War. And it's not as if we really honor the American flag anymore. Aside from burning it, we make it into napkins, paper plates, bikinis, ugly hats, underwear, towels, and every other sort of everyday trash. Nothing says "God Bless America" like an overweight lady in an American Flag tank top. Incidentally, this is why I oppose the "Madonna and Child" postage stamps which wind up in trash cans and recycling bins across the country every Christmas.
My question is, as always, what's to be done? To hope that the Romneys of the world will do anything but slightly slow the descent is fruitless. In fact, the one reason I choke at the idea of voting for him, even though I fully understand how disgusting the alternative is and obviously would never consider voting for it, is that he is more likely to start yet another unnecessary war. Or maybe two. Especially if he gets Condi "It's time for America to Lead Again" Rice as a VP.
But it goes far beyond the big wig politicians. The entire system is so powerful, corrupt, and slanted in the wrong direction. I was cutting the grass the other day and let my 6 year old sit in my lap and drive the riding mower around a bit. We were being perfectly safe and having a lovely time, but the thought occurred to me that if someone driving by thought I was recklessly endangering my child he could phone a social worker and suddenly I'm in trouble. Especially if the social worker turns out to be a jerk and discovers I'm a homeschooling Christian. At which point I could face an "intervention" in my family, and even if I sink thousands of dollars (that I can't spare) into lawyer fees much damage can be done before I get some justice system to legally establish my rights as a parent. So some self-righteous idiot, who doesn't know me or my family and who never personally confronts me, can wreck my life. And, of course, we live in the age of "see something say something" - so at best we're just encouraging this type of poking the nose in other people's business. Meanwhile, other parents let their kids play Grand Theft Auto, surf porn on the web, and flash-rob 7-Elevens and nobody cares.
Romney. Obama. Neither one will do a thing to fix these problems, although at least one of those options will do all he can to accelerate them. Perhaps the other will, too. One never knows about these public conservatives once they're given power (ala The Dread Justice Roberts). And even if the great Ron Paul was elected, it's not as if he can roll back the tide. At most we might get a little help in the economic sector and a pause on the rest, but that this longest of long shots (not really even a long shot at this point) is our best possible scenario is a grim reality to face.
How do we stop it? How do we even begin to fight it? A previous column here verified what I already knew; there's really no where else to go anyway. Aside from trying to stay under the radar long enough to raise my kids, I have no idea how to affect the hordes of lawyers, socials workers, community activists, crooked judges . . . etc. who have taken over the country and made it their own. I would say that they could have the country if they would just leave me alone, but I know that sooner than later they will try to bring their Chicago values into my home whether I want them or not.
Mr. Moses, I was unfamiliar with what you wrote, so I googled "The Life of Julia" and went straight to the Obama website. I did not spend much more time going through the content there but noticed it immediately telling that the Obama camp clearly believes the life of a woman begins at the age of three and that such a life is only substantiated by the benefits received from the federal goverment. Good to know.
Vote third party either the Libertarian candidate or Constitution Party candidate if you bother to vote at all. Voting for Romney at this point is just like voting for Obama, but a more agressive Obama in terms of foreign policy. A couple days a go I read a rather disturbing piece on Lew Rockwell.com, which stated that in 2015 half of our debt is coming due. Historically, if a nation faces this kind of disaster it means war, which is what Mr. Romney is chomping at the bit for. Obama is going to have to let the missiles fly at some point as well. Also, since Goldman Sachs owns both men, I can't fathom why any thinking conservative could, in good conscience, vote for either man.
Dr Fleming,
Thanks for your reply.
Mr Baldwin's principles are indeed the "conservative platitudes" you have been hearing
for 40 years.The difference is ,unlike mainstream "conservatives" who talk the talk but
never walk the walk, Mr Baldwin seriously wants to restore constitutional government (including states rights ,sound money and the rule of law) and to defend
"our history, our religion, our moral and cultural traditions".
It's true his third party presidential campaign in 2008 was a failure (just as Mr Buchanan campaign in 2000) but it was not wrong or dishonorable to offer the electorate another choice besides tweedledee Obama and tweedledum McCain.
Mr Baldwin is neither deranged ,neither a fraud but a decent man who has found the guts to tell the truth and to defend what is left of the real Amerika.He tries to turn the tide ,without success alas, but are you more successfull ?
Finally : Mr Baldwin doesn't propose a blank check for Israel.Quote :
"Regardless of one's particular view of Eschatology, believers should be united in their support for protecting the sovereignty and independence of these United States...The problem is, some Christians seem to give more loyalty and support to the government of Israel than they do their own country's independence and freedom....
