Taylor is not Trump

Recently Politico began a stream of thought that the Republicans could be the Whigs because Trump is like Zachary Taylor.  Sadly, it is an article that understands little of history and in fact are just making stuff up.

The Whig Party did dissolve not long after winning the Presidency, but it was not Zachary Taylor’s fault.  In fact, the Politico article skims past the actual reasons.  Taylor was close to the perfect Whig candidate, a candidate who stood for next to nothing.  The problem with the Whig party was that it was always a party that simply opposed Andrew Jackson and his principles.  They were not united by any real set of beliefs.  Thus, the quotes calling the nomination of Taylor a betrayal of Whig principles are laughable because there were no Whig principles.  Even the article notes it was a “strained” coalition of Northern and Southerners who were against Jackson.  The quotes from abolitionists like Greeley are not universal for the Whigs because they had a large group of Southerners.  Taylor was chosen because he could stop the party from splitting by not having a real position on slavery.  This was always the Whig way.  Clay stands as the perfect example.  He owned slaves, but was not really for slavery, but not really an abolitionist either.  Clay is the picture of the Whig Party, and it slowly became an impossible place to be.  That is hardly Taylor’s fault. 

It is also not exactly fair to claim Taylor an outsider.  Yes, he had never held office, but he was a general, and that had always been a path to the Presidency.  Washington, Jackson, and Harrison had all be war heroes.  And every one of them had been opposed by people for not having the right background to be President.  Yet, we can see from the way James K. Polk managed that war that he very much understood the war hero who comes out of the Mexican American war will be a candidate for President.  And in fact, both major generals, Scott and Taylor, stood for nomination.  Being a general during war was at this time in American history, an acceptable path to the Presidency. 

In fact, the election of Taylor and his resulting Presidency (and that of Fillmore who followed after Taylor’s death) was probably the high point of the Whig movement.  It is during this time that the Whig party controls congress as well as the Presidency.  It is during this time that Clay pushes through the Compromise of 1850, with the help of Stephen Douglas.  This adds California to the rolls as a free state.  No minor feat.  It kept America together during that struggle, and that is exactly what the Whig platform had always been.  Together.  This led to them ignoring and compromising over and over.  Their greatest member, Henry Clay, is known as the Great Compromiser.  Their death came when the public no longer wanted compromise, but a more permanent solution.  The Whigs failed to see this and died.

In the end the Whig Party died not because of the lack of success that Taylor had as President.  In fact, he did not even make it out of his first term before dying.  Taylor had little impact on the Whig Party’s ultimate doom.  The election of Taylor does show the seeds of the ultimate doom of the Whig’s but not because of Taylor, but because of the presence and success on the ballot of Martin Van Buren.  Van Buren the former Democrat President ran as a Free Soil candidate and garnered lots of votes.  Not enough to win anything, but enough that he changed the election.  And it was enough that people should have seen that this issue was too important to ignore.  But both parties did just that.  They ignored it.  Thus, by 1852 the party has been badly wounded by a refusal to take sides on the slavery issue as evidenced by the Compromise of 1850.  And it is at that convention, when Southerners prevent Millard Fillmore from running for another term, and get General Winfield Scott as the nominee, that the first meetings of what would become the Republican Party emerge.  Scott is a beautiful example of the Whig Party.  Scott himself was anti-slavery, but ran on the platform that accepted the Fugitive Slave Law.  His personal stance killed him in the South, and the party’s stance killed him in the North.  He was crushed in the election.  And by 1856, the Republicans have fielded a candidate of their own.  And by1858 the Republican Party dominated the North.  Republicans had a clear message and stance.  “Free soil, free silver, and free men”.  This addressed the issue of the day decisively.  Southern Whigs turned to the Know Nothing Party, and even the Democrat Party as they feared the rise of anti-slavery parties, like the Republican and Free Soil parties, in the north.  Although one can argue the 1860 Constitution Union Party was what was left of the Whig Party.  Again, its main platform.  Together.  Unity.  Avoid the issues. 

If there is a lesson for the Republican Party it is that taking a stand is important as is keeping up with what is important to the people.  I do not believe Trump will be the death of the Republican Party.  Without a third party to siphon off voters, there will be no death for the GOP.  If the Libertarians gain a massive increase, then maybe, it is the beginning of the end.  But the Libertarians do not run candidates well for other offices. 

Sadly, this comparing Trump to Taylor is very unfair to Taylor, misses the real message of the Whigs, and is just bad history.  I know people want to think this is the end, but it is probably not.  And that message is the one that really ought to scare us. 

Jon Meacham rates Kennedy third?!?

Long time readers of this blog know that I have an intense dislike for Newsweek. Their liberal bias is annoying of course, but most of the dislike comes from Jon Meacham, who is somehow respected as an expert. His ignorance and distortion is appalling.

Recently on the Charlie Rose show, Jon Meacham said that Ted Kennedy was in the top three senators of all time. Specifically, Meacham said:

One of the two or three senators who will be remembered forever. Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Ted Kennedy. I think that it gets -- there's quite a drop-off there, quite a falling-off there, as Hamlet would say.

Now, usually Clay and Webster are counted as two of the three best of all time. John C. Calhoun is the other member of the legendary Trio. According to Meacham, Calhoun will not be remembered and is a far drop off from Ted Kennedy. Now even if you disagree with Calhoun's take on Nullification, it really ought to be admitted as a powerful force in American history for that alone. Disregarding all of that Calhoun still helped bring an end to the crisis in South Carolina averting a Civil War in 1830. Calhoun did a great many things as a Senator that put him far above Ted Kennedy. Speeches that are forever remembered. In fact, Webster would probably not be remembered if it were not for his sparing with Calhoun.

What does Meacham think of other great senators like Stephen Douglas? Surely the Lincoln-Douglas debates ought to be remembered in our nations history? Douglas by the way won those if you count who won the actual senate seat. Douglas was tied to Popular Sovereignty, which again directed the country's future. Douglas helped Clay come up with the Compromise of 1850, which put off the Civil War for another decade and got California into the Union as a Free State, helped New Mexico become a state with all of its current territory, and a few other things too.

