The publisher/owner of this website, Jaired Hall, is responsible for decisions regarding site content. The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of Regent University and Regent University assumes no liability for any material appearing herein.
20 comments:
at least you have the slopes right :-) lol.
I wonder what kind of eschatology you have. Mine says the world will continue to get worse and worse and that the worse it is the closer I am to getting out of here. When you see the world collapsing like it seems to be it is frustrating, but then it dawns on you that Christ is coming so very soon and that is quite comforting. So although both parties lead to a pit (in your illustration) and I couldn't hasten the decline (thus I am "forced" to vote for the lesser of two evils), I am always happy in my vote knowing that God is sovereign and in control of the Ending. It would, of course, be less comforting if I believed I had to sit through the seven years and perhaps I would be more cynical. Hmmmm.
Ah, paintbrush! Very nice, and to the point.
Your cartoon, while wisely conceived, is founded upon a false assumption which makes the foundation of its conclusion subject to intellectual decay; you are correct that the country-club McCain republicans are on the same slope to destruction, only at a smaller slope than the now ultra-happy democrats who are in control of Congress and the Oval Office. But democrats have no ideological roots to which they can return to save their party. Republicans can resurrect their roots; if we have people who are willing to stick to ideology rather than this false notion of "bipartisanship". Reagan didn't destroy the USSR by trying to agree, but by calling them an evil empire, which they were (and are returning to, it seems) and by saying what was right and true. This mechanism doesn't exist with the democratic party, which is "anything goes political correctness." Craft a cartoon with me standing on the rear of the republican skateboard installing a 40,000 HP outboard motor geared to the wheels and a grappling hook to slow the descent, and then I will fully support your depiction.
Love ya, brother!
Stephen
Eschatology. Hmmmm. Rapture. That's the word, I guess. To be perfectly honest (maybe this is an embarrassing admission), I do not have an opinion on the rapture. I don't know what I believe in that regard: will I be gone before things hit rock bottom?
One thing I do believe--Ultimate victory is in Christ and the followers of Christ. Eternal glorious life is mine, and I've got a vice-hold on it.
In the meantime, the world is heading towards a Ragnarok (Norse Mythology) / Apocolypse. Will I be here for the worst of it; I hope not.
Who cares . . . my job is to act righteously.
Period.
So . . . this turns me to Stephen's comment.
Is it righteous for me to vote for McCain? Is it righteous for me to vote Republican accross the board? Is it righteous for me to pour my efforts into the Republican party?
I haven't sorted out the multifarious smaller issues raised by these questions. I did conclude that I couldn't vote McCain in good conscience. This has not led me to fully abandon people who call themselves Republicans.
Can we all agree on this at least: it is wrong to cast a vote for someone who will actively contribute to the destruction of America?
Stephen:
A vote for someone is not a rope or engine pulling in the opposition direction.
A vote for someone is a nudge or push of that person along the path they have chosen.
wow, what do you mean by "actively contribute to the destruction of America." How does that describe McCain? Or perhaps you meant me. I am selfish and don't always look out for the interests of America over my own interests. I don't really think there is a person who is different. Sometimes I think you just don't like politics at all but you must remember we are voting for men not angels.
It's kind of like theology, a man must not have every single piece of theology right in order to be saved. Politicians dont have to have every single issue right or else they are "actively contributing to the destruction of America." Do they? If they don't, you may vote knowing that although different on some issues, you share core values that are worth putting forward. If they do have to be right on every issue then I am afraid you have much too high a standards for politicians, mere men that they are...
Disclaimer: In no way do I think NOT voting for McCain/any Republicrat is a bad thing. Vote your conscience and vote third party if you wish.
Jaired wrote:
A vote for someone is not a rope or engine pulling in the opposition direction.
A vote for someone is a nudge or push of that person along the path they have chosen.
I disagree. And you know the counter-example I'll use, but for the reading pleasure of your blog readers, I'll write it again.
Suppose, heaven forbid, that my son get his arm lopped off under the lawnmower. Tragic, and a situation that requires action. He's losing blood, so what's the first thing my Boy Scout sense tells me to do: apply a tourniquet. Second, I rush him to the hospital. What I don't do is go to the store immediately and purchase a different kind of mower or a safety guard or some other implement. Not that I wouldn't do those later, or that they don't have value, but I need to take practical steps to control the bleeding. Later, I take those steps, otherwise the grass will be uncontrollable.