Whether one believes in a future Davidic Kingdom or not is immaterial to the preservation of America's freedom and independence. If God intends a future place and purpose for Israel, He is certainly capable of fulfilling that place and purpose. He will not need your help, my help, or Ron Paul's help. I know that is shocking to the pride and arrogance of many evangelicals, but it is true nonetheless" (end quote) ( http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin423.htm)
Best regards,
S.Donker.
"I give them money so that they will protect my oil leases and other interests."
I don’t think I would be wrong in believing Warren Buffet and George Soros would say the same thing too. If you're being consistent, I hope you don't hold their cynicism again them either.
Romney's business experience is absolutely meaningless, since his advancement in business was largely due to his father's name and fortune and what he does for living is basically to live of his investment wealth in the same manner gamblers live off the latest score at the craps table. This wealth is largely based upon, as I said, the financial acumen one could receive running a neighborhood rummage sale. And since government is not a business and doesn't not operate on principles or codes any businessman can understand, why good business sense matters in a President is irrelevant unless you think President Perot or President Forbes or President Bloomberg would eventually have been put on Mt. Rushmore too. What business do you know of makes you pay for their products and threatens you with jail if you do not do so?
I cannot say why a certain degree why some conservatives would vote for Obama again because I am not one of them. I can only guess they believe Obama and the Democrats are appearing to them as making the trains run on time, at least in the Executive Branch (something Republicans were once known for and squandered under the Bushes.)
One gets impression that some believe the upcoming Presidential election is the most important, earth-shattering, paradigm changing event since the last election. This coincides with comments about a certain conservative non-major party candidate being a “clown” for want of a returned phone call. It is reminiscent of the kind of content one finds on the website Free Republic i.e. the evil act is not voting for the lesser evil, but for the one good man of the pack. We are being convinced to do so because this will bring back the “normal” people back in power. Thus the new “normal” is a man who believes Jesus and Lucifer are brothers and also believes he wears magic underware. Got it.
If this is what Obama has driven us to then I rest my case. But one shouldn’t act surprised. In fact, Obama’s Presidency, or someone like him, was predicted years ago. How do I know? Because I read about it in Chronicles for the past 15 years. To complain about Obama is little like the Romans complaining Odoacer had deposed their last emperor Romulus Augustus. They didn’t have much of a choice anymore and at the end of the American Empire neither do we. To think the “normal” people will suddenly turn things around and at least delay the inevitable until they die might as well find some old “W” stickers to put on the back of their cars, because it’s the same wishful thinking. The empire has fallen and we are simply like those living in the aftermath until a new age dawns. I read that in Chronicles too.
of a choice anymore and at the end of the American Empire neither do we. To think the “normal” people will suddenly turn things around and at least delay the inevitable until they die might as well find some old “W” stickers to put on the back of their cars, because it’s the same wishful thinking. The empire has fallen and we are simply like those living in the aftermath until a new age dawns. I read that in Chronicles too.
Sean, we are unfortunately arguing at cross purposes. I am not advising anyone to vote for Romney, though I do understand why some sensible decent people would think it is a good option. Nor am I arguing that Romney's business experience makes him a good or honorable man. What I do say is that like Buffet and Soros he has the intelligence and discipline to run a company and make money. At his best, Obama organized tax-consumers to rip off tax-payers. I would distinguish Romney from Soros in one aspect: Soros like Obama loathes and despises you and me. Where I think you may go off the rails a bit is in the tendency to play the class card. As rotten as rich people can be, they are in my experience no worse than ordinary people and rather better than the government-dependent poor.
Of course, we agree in refusing to be snookered by political leaders who pretend to be holding up a torch to light our way out of the cave, and I know as one of our friends you will not take my remarks as evidence of hostile intent.
This is true of the princes who hold actual power or at least figurehead offices and of the aspiring princelings who snooker the desperate followers of third parties. Enter Chuck Baldwin.
Let me begin by giving Mr. Donker one real point. I certainly painted Baldwin's Zionism with too broad a brush. Like his hero and mentor, Jerry Falwell, Baldwin distinguishes between pre-millenialist mythology and the political application insisted on by most Christian Zionists. But if, as pastor, he believes that the state of Israel is part of a divine plan for saving the human race, then it is hard to square this with a refusal to act. He does seem to pooh-pooh the eschatology that he shares with Zionists by saying that God can save Israel if He wants to.