And what about William Seward? He was considered the front runner for the Republican Nomination for President in 1860 because of his long time work against slavery in the Senate. Or Thomas Hart Benton, who was leading man during his time, and even had a gun drawn on him during debate in the Senate once? Charles Sumner and Benjamin Wade led the Radical Republicans in the Senate. Surely their influence on the history of America ought to have some sway over Meacham's choices. Are they really such a far drop off to the author of the Minimum Wage Bill and the disastrous No Child Left Behind Policy?

Maybe Meacham thinks that bringing down a Supreme Court Nominee like Robert Bork with that memorable speech about Bork's America puts him up in the upper crust of Senators. But then would that not make John Randolph even higher since his "Black Dan" speech helped bring down a President.

Kennedy was around for some monumental legislation. I think he was in for the end of the Civil Rights stuff, but he was hardly a leader in that cause. Heck, even Gerald Ford was more beloved as a Senator than Kennedy. So much so the Senate almost asked him to be the VP for Nixon.

Such a bold statement by Meacham demands defense . . . or more likely scorn for the stupidity that it is.

Ted betrayed the Kennedy family values

I think it should be noted that Ted Kennedy is the Kennedy that the liberal media idolizes the most. When they talk about the Kennedys they are talking about Ted and his ilk. The people of the country mostly think of John Kennedy, the President, and Robert, the younger brother. Ted is the liberal that the media adores. President Kennedy and Robert are both modern day embarrassments to the Liberal agenda. Sure they are still trotted out as Democrats from time to time, but they would be run out of the modern Democratic Party and Ted Kennedy betrayed most of what his family stood for.

Ted was a wildly liberal man. His legislation has been disastrous. A few years after his minimum wage hike we have high unemployment, just as the detractors of his bill said would happen. No Child Left Behind is a disaster of epic proportions. I think he may have helped out on the AMBER Alert system, but other than that, just about everything he has done has blown up. He is a model liberal because it is his hate that now fuels politics. Before Ted Kennedy’s attacks on Robert Bork the atmosphere in Washington was different. Ted’s attacks from the floor were often just as weird and hate filled, but more often than not they were stumbling ramblings. Ted was not a thinker, and that too is often a trait of the modern liberal. Action is more important than outcome and intentions are better than logic.

John and Robert were by no means conservative, and liked a bigger government to be sure, but they were not like Ted in the least. John cut taxes, and unthinkable thing for liberals. John and Robert were both stridently anti-communism. John invaded Cuba because Cuba was Communist and was willing to go to war against the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Robert worked for Senator McCarthur during the Age of McCarthism. John did not vote to censure McCarthy and Robert once walked out of an event where McCathy was being attacked. Ted on the other hand tried to transform America into what his brothers hated, a Communist Country. Ted loved tax hikes and is against military action whenever possible.

As we remember Ted Kennedy let us not forget the lesson of Chappaquiddick: Ted believed he was more important than anything else. He left Mary Jo to die in an air bubble in the back of the car where she probably suffocated rather than drowned. He did not contact the police, left the scene of an accident, slept off his booze before calling his lawyer. If anyone else in the country would have done that they would have been in jail. Ask Congressman and Governor Janklow. Yet, Ted was let off and continued his term in the Senate. The strange people of Massachusetts re-elected him over and over.

The left today thinks of Chappaquiddick and is sad because it ruined Ted’s political hopes of becoming President. We ought to think of Chappaquick and think of how it ended one girls life and ruined people’s faith in the justice system.

I just find all of this media coverage of the Kennedy family legacy as interesting. Ted did not stand in the tradition of the Kennedy’s. His pro-communism, pro-abortion, and pro-taxes stance puts him at odds with John, Robert, and Eunice Shriver who are the reason there is a Kennedy legacy. Why on earth are people not reporting on that angle of this story.

History of Conservatism: How every party has abandoned the conservative

The first thing one must do in an undertaking of this nature is define his terms. What exactly is a conservative? The Free Online Dictionary defines conservative as “favoring traditional views and values:; tending to oppose change.” This is a fair enough definition, but what exactly does it mean to have a traditional view of government since we are talking about conservatives in government? There are two main philosophies of government. One is Natural Law, which is the idea that the people get their rights from their Creator or nature and the government is there to protect those rights and follow the Natural Law. The second view is Positivism, which states that the government gives you your rights. I do not think it necessary to prove the Natural Law view is the one that is the traditional view. The Magna Charta was a Natural Law document so what the American Colonists were fighting for in the American Revolution was their Natural Rights. This is exactly what the opening of the Declaration of Independence teaches us. We have inalienable rights from our creator. Thus, the American Revolution was about the protection of Natural Rights. So the traditional view in American government and politics is Natural Law. The tending to oppose change part of conservatism is easy enough in America. A conservative is one then who wishes to stick to the constitution and not change it or the ways we govern. Thus, the people that are so often called ‘strict constructionists’ and ‘originalists’ in their view of the constitution then are conservatives. However, one might notice from the definition of conservative that they can be slow to act. They tend to oppose change and thus are better at opposing plans and action than actually coming up with a positive plan on how to proceed. This will be easily seen as we trace the history of conservatism in America and how often it is used and then betrayed by the political parties.

It should be noted up front as well that the Conservatives are the majority. I think the historical survey will bear that out in full. But seeing as this will be a highly debated point, I will return to it in a later chapter.

This history of the Conservative movement in America then is one riddled with failure, but they bring only success to the party they support. This may seem like a contradiction, but I assure it is not. Conservatives themselves fail more often than not to stop the growth of government, and the invention of new ways to govern outside of the Constitution. They have failed to keep Natural Law as the basis for our society, and they have failed to control the organs of government for all, but extremely short periods of time. Yet, the support and the votes of the conservatives have brought success to the party that currently woos the conservative vote. Again the historical survey will bring this more the forefront, but it needs to be said now. It needs to be said now because we need to understand that the Conservative movement is not attached to a particular party. Conservative and Republican are not synonyms. In fact the Republican Party was founded to be against the Conservatives in America. The Conservatives spent a long time in the Democratic Party, but again, the Democratic Party was founded ton the back of a man who was only slightly conservative, and thus it was not a party for the Conservatives.