Following the analogue to your principles, the child is left bleeding to death while you search for a more appropriate mower, one with better guards, one whose principles of grass-cutting and limb-protection are more true. And that's what's happening nationally; we're hemorrhaging and free-bleeding from our national arteries with Obama in office when we could've at least had some measure of conservative values [the tourniquet], obviously not the best, but some, while we fix what's broken in the party.
My approach is two-fold; practical as well as principled. Take the child to the trauma center, stop the bleeding (analagous to voting Republican even if you didn't like McCain), and as soon as that is done fix the mower (address the pseudo-conservatives within the party). What is wrong with that approach?
Love ya, brother!
Stephen
What's wrong with that is you're trying to fix a hemorrhage with a band-aid. Radical change - and not the Obama kind - is needed. Look what happened when the pseudo-con (or is it just con?) came to power, i.e. GWB. Epic growth of government, on the order of FDR. McCain or Obama - it didn't matter. It was only going to get worse. Recall that McCain reacted VERY positively to the choices for Obama's cabinet (initially). Only when others blasted Obama did he join up with the critics.
Point of history: Reagan didn't destroy the USSR. They did it to themselves. Socialism is doomed to failure from the start, as per the Ludwig von Mises "socialism can't calculate" thesis. There is no choice in the matter.
~Norman
LibertarianChristians.com
Norman,
Respectfully, no. I intend to rush the kid to the hospital, where as much action as needed can be taken. But what has happened in the meantime (reversal of the Mexico City policy, the bailout--which I believe McCain could've been bullied into vetoing--and a host of other ridiculous measures like the Fairness Doctrine and Don't Ask Don't Tell) is a hemorrhage. Don't toss in the towel with cynical pessimism. In an effort to live for principle you end up jettisoning the principle of practicality, cutting off the nose of the nation to spite its face.
And while Von Mises is obviously correct in that socialism is fundamentally unsound, Reagan contained and controlled it, called it what it was in the face of a media and world aghast in political correctness and Jimmy Carter niceties, exploited its inherent weakness, and did bring about its collapse with SDI as the USSR's economy couldn't keep up. Had he not, sure, it might've run itself and the rest of the world it could subjugate into the ground in a few centuries; he sped it along and for that it is safe to say he took it down to the mat for a 10-count.
Bueller....Bueller....
lol, Stephen how did you get so eager to debate people? :-)
By realizing that ideas have consequences, and we have many ideas based on shaky presuppositions and assumptions. That's where the real battle is. The spirit of Hebrew wisdom discourse is in Proverbs 26:4-5. Address the presuppositions on one's interlocutor. Jesus did it all the time, responding to another's presuppositions rather than the foil of the argument presented. In that way he moved past the false argumentative traps and to the real crux of the issue.
Wow, thats true. I guess I never thought of it like that. The reason I like to discuss and debate is to get to the root beliefs that people have. It seems to me that most faulty political beliefs have some kind of faulty underlying moral belief that if corrected, the politics would follow. Perhaps that makes me sound self-righteous and I think we have to work at not sounding self-righteous but I think discussing politics almost naturally leads into a discussion of authority/theology and that can be a good way to introduce people to biblical thinking.
More than one day off, I’m afraid. But my absence has sparked a turn in the discussion that is, of its own right, quite interesting.
Caleb asks about Stephen’s eagerness to debate. My amazement is about Stephen’s ability to so copiously debate. I’m an energetic little fellow, but like a pug, I quickly burn out and need a long breather before entering the fray again. My hat is off to you, sir.
Caleb, I agree that political beliefs outflow from religious beliefs. This comes down to a question of worldview. The more truly Christian one’s worldview, the more consistently one’s politics and every other aspect of one’s life will conform to one’s Christian beliefs – because as your worldview becomes increasingly (truly) Christian, it ipso facto becomes increasingly integrated. How truly Christian is the “devout” Christian living an un-integrated life?
As if that solves our problems . . . I can sit here and say with confidence that Stephen Casey is a devout and earnestly seeking Christian and that Norman Horn is a devout and earnestly seeking Christian. Both rely on one thing, and one thing only—the sacrifice of Christ.