Let us unpack the contradiction. He seems to mean that in carrying out God's plan of salvation—,preparing for the End Times, etc.—we can just leave it all up to the Creator. What about keeping the Commandments? If saving Israel is vitally important, then how can a Christian not want to go to war for Israel? Falwell, as I said, tried this, but the Zionists put so much pressure on him that he did a Romney—ran off to Israel, put on a skullcap (I can't spell the Jewish word that sounds like a Japanese piano). By the way, I liked Jerry and think he did some good things. In the end, he was trapped by bad theology and the groupthink of the Christian Right. I hope I am not giving further offense by stating, categorically, that the Christian Right has done far more harm than good in American politics. With the examples of Robertson and Baldwin before me, I would sooner vote for a Mormon stockjobber than a radio preacher.
For a patriotic zionist, there is obviously a dilemma, since support for Israel trumps the American national interest. Some Zionists slip out of the dilemma by arguing that Israel's interests really are America's interests and that in helping Israel persecute Palestinian Christians we are not only doing the Lord's work but we are also carrying out a sound policy of national defense. In most cases, this is a bad faith argument since what really matters to at least many of these people is the enactment of their mythic drama.
In the spirit of charity, however, we might conclude that Baldwin has a set of religious beliefs that are not always compatible with his political creed. I suppose that is true of most of us. It is certainly true that his middle-of-the road position has been helpful in marginalizing rivals like Alan Keyes. If this is the point, then he is acting like any other politician except for the obvious fact that he has never been involved in a serious campaign. For the sake of advancing the argument, however, I'll concede your point that he is turncoat Zionis or half-hearted pre-Millennialist, and that is much better than the real thing.
As I have said several times about Chronicles, " it is a tough crowd." If you have never been in a fist fight, thrown from a horse, drank too much whiskey, been insulted by a beautiful woman having deserved it, or admired a man taking on three or four, prayed on your knees, experienced "twice blessed" mercy, exercised charity towards a neighbor, or learned the honest qualities of foregiveness, I would not recommend it. On the other hand, one thing I have learned from Chronicles is that anger and discontent are as common to human experience as delight and peaceful moments but so long as the reader or participant is capable of loving something more than he hates everything else, he can get along quite well with the chroniceles crowd. My thanks for this fine thread and argument, the type of which will not be read anywhere else in the blogosphere -- Not at First Things, Not at American Conservative and certainly not at the old defunct National Review. (Free Republic was a joke from the beginning.)
Now that we have got Mr. Baldwin's religion out of the way, we can proceed to the actual argument. The question on the table, as I see it, is whether or not one should support third parties that have no chance, not just of winning an election but of sparking a discussion.
As I said earlier, there are two reasons to support a candidate: Either he has some chance of winning and doing something you would like to see done or he can put a distinctive set of positions before the American people, as Perot, Buchanan, and the Libertarians did. Baldwin never had the chance of winning, and it is pretty clear by now that he is even less likely than the fruitcake Alan Keyes to communicate a distinctive point of view. By the way, you did not respond to my statement that Baldwin has no distinctive point of view--apart from the useless platitudes repeated ad nauseam in the 1980s at Human Events.
When Howie Philips founded the Taxpayers' Party, I pointed out that people support parties and movements that will selectively benefit their group interests. Obviously, a party of Taxpayers, not having any particular constituency, has no future. Worse, the very name degrades citizens into subjects.
The Constitution Party is scarcely a better name because, once again, it conveys no distinct sense of interest or policy: Everyone believes in some kind of Constitution even if it is the constitution that John Roberts makes up the night before a decision is handed down. There is virtually nothing left of the original constitution or of the Lincolnian constitution that replaced it. Even FDR's constitution has been replaced by the constitution that evolved under LBJ and his successors. At this stage, the first constitution is a document of antiquarian interest only. How irrelevant it is to contemporary discourse Howie himself revealed. When asked how, if elected, he would end abortion, if the Congress did not go along, he replied that he would outlaw it by executive fiat. Even Obama has not gone that far down the road to unconstitutional dictatorship.
I can imagine pragmatic reasons to vote for either Obama (He's gonna pay my mortgage, increase food stamps, let my brother marry his boyfriend, and stomp on white folks) or Romney (He's not going to raise taxes or single me out for punishment because I am rich and white….) There is no practical reason for voting for a tiny third party. That leaves only principle
On the level of principle, I have never known what the Constitution Party—unlike the Libertarian Party—has to offer. A vote for the LP sends a clear message: less and less government across the board. It also sends a message of libertinism, but since they are never going to win, that aspect can be overlooked. Of course, as my friend Rothbard use to say, the LP is made up of grifters and losers, but of what minor party can that not be said?