Why then do the Conservatives win their party elections, but not ever control the parties themselves? This fundamental question is answered again in the definition of conservative. Conservatives do not want power, they want stability. Political parties are founded to get and keep power, and dare I say it, even grow their own power. Conservatives do not wish to see a growth in power and are not willing to do whatever it takes to get the power. Thus, they cannot control a political party. They will not be able take the reigns of power and keep them because their message is usually “no”. It is hard to win people over to “no”. But it is easy to win people over to “I will give you money if you are poor” or “I will give you money not to grow corn.” That is a much easier sell. Add in the fact that Conservatives argue for and believe in Natural Law, and their goose is cooked. Believing in natural law means their ethical standards are fixed. They cannot change. The non-conservatives whether we call them liberals or progressives or whatever are not bound by traditional morals. Sure, some believe in them and follow them, but the party or group that holds to Postivism is by definition not bound by morals. They are able to change morality in order to serve their needs. A good example of this is all of the lying that is now so common in politics. How often does someone come out and say “I did not have sex with that woman” and it turns out they did. Or say “I was not briefed on that issue”, and they were. Lying is a means to an end, not a violation of a moral code. That is why so many people in power have no problem with cheating on taxes because they do not believe in moral codes, they believe in changing codes. Which also means they believe that ethical standards do not apply to them. Only governmental standards apply to them, and sometimes those do not apply either because those standards can be changed.

The goal of this endeavor is to show that Conservatism is a major force in America, indeed a necessary force. But also to show the flaws in the Conservative movement and it current way of operating. Historical awareness is important in anything, and judging from how loosely the word "conservative" is thrown around these days, a good dose of historical awareness is necessary. This I hope to accomplish in upcoming posts.

Meacham's misinformatin, misunderstanding, and out right missing it

Jon Meacham has his ignorance on display again in Newsweek. The article is proclaiming the End of Christian America. Of course Jon litters the article with his own opinion.

I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance.

The End of Christian America is a good thing according to Jon Meacham, but is his opinion informed, or is he as reckless in this belief as he is in his scholarship and books. The answer is obvious, he is completely misinformed, misunderstanding, and missing the boat.

I will start with misinformed, and the above quote is a good place to start. Have Christians in America tried to force religious belief? Or even observance? Of course not. Trying to outlaw abortion or stop gay marriage cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as forcing religious belief. Protecting people that cannot protect themselves is not forcing religious belief. But, for some reason Meacham thinks that this is what is going on in America. Not surprisingly Meacham is also misinformed about history. He has proven this over and over in his books, but he wants us to really see how stupid he is. Meacham's inability to tell the difference between a Christian Nation and a nation in which Christianity is the warp and woof destroys almost every argument he has ever made. Meacham tries to show some places where he believes Christians have overstepped and forced religious belief. He cites Prohibition, which may have had some Christian support, but failed because it was decidedly anti-Christian. Jesus himself would have had to been arrested since he used alcohol. Hardly was the Christian world united behind Prohibition, which was just as much driven by those who thought the state could fix the world, Progressives, not exactly a Christian haven. Meacham also cites evolution. Here he thinks Christians have argued that evolution not be taught in schools, and in fact they did . . . in 1920. However, now Christians are just asking that evolution not be taught as fact and that maybe alternate theories can have a place in the school room too. Meacham sees no problem with Evolutionists enforcing their belief on Christians, but thinks Christians should not have the right to have their belief mentioned. Yet, Meacham cannot see this obvious flaw at all. Meacham wants toleration, except of course for tolerating Christians or at least Creationism. Then abortion is mentioned as if being against murder is something only a "fundamentalist extremist" would do. These are all awful examples, but it is also all he can come up with. Meacham remains clueless about history and misinformed on reality.

The misunderstanding makes his misinformation look benign. He lectures us with this phrase.

Religious believers should welcome this; freedom for one sect means freedom for all sects.

This statement is poetical, sounds great, but it is completely false. Did Meacham ever stop to think if this statement was true? Let me give a few examples. Islam often desires to go by Sharia Law. This is not just confined to the Middle East, but also is emerging in places like Canada. Does this freedom for Islam result in freedom for all sects? Does it result in freedom for women? Of course not. Women are mere objects in Sharia Law. They can be divorced by mere word of mouth, they often are forced to cover up from head to toe. Is that freedom? Hardly. One can use the Secular Humanist or the Feminist who thinks that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with the baby in her womb. They wish to murder it. Now is this freedom for the dead baby? Hardly. The Culture War, which MSNBC and Newsweek try hard to pretend ended with the election of Barak Obama, exists because of what Meacham fails to recognize. There are such things as Contradictories. Two things that cannot both be true, and cannot both be accepted, thus they cannot both be tolerated. Take Public Schools for example. Can you teach in public school God at all? No. Can you allow prayer? No. Can you teach Creationism? No. Is that freedom and liberty in the government schools? Is that laying all ideas side by side and letting them fight it out on equal footing, which is Meacham’s pet idea? Or is that intolerance of Christian ideas, and a promotion of atheism, communism, and/or humanism? You cannot have them both. They are at war. Meacham fundamentally misunderstands the nature of belief, the nature of truth, and the nature of what logic calls the "Square of Opposition".

Still further Meacham is missing the boat. He starts by missing his own quote from Al Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention. Mohler states in the article.

"The post-Christian narrative is radically different; it offers spirituality, however defined, without binding authority," he told me. "It is based on an understanding of history that presumes a less tolerant past and a more tolerant future, with the present as an important transitional step."

Mohler has identified what he believes is a problem. The attempt to hold society together without a unified understanding of concepts. Removing the foundation so to speak. Only a paragraph or two later, Meacham comes up with this piece of worldly wisdom.

What we value most highly—what we collectively love most—is thus the central test of the social contract.