And yet, here we see collision after collision.
Stephen talks about shaky presuppositions. Let us address a few we’ve seen recently.
Caleb’s comment to my last comment suggests a false dichotomy. If I can’t stomach the likes of establishment-Republicans, then I am unrealistically searching for an angel. This proves my point rather vigorously. As I have explained to friends in the past, when I say lesser of two evils, I mean what I say . . . I can choose evil, or I can choose evil, or I can choose good (knowing, alas, that the good will lose). When most Republicans say lesser of two evils, all they mean is, I have to vote for a guy I really don’t be prefer, but I’m sure he’ll do just fine, thank you very much.
Caleb, have you really tricked yourself into believing that your pursuit of your own best interest is “evil” for America in the same way that McCain and the establishment-Republicans are evil for America? Please, can we not recognize that pursuit of ones self interest within the confines of moral action (and when I talk about moral action, I’m stopping short of selflessness (which, ultimately, without selflessness, we sin by falling short of the Glory of God), which is what Christians should aspire to) IS PRECISELY WHAT AMERICA NEEDS RIGHT NOW. America is strong when its people pursue their true best interests. So, I resoundingly answer, no, when I talk about the active destruction of America, I am not talking about you, Caleb, working hard to make a fabulous living for yourself and your family.
The establishment-Republicans do the following:
Prove themselves sickeningly impotent with regard to abortion. Eight years in power and we ban one form of partial birth abortion. Big freaking whoopdeedoo.
Prove themselves ignorant with regard to education. No child left behind? Do we hear the Republicans clamoring to tear down the public school system? No, because Republican leaders either believe the tripe that the public school system is a fantastic bulwark of American society, or because they’re too cowardly to call it what it is. Stephen, I think you put great value in calling things as they are?
Government expands under Republicans. This is evil. This directly contributes to the deterioration of our society and our freedoms.
Our military involvement in the world increases. I know we’re not going to agree on this point, and I don’t have time to flesh out any arguments here, so just dismiss this point if you like.
Government spending went through the roof and the deficit went crazy. We talk about how Obama is going to destroy future tax payers with unsustainable debt. Haha, sorry, we accomplished that some time ago. Obama is just adding to the fiasco.
Over the years, the federal government is becoming increasingly the bloated and horrendous leviathan that will devour individuality and freedom. If we’re riding horses towards disaster, the Democrats might win the race at their breakneck gallop, but the Republicans at their brisk canter won’t be far behind. Everyone is cheering for either the galloping horse or the cantering horse. Nobody is cheering for the diligent draft horse straining in the opposite direction. And because nobody votes for him, he can’t win.
So it’s appropriate to admit defeat and vote for the horse cantering to destruction?
Explain that one to me.
This use of analogy leads me on to Stephen’s elaborate tourniquet analogy. I’ve seen it a couple of times before, but I don’t recall whether I’ve responded to it. I will do so in some sense now.
An analogy is only as good as its accurate illustration of reality. In the illustration you have set up, the appropriate action is clear—apply the tourniquet, stop the bleeding, and try to get the leg back on.
Let me set up another analogy—Two people are trying to shoot your son. One of them is dead-earnest in his deathly mission, and will not stop shooting until he’s killed the boy. Besides that, he’s a better aim than the other person. This other person might change his mind . . . maybe . . . there’s a good chance he will . . . but who knows, anyway? Do you knock them both out, or just knock out the first and try to reason with the second (your argument punctuated by his gunshots, missing your son again by a hair).
The answer in my illustration is as easy as the answer in Stephen’s. First, you knock out the first guy (the Democrat), and then, second, you knock out the second guy (the Republican).
Admittedly, my analogy is not a very accurate reflection of reality. After all, us disgruntled third-partiers can’t do anything even closely approximating knocking out either the Democrats or the Republicans. And secondly, the U.S. is more like a massive elephant getting bit thousands of Democrat and Republican flies, not a child who will get killed by one well aimed bullet.