It seems to me that most small conservative parties are suffering from severe delusions: the delusion that the real problem with America is with the leaders and parties, because the people are basically good. Thus all we need to do is put the right people on SCOTUS, pass a few amendments--pro-life/anti-gay etc--and we can turn this ship around. These are not just delusions but very dangerous ones because it encourages the conservatives to think they can use government to reimpose morality on the people when the only possible course of action is to take moral authority away from government. For that reason alone, I could never support the radio cheerleaders and their Evangelical candidates.
Mr. Donker asks if I have been more successful than Mr. Baldwin. In earlier years, I should have chastised him for his impudence. But let it go. I sometimes know what the graybearded prophet felt when the children taunted him. These days, unfortunately, there are no bears conveniently lurking in the woods to give the kids their comeuppance.
If he means, have I been successful in politics, I don't know why he is asking such a question. No one can actually be less successful than Mr. Baldwin—I don't think I can count the low—but he should be put not with Buchanan, Wallace, Perot, and Lafollette—serious third party candidates who changed the conversation—but with Pat Paulsen and Stephen Colbert. The difference is, Baldwin's not funny.
I don't recall ever running for any office, unless you count my appeal, perhaps 20 years ago, to vote for me for President to show your contempt for the process. Politicians run, writers write. See? For a serious writer, the test is not how many books you sell or how many housewives have watched you been interviewed on tv or even whether or not you have been reviewed in the Times. The only test is whether you have done a good job, both in your own opinion and in the opinion of people you respect. I shall not presume to answer this except to say that in judging the quality of a man's writing or thinking, Mr. Baldwin does not have the right to an opinion.
If I wanted to emulate Chuck Baldwin, I wouldn't run for president but for an Olympic Gold Medal in the 100 Meters or a Nobel Prize in Physics. After all, if saying something makes it so, then you can be a great athlete the same way Baldwin can be a anti-Zionist Zionist or a presidential candidate. Here in America, we are all graduates of the Wizard of Oz University—I mean no disrespect to the Thomas Roads Baptist Seminary created by the wizard of Lynchburg—and signing a petition or declaring a candidacy constitutes a real-world political act.
We all have our hobbies. My wife gardens, I fish, and some people play Third Party political games. If you want to believe in the Keyses, Peroutkas, and Baldwins, go ahead and waste your time, money, and vote. But please do not waste any more of my time pretending that Chuck Baldwin is a political candidate, much less a serious man.
I don’t think I would be wrong in believing Warren Buffet and George Soros would say the same thing too. If you're being consistent, I hope you don't hold their cynicism again them either.
Can't speak for Dr. Fleming, but I certainly don't hold their cynicism against then. I do, however, hold their hypocritical, moralizing condescension against them.
(Also, to the extent that either one has "principles" and sticks rigorously to them, the "principles" they operate on are largely false or just plain bad.)
There is a difference between pursuing cynical self-interest and disguising it behind a doping-up of soft socialism to distract attention away from a) the plundering, and b) the demographic time bomb.
"For a serious writer, the test is not how many books you sell or how many housewives have watched you been interviewed on tv or even whether or not you have been reviewed in the Times. The only test is whether you have done a good job, both in your own opinion and in the opinion of people you respect."
I am not at the point in my life where I can have definite opinions about these things but I am approaching such a time and at this point, I think you have done a fine job at being serious when everyone else was wanting to celebrate mediocrity and winning. Any man who knows a little Latin and Greek is a different type of man than those who don't, and today, such a man is rarer today than he has ever been in our long history. Also, when the rest of men were running for the tall grass or groveling before their new masters, you either walked calmly toward the exits to avoid them or faced your accusers with peculiar courage. Too ask for more than that from a friend in these times is to pretend to be God. Thanks for the posts, the blog and the good thread about American conservatives in the last days of Whig politics.
"He [Chuck Baldwin] tries to turn the tide ,without success alas, but are you more successfull ?"
For what it's worth - I've never, ever heard of Chuck Baldwin. At all.
For what it's worth - I've never, ever heard of Chuck Baldwin. At all.