And then explained:

If we apply an Augustinian test of nationhood to ourselves, we find that liberty, not religion, is what holds us together.

My question for Mr. Meacham is this: What is liberty? Can he define it in terms that we will all agree? Then the second logical question. From whence does liberty come? Now, I promise you he will lose most of the people with his answer to that question. In other words, Mohler is right. We may all love liberty, but the one who thinks liberty comes from giving up powers to the President in the Patriot Act and the one who thinks that liberty is stronger without the government are going to differ. I did not even have to bring God into that question to prove Meacham a man full of platitudes, but no real deep thought. When your liberty endangers another’s liberty, whose liberty wins out? Meacham has no answers. That is because he missed the boat about Christianity completely. Liberty comes with Christianity, and from no where else. What force has civilized the world? What force has brought liberty to the world? Christianity is the answer. Did not Christianity civilize the Roman world? Christianity put an end to the gladiator games and feeding people to lions. When the barbarians came, they came without Christianity. Then they were civilized by Christiantiy and civilization was restored. Education, reform, and prosperity came with the Christianity promoted by Charlemagne in what we now call the Carolingian Renaissance. The University was created around the idea of Christianity. The Renaissance is linked fundamentally with the Reformation. Communism was stopped as much by where the Reformation had come as by any military force. Were the American Indians civilized before the induction of Christianity from the settlers? No. It was Christianity that ended the slave trade through men like William Wilburforce doing exactly what Meacham is against. Meacham is just petulantly raging that tolerance is good and those who are against him are just intolerant extremists. Meacham’s complete inability to see that this is a much deeper divide than just mere words means he has missed the spiritual, philosophical, and intellectual boat.

It should be noted that even leftist bloggers like Jeff Schweitzer can see that Meacham is just babbling like a child. Schweitzer can at least see that the Christianity and Secular Humanism cannot be tolerated on the same field. They are Contradictories.

Arnold J. Toynbee, a historian, once stated, "Civilizations are not murdered. They commit suicide." This article from Jon Meacham is trying to get our civilization to take a cyanide pill.

Presidential Rankings by C-Span

C-Span has put out another ranking of Presidents by 65 Historians. I always enjoy looking at these and wondering how bad our educational system has become. This list is not that different than other lists. Lincoln is first, which alone is enough to make me sick. Washington did beat out FDR for second, but the list is a joke. George W. Bush is 36 and his father rankings 18th. Hard to believe in either case. What makes it worse is that U. S. Grant is ranked 23rd! Are you kidding me? Buchanan comes in last with Andrew Johnson just in front of him.

The answer to these ridiculous rankings is seen when we look at two factors. The voters and the qualifications.

When I first looked at the list of participants I got a little excited as such historians as H.W. Brands and Edward Crapol participated. But a closer look unveils two major problems. For every early American specialist like Willard Sterne Randall there are at least two Civil War historians like Brooks Simpson (former Wofford Professor!!!) and Debra Goodrich, not to mention Andrew Ferguson and James McPherson. In other words, one can expect a high ranking for the Civil War guys and a downgrading of the Founders of America. The other major problem is the addition of Larry Sabato. C-Span must think he is either the greatest man in America or they think we are all idiots. Sabato is Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia. He is not a historian. And he is extraordinarily biased. I admit that all people are biased, but a guy who writes books entitled The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency, Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election and also writes a political newsletter, not to mention that he worked for Democratic politicians before becoming a professor is clearly over the line. This list then will be completely slanted by Sabato’s liberal left-wing agenda.

The second problem is the areas in which these presidents are ranked. We see things like Moral Authority, Administrative Skills, Vision, and International Relations, which I guess are legitmate. We see the Performance withint the Context of Their Times, which is kind of weird, but I can let it go. Public Persuasion is easier in modern times, but I will give that one a pass as well. Crisis Leadership is going to benefit those who were in a crisis. This may explain why George H.W. Bush gets so high, but this category does little to help poor Millard Fillmore who did not have a crisis to deal with. Then there are couple of categories that are outright biased. Pursued Equal Justice for All is going to slight every President before the Civil War. Economic Management is going to favor liberals and hurt early American Presidents who thought Economic Management to be unconstitutional. Then of course we have the Relations with Congress category. Andrew Johnson is dead last in this category, but is it bad that he fought the Radical Republicans? Sometimes an adversarial relationship with Congress is a sign of a good President not a bad one. Then of course we can wonder why Fidelity to the Constitution is not one of the categories.

Thus when we see the internal bias in the poll, we can understand why the results are so obviously wrong. We can see why FDR (3rd) is so high because people give him credit (wrongfully I might add) for the economy and for crisis management because of WWII. Kennedy (6th) and LBJ (12th) get artificial bumps for Pursuing Justice for All while Jefferson (7th) and Washington (2nd) take hits on that same category. Both of those men are outside the top ten in that particular category. Bill Clinton (15th) in fact is ranked higher than Washington in the Justice For All Category and in the Economic Management he comes in third. It is hard to take seriously a survey that puts Grant and Clinton two of the most corrupt politicians in the top 25 but consigns the only other President even close to as corrupt, Warren Harding, at 38. Clinton is 37th in the Moral Authority beating out Harding, but Grant manages to remain in the top 25. Can you imagine how high Clinton would be if Moral Authority were not a category?

A truly bizarre list. Worthy of noting and then tossing in the trash can.

Obama's Team of Rivals - Repeating a Mistake

I have grown very tired of hearing everyone refer to Obama’s Team of Rivals. Ignoring for a moment what a complete whitewash of Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book really is, let us not forget one very important fact. A fact that President-Elect Obama seems to have forgotten as well. And sadly it is mostly overlooked in Goodwin’s book as well. Lincoln’s Team of Rivals did not work.