I contend that in a similar way, Stephen’s analogy misses the mark significantly. The United States might be like a person bleeding profusely, and to the extent that the government is causing the bleeding, we could look at the government as a wild, many bladed machine whose safety devices are not functioning properly. After this point, I fail to see how the analogy helps us. The Republicans are part and parcel with the Democrats in making the wild, many bladed machine so deadly. What we’ve got is a bleeding child who needs a tourniquet being pursued by a ravenous lawn mower that can’t be turned off and seems to be attracted, like a shark, to blood. A significant portion of the glistening machinery of this horror is made up of the establishment-Republicans. So I guess we’re putting on the tourniquet with our left hand and with our right we’re reaching into the whirling blades to put our stamp of approval on the one we think will cut the least severely if the mower strikes again.
When Norman interjected that Stephen was applying a band-aid to the gaping wound, he was not really looking to Stephen’s analogy and disagreeing with the solution portrayed therein. Rather, he was looking past the analogy to his interpretation of the reality. What Stephen thinks he’s doing by his proposed course of action is applying a tourniquet. What Norman thinks he’s doing is applying a band-aid. Norman sees the obvious solution in Stephen’s illustration and then going beyond that to point out that in reality, what Stephen is doing is applying a band-aid to a gaping wound.
Stephen calls voting Republican taking the child to the trauma center. Stephen calls addressing pseudo-conservatives address the mower’s safety issues. Then he queries: what’s wrong with that approach.
To a degree, nothing. Here we come full circle. Caleb says if you can’t vote for McCain, then you must be looking for an angel. He implies that if you can’t vote for a corrupt human, then you’re looking for an angel. I know for a fact he didn’t mean this, because there is no way he would vote for a Stalin or a Hitler if one suddenly reincarnated and showed up on the Republican ticket. It would be sheer lunacy to suggest that there’s no middle ground between angles and Hitler. Similarly, I believe that there is simply too much of a gap between McCain and an angle to suggest that an attack on McCain is expecting too much of our politicians. Remember, when the founding father utters those words about men being men, not angels, he was admitting that people like himself and his amazing colleagues were too corrupt to be given unbridled power. They wanted a system by which people like them could be moderately safe in governing the country. If these men had to wake up today and find out what we were dealing with today, we might hear something like:
“I knew they’d have to opt for men rather than angels, but, do we really have to vote for demons?”
The answer, I think, is no.
I think I’ve beat this horse long enough. I still haven’t gotten to the central issue that really defines the divide between Norm and myself on the one hand and Caleb and Stephen on the other. In principle, I think we are very close to agreeing. It’s about the facts that we disagree. I believe it is a fact that the Republicans are doing very bad things to America. My friends Caleb and Stephen believe that they might not be that rockin’ awesome but they are, by and large, pretty decent, principled, and good leaders.
Yes, I think thats what I meant by eager to debate as well Jaired. He does it at such a frenetic pace lol.
wow, that is quite a long response.
Quick question for Jaired: Did you define "actively working for the destruction of America" by giving those point by point reasons. As in, since the Repubs are these things, they are complicit in the active destruction of America?
I guess one general thought would be this, yes some Repubs are for those things (many middle repub examples, Bush perhaps or worse my governor), while others are completly against those things. Some are for everything that you and I believe in (and I tend to have libertarian tendencies) and for shrinking the fed gov to nothing and for going full bore on all the moral issues and everything else. There are many shades of Republicans as there are Democrats. I suppose that you would vote for say yourself (political beliefs-wise)? This person would undoubtedly run as a Republican no? Or a libertarian? Or an independent? The thing is, I am closer to libertarians on federal govt size and closer to Republican planks on moral issues. Are there some republicans that are not good at all, ya I guess but do you throw out the whole party? How can you when a huge percentage of the Repubs would probably agree with everything you say. So you team up. Its just what you have to do in politics. You band together so that your power is in numbers and is greater. You cant do it by yourself. Now has the Republicans tent gotten too big. Absolutely. But if/when it reforms the question is not whether all issues are perfect but whether the core goal of smaller govt leading to more freedom and a strong pro-family pro christian ideals is CENTRAL to the party. If it is, then I will support the party. If those arent, then I will tend towards you and vote something else (although I have a hard time finding ANY party that meets my needs. (if you have any suggestions, I am all ears). I often wish there was a Christian party (note that I am not silly enough to think the Repub party is the "Christian" party). Hmm. Those are some general thoughts that come to mind. I guess your answer would be "yah Caleb its already terrible and there will not be a reform, so give it up and come vote with me." (I have no idea how I would vote then btw, I would have to go about interviewing libertarians to see if they were libertarian on moral issues I suppose). However, as a political science major we had to study the trends/changes in parties over longer periods of time then just, for example, one president's two consecutive terms. It was in my parents half lifetimes that the Republican party stood for the core values I talked above about. And it ten-fifteen years it can be back to that quite easily. These things take time, in the meantime prayer for God's will to be done on earth is our refuge I suppose.