Living in Montana today after having established Cross Roads Baptist Church in Florida. Alot of these fellows who mistakenly thought they could do alot of good in the last fifty years shouting each other down in the political arena have moved to the peaceful mountains of Idaho or Montana, or attempted to lose themselves in the nihilism of Las Vegas after having exhausted their own egos. I don't have a dog in the fight as to earthly paradise, but Palermo seemed like a nice enough place to me after reading the most recent issue of Chronicles. A village Church for Mass, a village inn for eating, smoking, drinking and conversing and a perpsective from which ancient and new things, sin and vice, love and hate, heaven and hell can be considered from a realistic view. I don't recall him mentioning the cemetery but I trust they have a good one in Palermo.
I first became aware of the Constitution Party when Joseph Sobran recommended Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party nominee for president in 2004. I did vote for Peroukta in 2004. I then voted for Constitution Party candidate Baldwin in 2008, partly because he had the endorsement of Ron Paul, but now I feel chastened by Dr. Fleming’s analysis of Baldwin’s positions.
As Mr. Reavis says, it gets rough around here sometimes, but I’m here to learn.
Mr. Reavis,
I don't know how many horse farms they have in Palermo, though. Other than that, it sounds good to me. To live within walking distance of a good parish would be a lovely thing. I've been watching the old 1950s Disney Zorro tv show with the kids every Sunday night, and while Guy Williams and the supporting cast are very fun, and the stories are fairly sharp for a little 30-minute family action show, my favorite part is the little Spanish cuartel of Los Angeles. They've got one inn where everyone eats and drinks and occasionally a lady dances. One mission that good Padre Felipe staffs. Good rancheros with nice big houses taking care of all the Peons. And when the local government gets too big for its britches a little black mask and some Spanish steel goes a long way in resolving things.
It's a fantasy world, but it is certainly a lovely fantasy.
Overall, the Mediterranean world is increasingly more attractive to me, not because it is getting better--quite the contrary--but because the North-European world, including the Anglo-sphere, is getting so much worse so much more rapidly. I might not pick Palermo--too big, inefficient, corrupt--though I prefer it to any city in the USA. There is any number of nice smaller towns in Sicily. Agrigento, apart from the ruins, is dumpy but pleasant, and Noto is glorious--if you like the Baroque, though I do not--and the countryside and seacoast there are lovely. But there are nice places all over Italy and Greece--Greece by the way is becoming a bargain. Still the greatest city in the world for the visitor is Rome, and I am already at work planning our Winter School in Rome, followed by a few days in Florence for those who want it.
Dr. Fleming,
There was an American poet I read somewhat as a young man named, Robert Lax. I believe he resided on the island of Patmos, Greece until his death in 2000. Considered by some to be a self-exiled hermit, he nonetheless welcomed visitors to his home on the island, but did nothing to court publicity or expand his literary career or reputation. I am wondering aloud if you have ever visited the Island of Patmos ?
As a known Chuck Baldwin and Constitution Party supporter and Chronicles reader, someone asked me what I thought about this discussion. I actually wasn't aware of it, but hurried over to see what the fuss was about. Needless to say, I disagree with Dr. Fleming on several points. I'll break the religious issues and the third party issues up into separate posts. First the religious issues.
I am skeptical of dispensational pre-millennialism and have grown more skeptical with time. I am however somewhat defensive of pre-mils because I belong to the same "denomination" as Chuck Baldwin and almost everyone I go to church with believes this way. Contrary to popular belief, my co-religionists are not all blithering idiots. Most people, in any religion, believe what they are taught without giving it a whole lot of thought. So most Baptists, independent (like Baldwin) or otherwise, believe more or less the whole system. They will over learn, so to speak, the distinctives. So Seventh Day Adventists over learn Saturday Sabbath but learn the whole system. Likewise Baptist likely over learn believers baptism. To a lesser degree they may over learn pre-millennialism, but it isn't generally considered, to the degree it’s considered at all, an essential distinctive. In my experience they take pre-millennialism for granted because it is just part of the milieu. They aren't really that aware of the alternatives. The problem with this is that error persists. The benefit is that you don't have a lot of wiseacres questioning the Trinity or the Virgin birth either. I am sure this tendency to learn the whole system is evident in the Catholic Church as well. What Dr. Fleming is doing, in part, is asking everyone to be as thoughtful as he is. (I hope he will not think me impertinent for saying so.) This isn't really fair. The Bell Shaped Curve is bell shaped for a reason.
In fact, in some “thoughtful” evangelical and fundamentalist circles, dispensational pre-millennialism is coming under increased scrutiny and being de-emphasized and even rejected, much to the chagrin of the old school folks.