Lincoln is praised for putting his major rivals into one team after he won the Presidency. This included William Seward, Samuel Chase, Simon Cameron, and Edward Bates. There were others on the cabinet, but these were the ones who had contested the election of 1860 and made it a team of rivals. Although it should be noted that Bates was too old to be a political threat, too moderate to cause damage in the Republican ranks, and was an average Attorney General at best. Chase and Cameron were complete disasters. Cameron had to resign after only a year because he was incompetent. He was made the Secretary of War (Defense) and he was awful. So bad that his political career was effectively over. His own party despised him after this. Incompetent is not strong enough of a word. It was not until Edwin Stanton took over the post that the War Department was brought into shape. Stanton was not a rival, and would be considered a normal cabinet pick. Samuel Chase was the Treasury Secretary. Now, it is true that he did his job well. The Treasury Department was not corrupt and he was not incompetent. However, he never ceased being a rival to Lincoln. He tried to use his position to gather forces for a run at the Presidency in 1864. He occasionally undercut Lincoln and often second guessed him. He was made Chief Justice of the United States by Lincoln to rid the party of him and remove him from the cabinet. That is how big a trouble maker Chase had become. Seward as Secretary of State is the only one who turned out. Seward was loyal and had great success after Johnson became President. Seward was attacked the same night Lincoln was shot and much of face was ripped off by the assassin. So, in that manner Seward was great. However, it can hardly be taken as the rule. Seward never made up with Horace Greeley who continued to hound the President and even ran against the Republican Party when Grant was President. Greeley was bitter at how Seward never gave his paper work as Secretary or as Governor of New York. So, while Seward never did anything to undercut Lincoln he did help make trouble for the administration overall.

No matter how this idea came to be planted in Obama’s head, it is a bad one. Maybe people should read the book that Goodwin wrote before following the example of Lincoln.

2008 Election Prediction

I guess I will try my hand at guessing the election again. I do think that Barak Obama will win, but I do not think it will be by the landslide that most predict. In fact, I think at the end of the day the Republicans will have done much better than most pollsters and TV guys will admit. Obama will win because he will flip Iowa and Virginia and maybe Colorado. That is more than enough. However some people are predicting Obama getting 350 electoral votes, and even Rasmussen thinks Obama will pull in 300. I think that is silly. Don’t forget Obama always polled higher in the primaries than he preformed and the polls are all weighted for a heavy democratic turn out. I think the Republicans will turn out more than the polls say they will. I will admit that I am rooting for a 269 to 269 tie. How often does that happen? Then it will be interesting to see what the House does. Will they stick with their parties or their states? The best thing that could happen for Republicans is for the House to stick with their parties. Democrats have majorities in states that will go for McCain such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina. Fun for everyone.

Why then will it still be a decent night for the Republicans? Because I am not sure they are going to get blown out of the other races where people think they might. I do not think the Dems will reach 60 in the Senate and the House will be very interesting. That is what I will be watching on election night. To reach 60 the Democrats need to beat Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina and that is going to be tough. She is gaining and they are basically tied. Turn out on the East Coast will be high for the Republicans. The Dems need to beat Gordon Smith in Oregon who is one point ahead, but the West Coast may have a lower turnout for Republicans as the doom and gloom sets in. So let us just give both of those to the Dems for the fun of it. They will not win in Texas or either one in Mississippi nor will they pull of the upset in Kentucky keeping the Dems at 59 at best. To get to 59 they need not only Dole and Smith, but they need to defeat Coleman. Now Coleman is down in the polls by about 4 to Franken, but if you look at the local polls you see that Al Franken only gets 41% of the vote while an independent gets 17%. That number needs to hold for Franken to beat Coleman. If people desert the independent, Coleman has a chance to win as it seems more likely for Republicans to leave the independent than the Democrats who are anti-Franken voters.

The House is going to be fun because this is where Obama hurts the Democrats the most. He is running on a message of change, so incumbant Democrats might fall victim. Add to that the huge sums of money going to Obama, which is at the expense of giving to the DNCC and local House candidates, and that could spell trouble. Even giants like John Murtha are barely outraising no name Republican opponents. Don’t forget to mention that Murtha just called his district “racist” in the paper, and that race could be interesting. But the Dems have high hopes because of the large number of open seats. Republicans retired in large numbers this year. AL-02, AZ-01, CA-04, FL-15, IL-11, MN-03, NJ-03, NJ-07, NM-01, NY-03, NY-25, NY-26, OH-15, OH-16, and VA-11 (OR-05 and AL-05 are also open but were held by Democrats). Add to that list close races in 2006 like Chris Shays in CT-04 and Musgrave in CO-04 as well as Gerlach in PA-06. This makes a lot of Democrats hopeful of a really big landslide. Add in a few coattail victories they think they can have a large majority in the House.

However, 2006 was really a rebuke for many Democrats. They should have picked up more ground in Ohio in 2006 and they won lots of seats that will be hard to defend this year. FL-16 where Mark Foley, the homosexual intern predator was defeated, but the district remain mainly Republican. Add to that the Democrat Mahoney got caught having sex with employees of his own and the Republicans ought to take back this seat. TX-22 was the Delay district and the Republican lost in 2006 because the courts made Delay keep his name on the ballot. Lampson will lose a seat for the Dems here. OH-22 was the Bob Ney district and Congressman Space who benefited from that will probably lose this time as well. Lesser known scandals such as the one where the Republican Sweeney in NY-20 beat his wife and Congressman Sheerwood beat his mistress in PA-10, which cost them the election, should also be reversed. Plus, Republicans can hope to defeat Childers in MS-01. Childers won a special election in May over the same opponent, but Republican excitement is up a great deal since then and the turn out at the polls will be larger. There are plenty of rematches from 2006 as well that Republicans might could pick up since the anti-war sentiment is not as big. Plus the Republicans will put money into AZ-05 and AZ-08 which they did not in 2006 because the Republican candidates were against Bush’s immigration bill. The Dems are not going to sweep through those open seats like they would hope. Not to mention they need to defend some of their southern seats that are trending Republican. Seats like GA-08, GA-12, KS-02, LA-06, and TX-23.
It should make for an entertaining night of election coverage, and hopefully this will lead to a real conservative revolution. Either way, my hope is in nothing less than Jesus Christ’s righteousness.