I guess, looking over some other points you made, that I don't know what you mean by establishment Republicans. You mean Washington insiders? I mean some people believe that the evangelical wing of the Republican party controls the party. Are they the establishment Republicans? I think by putting up that dichotomy ("establishment" v. nonestablishment Repubs) you avoid the real debate which is this: what does it mean to be a Republican, is it conservative or is it something left of a full conservative stand. The conservative definition that we all believe in stays the same, it is the party that falters. Some in the party remain true and faithful conservatives worthy of our vote and some are wolves in sheep clothing who do not. This is a call to be more discerning and I would always agree for that. For example, I didn't vote for Arnold S as although he is a Republican, I do not think he is a conservative and his core values dont align with mine as much as another did. On the Federal election side the choice is tough as to how much the core values are shared and if McCain had been further to one side I wouldnt have voted for him. But he was pro-life and believes in lessening the size of government (perhaps you don't believe him or any politician on this point) and he was pro-strict construction... Anyways, we are not talking only this last election so I digress.
Do I wish for a multiple party system? There are advantages to it. But there are disadvantages as well, study well those disadvantages. This two party system moves us all towards the middle. To an extent the parties are very similar and Americans generally are in the middle. Those of us on the "fringe" as it were can complain about the fact that we have a two party system or we can be involved in altering a party to be more principled and stand for shared core values in a real and meaningful way. The first approach does nothing, the second may be doomed to failure as the world drifts left but it is at least participatory.
Also, your saying Repubs being in power has not changed abortion doesn't make sense. You know that abortion has been ruled a "right" and is therefore OUTSIDE of the political process. Had there been anything political this would be more of a difference between the parties. And in fact on the political issues such as executive orders re: funding of abortions worldwide, the order has swithced back and forth between Repub and Democrat presidents for the last several elections. See Obama's first order of business, changing the order. This taking of the abortion issue OUTSIDE of the political is imo the greatest political tragedy ever but the fact that Repubs (executive and legislative) are handcuffed by Roe v. Wade is not their fault. The truly conservative issue on this is a return of the abortion issue to the states. All repub nominees would be much much more likely for that return. (I don't love Bush, the spending like a liberal was terrible but he did good work on judges in the federal bench and supreme court) All Dem nominees will see abortion as a right. This reason alone is worth considering voting for Republicans imo...
I mean, suppose I want to vote third party on this issue? What do I do? Vote libertarian? A majority (by a wide margin) of libertarians are pro-choice because they prefer NO gov regulations on abortion. I guess this issue drives me more than almost any other and is the main reason I can't abandon the Repubs. They are more in line with me on this issue than any other party. Their stated plank is to restrict abortions through regulation and I believe to have it return to the states by reversal of Roe. So if you were to go about turning me into a full blown libertarian, you would have to start here (hint hint). I enjoy the talk btw all. Thank you.
"I think I’ve beat this horse long enough. I still haven’t gotten to the central issue that really defines the divide between Norm and myself on the one hand and Caleb and Stephen on the other. In principle, I think we are very close to agreeing. It’s about the facts that we disagree. I believe it is a fact that the Republicans are doing very bad things to America. My friends Caleb and Stephen believe that they might not be that rockin’ awesome but they are, by and large, pretty decent, principled, and good leaders."