That said, I really do not see a problem with being a theological pre-mil and being non-interventionist or neutral towards Israel. (It would be hard to be hostile towards Israel.) This is a point I have been trying to make for years. Evangelical support for Israel is more than a theological issue. It is also tied in with their view of America and its unique (“exceptional”) role in the world. I often ask Israel supporting interventionists if every ostensibly Christian country has an equal obligation to protect Israel. Does, for example, Canada have an equal obligation to protect Israel? The thought has generally never occurred to them. Or else they'll deny that Canada is Christian in the same way the US is. No other nation is Christian in the same way the US is, you see. Either way, their response indicates that their position has as much to do with their theology (unfortunately) of America as it does their theology of Israel. (Evangelical leadership is not without fault is this theologizing of Americanism.) This is why Keyes (Catholic) and Erick Erickson (Reformed) can be as in the tank for Israel as any fundy, or why Gingrich is just as deferential to Israel after he became a Catholic as he was when he was a Baptist. It is because they share a similar “theology” of America. IMO, the notion that America must intervene in order to ensure the working of God's Divine plan is inherently hubristic and presumptive. I see no problem with Chuck Baldwin's non-interventionist pre-millennialism, and see the idea that America (and America alone) has a Divine imperative to protect Israel as the theologically troublesome position.
Thanks, Red, for this intelligent, measured, and kind response. Even if I agreed 100% with what you say, it would not change my opinion of Baldwin. What I most regret is taking up Sean Scallon on his taunt, because Baldwin is not worth the time we have squandered on him. He may not be the detestable piece of scum that Gingrich and Keyes are, but as Quintilian observed, goodness does not consist in being better than the worst.
I have no particular hostility to the Constitution Party, except that its members know little of the Constitution and they are not a party. I have met and respect many of the members but in even considering a freak like Keyes, they revealed a weakness they can never overcome. As I said before, I have hobbies and don't begrudge others having their own hobbies, but neither gardening nor a miniscule party have anything to do with politics. At least with my wife's garden, we get fresh tomatoes.
Let me concede this much. If a minor party will give Red Phillips the nomination, I'll not only vote for you but work for your campaign. Thanks again for writing.
PS I also agree entirely that most people in any denomination simply accept what they are told without thinking. That is one of the reasons I strongly object to schisms and to the insistence on sending people to Hell because you think they are wrong about election or the end times. Having said that, I would add that people who enter a profession like medicine or the clergy have a minimum responsibility to be properly educated in the field. In the case of a Christian pastor, the minimum requirement should be a pretty high level of competence in Greek, for example, with a good deal of Latin and Hebrew. Pastors who are more interested in radio shows and politics do not have my respect any more than I would respect someone claiming to be a psychiatrist when his training is in phrenology.
Regarding Pastor Baldwin and third parties:
First of all, Baldwin did not intend to run in 2008, but did in response to the pleas of many people to save the Constitution Party from Alan Keyes. While Keyes was not broadly liked in the party, until Baldwin threw his hat in the ring, Keyes had no credible opposition for the nomination and looked to be the default nominee. Those of us who were fighting hard to avoid a Keyes nomination will forever be in Baldwin’s debt. That said, I agree with Dr. Fleming’s implication that the tendency of a lot of evangelicals to formulate every life decision in terms of God’s Will or God’s leading is unfortunate. It leaves you little leeway. I do not think Baldwin is a fraud. I think he is the victim of common but ill considered evangelical phraseology. My hunch is that Baldwin knew he didn’t really have the financial means to wage a national campaign but would have felt’s “God’s leading” had he suddenly inherited a fortune. Having Howard Phillips and many others beg you to seek the nomination and save the party was the equivalent of inheriting a fortune.
I agree that the point of politics is either to achieve power or advance principles. I also, much to the chagrin of some of my third party friends, do not think the primary purpose of a third party is to win elections. If you are a third party advocate and your primary goal is to elect candidates, then you need to get out of the business because yours is a recipe for perpetual disappointment. The primary point of a third party is to uphold a standard and to punish, rhetorically and at the voting booth, the major party nearest to it. Where I disagree with Dr. Fleming is I’m not sure on what basis he draws his line for where one starts influencing the debate. Such a line is always going to be arbitrary. Did Wallace have a chance of winning the election? Did post implosion or second try Perot? Heck, in some states and instances does even one of the major party nominees? Baldwin influenced the debate as best he could, and arguably his influenced was actually outsized all things considered. Earning the Ron Paul endorsement was quite a coup. Nominees such as Baldwin or Peroutka are always going to influence the debate more on the margins, than they do in the mainstream. The task is to make the margins the mainstream. (Not going to happen but too hard-headed to give up.)