An Political Earthquake among Third Parties

One last thought about Third Parties before I resume regularly scheduled blogging. Every now and again something comes along that is ignored by the major parties, but not by the American people and the Third Party becomes a major party. Note the Republican Party was once a localized third party that never even appeared on the ballot in most Southern States. They ran a candidate for President in 1856, but failed miserably. All the Whig Party had to do was reject slavery’s expansion into the west and the Republican Party would have dried up and gone away. They didn’t and the rest they say is history.

Well, this recent economic downturn might just might shed light on the big government-free spending-punish the taxpayer-socialist leanings of both parties. Which would open the door for Third Party asking for a return to the free market-low tax-small government way America was meant to run. It will have to be a party that holds to its convictions despite pressure. Thus, the big winner from all of this might be the Constitutional Party. They did the one thing that the Republican Party would not do, the Green Party did not do, and the Libertarian Party would not do. The Constitution Party did not choose their candidate based on who would win the most votes. McCain was clearly a pick based on electability. Cynthia McKenny and Bob Barr are both picks designed around who can win, not who supports the ideology of the party since both are very recent converts to those parties. The Constitution Party selected Chuck Baldwin, a sure-fire loser, and rejected a bigger name in Alan Keyes, who is a recent convert to the Constitutional Party.

The reason they may very well be the big winner is the force of rogue Republican Ron Paul. Paul raised millions without effort during the campaign and recorded votes on the floor of the convention, which was an unusual occurrence that did not get much media attention. Paul was planning on staying neutral and endorsing no one which was a loss for McCain, but served the Libertarian Party just fine. However, things have changed and Paul has endorsed Baldwin and the Constitutional Party. Note the number of responses and this was posted on Wed. Paul has a massive following that is now directed to vote for Baldwin. Expect a huge leap in the numbers the Constitutional Party receives. Expect Bob Barr’s campaign to wither and die with this explicit rejection.

I know this did not even make the news and is probably not even a blip on the radar screen of most people; however, for a Third Party junkie like myself, this was some pretty ground breaking news.

Party Differences on Display

The financial bailout that seems to be looming of many investment banks is a good time to see the state of the Republican and Democratic Parties. The only real difference is where the increased power of the federal government will go. Will it go to the Executive branch as the Republicans like to do? Or will it go to the Legislative branch as the Democrats like to do? The few conservative voices that reject the idea of a bailout at all are few and far in-between proving once and for all that the two parties are basically the same. So the real question you have to ask yourself in this election is whether or not you want the President to be stronger than Congres or Congress stronger than the President.

Response to Blogs on Third Parties

It is election time again and it is time for people to start bashing Third Parties again. So, it is time for me to defend them again as a vital part of the process. One might could even argue as restrictions against third parties got tighter, the country as a whole got worse.

Rev. Mark Horne has a post up about his problem with the logic of Third parties. I could spend some time arguing about immigration and wondering if Rev. Horne is confusing the duty of the church to welcome people when they are a stranger and the job of the state, but that is a side point in this blog. Rev. Horne contends that to be a member of a Third party one has to renounce any and all compromise and thus any minor point of disagreement should chase one from that party. I am not sure that is the real motivation for Third parties. Are all members of the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party saying that they agree 100% with their party and they would never deviate at all? Need I remind you that Congressman Bob Barr beat out super liberal Mike Gravel for the Libertarian Party nomination. These two do not exactly see eye to eye. In fact they are simply joined together by a fundamental commitment to the government staying out their personal business. Hardly the situation Rev. Horne describes. Besides, I think it also a leap in logic that one who accepts compromise must then accept so much compromise as to be stuck supporting one of the two major parties. Could he not support compromise and see that he compromises less by supporting Constitution Party? Is it not better to compromise less by only compromising on immigration and voting for the Constitution Party than compromising on taxes, ethics, foreign policy, the size and role of government, and executive power by voting for the Republican Party?

Andrew Sandlin also has an article up against Third Parites. His article is actually a quote from someone else. The claim is that Third parties are irrelevant. The author admits that these Third Parties do only two things. One is cipher off votes from the major candidates. And the second is stated as "they may provide an issue or a voting block that one of the major parties successfully woos before the next election."

YES!!!!! Someone finally gets it. It is amazing to me that this is listed in an article against Third Parties because this is the critical point. Third parties can reform the major parties, but only if you vote for them. Third parties call the major parties back to their roots. If the parties do not listen then they are eventually replaced. Most of the time they will listen. Take for example Ross Perot. He clearly cost George H.W. Bush the election in 1992. Perot ran and took votes out of the conservative base by running on governmental reform, lower taxes, balanced budgets, and less spending. Clinton gained the White House because people “threw away” their vote on Perot. However, in 1994 a bevy of new Republicans took control of the House and Senate on the Contract with America, which called for governmental reform, lower taxes, balanced budgets, and less spending. The House, which was the new guys for the most part, delivered on every part of the Contract. Eventually the budget was even balanced and a surplus created under Clinton. Do we really think that Perot had nothing to do with any of this? Clearly, at least Newt Gingrich was listening.

In the end, I think Third parties are not just the domain of the crazed fringe. Rather it should be the place that people run when the major parties ignore them and drift from their ideological roots. It is good to have these ideology-based parties so that the people can always have a voice. It is not all about winning. That is hard for a lot of people to believe, but it is not. The State will always be the State in the long run, and the Christian’s responsibility to the state is the same whether it is to Nero or to Constantine. It will never bring any real change. However, we do have an opportunity to make sure the candidates continue to focus on what is important to us by voting on what is important to us. That may mean voting for a Third party from time to time or

Learning from 9/11

Today is September 11th, a day that will forever be marked in our minds. I used to think it was weird that people of my parents generation could tell you exactly what they were doing and where they were when Kennedy was shot. I no longer think it is weird. I can tell you exactly where I was when the radio broadcaster first mentioned a plane into one of the towers. A few minutes later they interrupted a song to say that a second plane had hit and that this was no accident, it had to be terrorism. It made the rest of the drive to work pretty quick. It was only my second day of work, so I did not go to the room where everyone kept gathering to watch the news. I had meetings about insurance and stuff, and I was still trying to make that good first impression. I sat quietly listening to the radio and folding letters. I did not see the first images until I got home that day after 5pm (MST). They are images I will never forget. I actually preached my first sermon ever that Sunday. Of course that Tuesday I complete scrapped what I was going to say and started over.