Finally, I respond to one specific quote from Jaired that sums up some of my thinking. Try this thought excercise. Replace Republican above with "my friend Caleb." You would see how that could be insulting to me! I'm not doing very bad things to this country! Yet I am a registered Republican, I am part of the Republican party. I know there are good decent hard working Americans that have been part of the Republican party their whole life. How can you dismiss them? You simply create a dichotomy. I presume you would say well Caleb and Casey arent "establishment" Republicans. But that is the opposite of what we want you to see. We ARE the "establishment" Repubs. We are the Judeo Christian moral values and the small gov values group that is at the center of the Repubs. All these others, coming on and spending money like liberals, expanding the government, are the fakes, the shams. Even GWB himself is a sham conservative if that helps you. Its taken losing everything in this election to hopefully tell this party, Hey, back to basics guys, back to the core values that are written down. You left those. Back to the quote, if you elected Casey and I you would be electing "pretty decent, principled, good leaders" but you would also be electing republicans! Yet there are many others in the repub party besides Stephen and I who believe in the core values of the Repub party who could and would make pretty decent, principled, good leaders...
Caleb, I apologize for not responding. My intent has been to use my response as a blog post, but now when it comes down to it, I think it fits better here.
I can see where you could derive offense from my words. Maybe this will clarify. I believe that you are a Christian who takes your Christian beliefs seriously and attempts to integrate them into the way you live your life. Thus, if YOU were elected as a Republican, I believe that you would do your best to fight against the temptations to compromise your values and actually make decisions based on principle. (this is not an assertion that no political compromises is appropriate)
Given this aspect of your character, I would probably vote for you, but first I would want to learn a little more about your opinions as to various issues that you would need to make decisions on if you were elected. After all, a principled person may have principles which, if carried out, would be destructive. I would not expect that your opinions would align themselves perfectly with mine, but that would not prevent my Caleb/Republican vote. I expect candidates to neither be angles nor to perfectly align their opinions with my own.
In other words, the Republican label you put on your name as you run for office will not keep me from voting for you.
But here I pause . . . would I vote for a Democrat if I believed that his values better reflected mine than the Republican in any given election or office?
Enter the political machine. In Lewis’s Last Battle, the Dwarves were for the Dwarves. Poggin switched sides, but none other of that miserable bunch did. Similarly, we so often see the political sides banding up together and throwing their weight around as one. The Republicans are for the Republicans; the Democrats for the Democrats. There are very few Poggins to be found.
Would you fight against this? Would you be a Poggin? I know that my father was when he was in the Missouri state legislature. I know that Ron Paul is one. Unfortunately, it seems to me that Republicans, as likely as not, when they leave the party line, it’s to get more liberal, not less.
The prevailing rule is that the Republicans push forward the Republican agenda and the Democrats push forward the Democrat agenda.
It seems to me that the Republican agenda hasn’t been doing us much good for a rather long time. I don’t mind voting for people like Ron Paul who stick with the party name Republican. I wouldn’t mind casting a vote for you. I would assume the best and assume that you’d battle against your errant colleagues as vigorously as you would battle against errant Democrats. After all, is not the person who does X who says he is Y more dangerous than the person who does X saying he is X? (of course, constantly butting heads with your colleagues won't make you popular, and you might just get your re election campaign sabatoged by your "friends")
Ron Paul has been able to do what he has done while retaining the title “Republican.” I am not opposed to this. In fact, if I were to run for office, I would probably do so as a Republican. On the other hand, if I could not (because another Republican had or would win the primary), and the Republican candidate were one that I would label a would be “active destroyer of America” then I would not bow out and support his campaign, but would rather run as a libertarian or other third party candidate and do my best to trounce him.
Does this make sense: Two people are both trying to do something evil that I wish to prevent. Person X will do it in a worse way than Person Y. Should I (1) attempt to prevent them both, knowing that my acts will have the unintended consequence of screwing up Y, allowing X to cause the more severe havoc, or (2) do nothing, thereby allowing Y to prevail, causing less havoc than the other, or (3) actively support Y, thereby assuring Y’s victory, causing less havoc than the other?
It seems to me that the battle for right is not made wrong because the unintended consequence is the victory of the greater of two evils.
Republicans should be supported when they will pursue what is right. The Republican Party should be supported when (if) it quits its participation in the juggernaut of American destruction.
I think I agree with just about everything you said. I think if I ran for office I would probably be a reformer of my own Republican party...
I also agree that sometimes Repubs and Dems press their own agenda, if they ever do so over what is the right thing to do then they are both wrong...
Hmmm. :-)
Post a Comment