Since the point of a third party campaign (esp. for President) is not to win, and since there was never any chance that Baldwin was going to win, I have always been a little puzzled by the objection that such and such third party nominee is not qualified. So what? He isn’t going to win so it doesn’t matter if he is qualified. That said, I have little use for Joe Lunch Pail who decides he has the answers and is going to run for President. Even if you are seeking a third party’s nomination you should at least have some standing upon which to base a candidacy. Having standing, however, is not the same thing as being qualified. A third party presidential candidate is not really running to be President. He is running to be the standard bearer of his party. I think Baldwin had plenty of standing to do that. He was the 2004 VP nominee and a prominent and well read (by far right standards) columnist. Heck, by CP standards Baldwin was virtually a “big name.”
I think Baldwin is actually a very solid writer and more theoretically sound than Dr. Fleming gives him credit for. He started out on the “Moral Majority” Christian right and understandably carried a lot of that baggage with him. But he is a quick study. He now, unlike many from a similar background, gets the Lincoln and the WBTS issue, for example. He genuinely gets the foreign policy issue. Baldwin, and the CP in general, still have the theoretical problem of using a lot of liberal (in the original sense) Enlightenment rhetoric that undermines their goal, but who gets that except a few pointy heads like us who talk to each other on blogs like these? If that is the measure of who is a conservative, then no one in America is a conservative except maybe a few Chronicles readers and a couple of Monarchists out there. There is very little to disagree with in the CP platform even if they do stumble into the correct position on occasion. The current CP platform is burdened down with a lot of justification statements that muddle the message. (Since I was on the 2008 platform committee I can explained how that bit of sausage making came into place, if anyone cares. If you can locate a 2004 platform, it is more readable.) But, the issues positions are generally sound, and I suspect Dr. Fleming would agree with most of them.
Also, I agree with Dr. Fleming’s suggestion that third party supporters are essentially hobbyists. Third party activism is their avocation. There is even a study (which I would like to locate again) that demonstrates this. So if this is the case, why do people get worked up about third party activists? Do people get equally worked up about people who go to yard sales or ride motorcycles or go camping or whatever? Why not let us have our fun?
Far from getting worked up about people who vote for third parties, I generally salute them for their idealistic enthusiasm. What I do object to is the occasional pious outbursts of third party activists who deride anyone who supports a Republican and tries to convey the idea that they are really doing something to change the country. I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan's first election but I don't persuade myself into thinking. My complaint is not with all third party partisans, only with those who take this holier-than-thou attitude.
The difference between significant third parties and futile parties is the principles they manage to introduce into the debate. Lafollete, Wallace, Perot, Buchanan actually put certain critiques and principles into play. No one who was around at the time who cared anything about politics could have failed to see the significant challenge they mounted to the established party state. What I never heard from Mr. Baldwin was such a challenge. If you'll tell me what it was or is, I'm prepared to listen patiently, but please, not the usual empty rhetoric about defending the Constitution, limited government, America's Christian heritage. I was a Boy Scout in my youth, and once was enough. It is not that these platitudes did not once have meaning, only that they cannot help us in our current situation and perhaps never could.
"Of course, we agree in refusing to be snookered by political leaders who pretend to be holding up a torch to light our way out of the cave, and I know as one of our friends you will not take my remarks as evidence of hostile intent."
None taken.
At the 1944 GOP National Convention in Chicago only delegate voted against party nominee Thomas E. Dewey. He happened to be from my home state of Wisconsin. And someone asked him why he said: "Because I'm a man not a jellyfish!" I feel the same way. I never give up my vote because I am only just one vote out of millions. I do not determine the outcome of elections so my responsibility is to my conscious and what I believe in. If it puts me in minority of less than one percent so be it. What does it profit a man to be a part of a faceless crowd determined to throw itself off a cliff? Millions probably wish they had a different choice to vote for in November other than Obama and Romney and yet they're stuck with them and fated to do so.