We should never forget as a country, as people. We need to be constantly aware of terrorism and that we are not protected from it. But what is the message that we as the church should remember from 9/11. The church is not America, and we should never confuse the two. I was preparing a message on Jonah 4:2 this week. There Jonah says the reason he ran from God in the first place, "I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm." It really struck me this week that Jonah would rather the Ninevites die than be saved. Of course, I had noticed this before, and it is pointed out in seminary class after seminary class. It had always been easy to laugh off Jonah as a really bad prophet. The unloving prophet, the prophet who did not have the right attitude. Yet, how many of us would rather Bin Laden die than be saved? I am not saying that he should not face criminal punishment for his actions. Being saved it not a get out of jail free card, but we should still whole heatedly desire his repentance. Islam is no religion of peace, no matter how much our President like to think it is. It is a religion of evil that enslaves millions to its lies. Yet, we must have the same view of them that God has: pity. "And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left" (4:11). Is this not true of those Islamic fundamentalists we hear so much about? They cannot discern their right and their left. So, I think that this is the lesson of 9/11 for the church: we must never lose our pity. We must never forget to spread the gospel, because it is the only weapon against evil. The Sword of the Word (Eph. 6) is stronger than any tank, any bomb, or military force we can send. The church can never forget its mission to evangelize. No matter what Rick Warren, Barak Obama, and John McCain think evil is not defeated by the state, it is defeated by Christ.

Culture War

I admit that I have been watching the Republican Convention. My neighbor is a delegate, and I have been trying to get a glimpse of him on TV. No luck so far. However, I have heard a lot of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News guys talk about the culture war. CNN keeps saying that the Republicans are trying to restart the culture war. MSNBC asked the same question of a pastor this afternoon, and his response was that the war never ended.

It is a real shame that the phrase ‘culture war’ is in the political lexicon. I guess we can thank people like Dr. James Dobson for that one. There is a culture war, but politics is not where it is fought, and it is not the answer. Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned there will still be a culture war. I am not saying that politics is unimportant, but I am saying it is not the most important. The culture war is about this:

The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. (John 7:7)

This is the root of the culture war, and this then is the only answer. It is an answer that cannot be given by John McCain or Barak Obama. There is only one hope in life and in death, and that hope is Jesus Christ.

Competing Visions

I was fascinated by the difference between a couple of Conservative visions for America’s future that I came across. The two visions are Grover Norquist’s and Judge Andrew Napolitano’s. Norquist lays out a very positive and hopeful vision of an America who is coming around to the conservative way of thinking in his book Leave Us Aloneand Napolitano spreads doom and gloom in The Constitution in Exile (his other book Constituional Chaos is similar).

There are some differences in approach that might explain the difference in vision for America’s future. Norquist takes a shorter historical glance backward. He mainly talks of how far America has come since FDR and LBJ. Napolitano looks all the way back to the Founding Fathers and shows how the Constitution is now universally ignored. Napolitano does also focus more on the Supreme Court. He spends equal time on all three branches in his book, but Norquist says very little about the Supreme Court in his book. Norquist instead focuses on the elected positions. The liberal nature of the Supreme Court and its left leaning decisions could cause one to have a more negative outlook on the future of the country.

The two books are a fascinating glimpse in the Conservative mindset, and current status. Norquist is focused on the endless possibilities if the Republican Party would just preach the message of the ‘Leave Us Alone Coalition’. He has endless numbers and arguments to back up his assertions that the American publc at large would rather be left alone. He does this for guns, family, taxes, education, religion, and a few other things. Norquist is full invested in the two party system and practicalities of winning elections. For him the Leave Us Alone Coalition is the Republican Party and the Takings Coalition is the Democratic Party. He lays out his blueprint for electoral success, which does call for some changes in how the Republican Party runs things, and makes his arguments in favor of it. Napolitano has some figures and numbers, but is not really interested in winning elections, but seem rather to be raising the alarm bell. Rather than quoting numbers all the time, he cites specific examples, usually of court cases. He gives concrete examples of times the Patriot Act has been used to prosecute child pornography and copy write infringement rather than terrorists. Napolitano is short on help and long on misery. He does provide a short chapter at the end suggesting some changes that might stop the ignoring of the Constitution. Sadly, his suggestions were all amendments to the Constitution to clarify it. Of course if the meaning is ignored now, will clarifying it really solve the problem, or will it just continue to be ignored?

In the end, I believe Napolitano has it right. The Republican Party is worthless as it is currently structured. Norquist is so caught up in the Republican Party that he cannot see what is really going on. He criticizes McCain in the early parts of the book, but the book as a whole ends up clearly calling people to stick with the Republicans, even McCain who signed some pledge about taxes. Despite the evidence to the contrary Norquist blindly trusts that the Republican Party will return to their roots of the ‘Leave us Alone Coalition’. What Norquist fails to see is that the Republican Party’s roots are not in the Leave Us Alone Coalition and never have been. With the possible exception of Reagan, there has not been a Leave Us Alone Republican elected to the White House. The Party itself was founded on violating the Constitution and its meaning. This is where the short sighted view of history comes back to hurt him. While I agree with Norquist that if people vote the way they believe about being left alone it would carry the day, I disagree with him that the Republican Party is the tool to do that anymore. He also does not understand the politics of some states. He boasts in the book that the Republicans could have 60 Senators if solidly ‘red’ states like North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana to name a few vote Republican for senators like they do for President. He misses the point that people in the Dakotas are not fully ‘red’ or ‘Leave us Aloners.’ He misses the point that some states prefer Republican Commander-in-Chiefs, but could care less about Republican Senators. He fails to see trends in places like Minnesota. These places like the odd ball outsiders like Jesse Ventura. Or Wisconsin that has a long history of sending people from one extreme or another to the Senate rather than being consistent on which extreme it is. Wisconsin has liberal Senator Russ Fiengold, one of the most liberal. But it was barely 50 years ago that they sent Joe McCarthy to the Senate several times. He, by the way, dethroned the Progressive Party’s leading family the LaFollete’s from the Senate. These fundamental misunderstandings make me have to side with Napolitano.