It was not my intention to taunt or start a discussion about the Christian beliefs of Chuck Baldwin. As someone who has written about non-major parties (as Sam Francis used to say we do not have third parties we have many, many political parties) I've been back and forth about their purpose and usefulness and I believe Red's summed it up, as he usually, rather well. "The primary point of a third party is to uphold a standard and to punish, rhetorically and at the voting booth, the major party nearest to it.". And I also believe, as Dr. Fleming pointed out, such parties can advance ideas and critiques which the major parties can't or unwilling to offer at a point and time which make their appearance effective in influencing the debate. As he mentioned, LaFollette, Wallace, Perot, Nader and Buchanan were able to do so. I think it's why third activists whom I've met along way continue to do what they do. Intellectually they know they can't win but they know there is an audience for them if they can make an effective argument for themselves
The Ron Paul campaign is a non-major party too. But its following a different route through the Republican Party. Because the political system of this county is so rigged to favor one side or the other, such a campaign may well be a useful model for the future. The parties, in the post Citizens United world, have basically been reduced to brand names like they were soap or car. The faction who capture the brand for millions of voters who only see the parties as a shortcut to make choice and get out of the voting booth, will be the ones with the power.
Thanks, Sean, for all the good arguments. You also make a good point in drawing attention to Ron Paul's play within the party. He might have had greater effect if he had not bolted the GOP for the LP, but who knows. I have recommended to conservatives for at least a decade that they formed an organized faction within the GOP, working hard, when they lose, for the mainstream candidate but demanding--in advance--certain concessions, not so much on platforms that mean nothing as on key positions. For example, in a tight race, the Christian Right could insist on veto power over HHS and DOE, while the Ron Paul wing could demand such authority over State and Treasury. Naturally, there would have to be room for compromise and attention would also have to be paid to who becomes senior advisors.
You're welcome.
"Let me concede this much. If a minor party will give Red Phillips the nomination, I'll not only vote for you but work for your campaign."
Thanks. Let's see ... when will the last kid be through college? ... 2020? No ... 2024? No ... That's it then Phillips for President 2028!
If a minor party will give Red Phillips the nomination, I'll not only vote for you but work for your campaign."
Me too, Mr. Phillips.
When Pat Buchanan was considering running against the GOP's "read my lips" leader back in 1992, Sam Donaldson said if Buchanan ran, he would quit his job at the White House press corps and seek the more arduos effort of covering the campaign, "just to watch the action." What the country will look like in 2028 contrasted with a fellow of your caliber, should be a stemwinder worth waiting for !!
"What the country will look like in 2028 contrasted with a fellow of your caliber, should be a stemwinder worth waiting for !! "
I'm afraid we all(if still alive) will follow the election of 2028 from a FEMA camp.
Best regards,
S.Donker
Thanks Dr. Fleming I think I will vote this time since the last time was back when I voted for Regan. So this time it's Romney. I never suspected I'd go back to the polls because at least one candidate didn't hate me with every fiber of his being. But that is a good enough reason. Wow, and especially because it isn't my country anymore.
Since I've already failed Doc Fleming's sanity test by refusing to leave my Chicago home, I might as well cut loose with how I really feel about some things....
"On a slightly more serious note,...." says Doctor Fleming, and goes on to some inanity of our quadrennial orgy of inanity known as presidential elections. But I'm still in Chicago, see, and I just have to say, yeah, I'm just sobbing with laughter. Uncle Milt Rahm is not, though from the right angle he does resemble Lenny Bruce, minus the human warmth and humor.
There's nothing funny about the Jewish/black alliance in Chicago (or anyplace else) for anyone who lives here. From the time of the founding of the NAACP to the backstage involvement in drafting "civil rights" laws, to today's abominable wedge-making political gamesmanship, Jews have used blacks to weaken Christian European Americans' positions in our own country. With Israel-firsters now in control of America's two greatest cities, with their immense flows of revenues, people and goods, are the gloves coming off for the final stage of their takeover? No longer content with the soft power of media and financial control, do they sense the time is ripe for another October Revolution, as Solzhenitsyn noted of them in "200 Years Together"? If Obama is not their Lenin, he will do until they can get a Lieberman or Emanuel in.
The more I learn about Jews the more I have to strain to refrain from "insulting" them. This is partly the result of my being behind the learning curve, not knowing the history of this group, so that as I read more, I grow angrier; and partly the result of their continued provocations. Two cases in point, of so many more that could be made: the recent anti-Christian rampage of Knesset member and rabbi Michael Ben-Ari, who publicly tore up a copy of the New Testament; and a recent article in the Times of Jerusalem ("Jews Do Control The Media") in which the author blatantly states that Jews do control the media, but it's OK, because they are better than the rest of us and must be about the business of "improving" us. I don't know how much longer informed non-Jews can reasonably be expected to pretend these things aren't happening.