Also everyone needs to take a look at Napolitano’s book just to see the astunding lies we are told everyday about our government. The chapters on the Patriot Act alone are worth the book. The brief discussion about Natural Law versus Positive Law is good, and having someone lay side by side the founding vision of this country and the current state of things is a shocking eye opener.

The Republican Party had a clear choice in this election. Continue on the path of liberalism with McCain. Focus on financial stability and spending cuts with Romney or follow the Constitution with Paul. They chose liberalism. The direction of the Party is set in stone.

Another Tyler Biography

I promise to get back to my look at apologetics soon. However, I feel compelled to write a book review of John Tyler: Champion of the Old South. Do not let the sub title fool you. This is simply a biography of John Tyler and a very fair one at that. It is much better than the previous Tyler biography I read and reviewed. This biography defends Tyler from the charges of inconsistency and does so very well. He endeavors to defend why Tyler went over to the Whig party and how Tyler still remained true to his beliefs at the same time. Although he does not mind criticizing Tyler as he makes it clear that it was a political mistake for Tyler to do it; however, it was not political inconsistency.

That is what makes this book so great. You follow Tyler through his entire life, not just his presidency or his years in the Senate. The writer, Oliver Perry Chitwood, is very insightful. Of course he is critical of the slavery issue with Tyler, but it is not the main focus of the book as the sub title might imply. As you travel through Tyler’s life and one learns of all the things Tyler did you get the occasional aside from Chitwood that examines Tyler’s actions. One that was particularly fascinating was when Tyler and other famous Virginians responded to the call to revamp the State Constitution. Most of the calls of unfairness in the old Constitution came from present day West Virginia, then still a part of Virginia. Yet Tyler and the rest of the leaders of the state came from the East and depended upon the famous families for support who all lived in the East. Thus, while the Constitution was updated some, it did not address they carefully avoided dealing with the real complaints of the westerners. This kept the people on the other side of the mountains furious, underrepresented in Virginia politics, and created a bitter feeling of being cheated by the leaders of Virginia. Chitwood believes that this failure to bind the west to the east in Virginia as South Carolina had done when she rewrote her Constitution directly cost the South the Civil War. Western Virginia was loyal to the North and made Lee have to fight that area of Virginia rather than have it as a base for the South. West Virginia was soon created and the North had a new ally against the Old Dominion. It was an interesting hypothesis that makes you stop and think. That is happened a lot during this very good biography.

Do not expect Chitwood to be a story telling biographer like a David McCullough, but he is a thought provoking biographer and that to me is more important. If you are interested in John Tyler this is the biography you should read.

Party Troubles

Republicans and Democrats are not the only party struggling with party identity these days. I just watched the Libertarian Nomination for President. It took six ballots (I guess I only watched four). Former Republican Bob Barr took the early lead, but was tied with Mary Ruwart, a long time Libertarian, on the fourth ballot. She took the lead after the fifth ballot, picking up former Democrat Mike Gravel’s delegates. The fifth ballot eliminated Wayne Allen Root, who took the stage to address the delegates as the others before him had done. Root then endorsed a Barr – Root ticket in what for me was a surprise move. Root’s delegates followed his lead and Barr became the nominee. Earlier delegates on the floor could be over heard speaking with great outrage at Barr being the leading candidate. Barr did a lot of un-libertarian things while in Congress. He was a leader in the Clinton impeachment trial, which many Libertarian’s did not care much about. Barr was a leader against medical marijuana, which goes against the Libertarian ideal that drugs should be legalized. Barr has recently reversed himself on medical marijuana, but is still against total legalization and still favors funding other countries to help fight the “War on Drugs”. This is very un-libertarian. Barr also voted in favor of the Patriot Act, but again, has reversed himself on that one as well. Congressman Barr also supports a National Sales Tax and will probably not decrease spending on the military which many Libertarians desire. Barr joined the Libertarian Party only about two years ago. Mary Ruwart took her defeat rather hard as her endorsement of Barr went as far as "I will keep working" and "we will see what happens". Her speech was not a happy one, and she never said anything about supporting Barr. Root was also soundly booed when he endorsed Barr for President.

In the end, the Republicans and Democrats are picking the candidate that has the best chance of expanding their Party, and apparently so is the Libertarian Party. As for the over all effect of this nomination, it could actually play a major role. A recent Rasmussen Poll shows that Barr picks up enough of the vote percentage to tip the election to Obama. Barr is also from Georgia, where he is polling at 8%, and that may be enough to give the deep south state to Obama who will do well there with the high African American population. Either way, I find it interesting that the move of every party seems to be to a Big Tent status. Both major parties claim to be Big Tent, and the little parties are trying to claim ground from the disaffected leaving those parties.

By the way, I am not a Libertarian. I just found this interesting.

Battle for the Soul of the Republican Primary

Fred Thomson is right, this primary season is a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. And since I am not a Republican, I can view this war for the soul of the party from a distance and analyze what I see.

First, there is always talk of the Reagan Coalition that really helped the Republicans start winning Presidential elections. That coalition grafted into the Republican Party Libertarians, PaleoConservatives, and Theoconservatives. What it also did was place some of the budding NeoConservatives in a places of power in the administration. Thus, Reagan held together a large coalition of people. President Bush the Older continued that tradition by trying not to change much, but his appointments show a growing power for the NeoConservatives, who were not making much hay on the campaign trial, but doing a good deal of work in the backrooms of the White House. The Republican Revolution of 1992 was primarily a PaleoConservative Revolution with great help from the TheoConservatives and the Libertarians. The 1996 race for the White House ended in disaster for PaleoCon Bob Dole and with the fall of Newt, another PaleoCon thinker the Neocons forged a new alliance with the TheoCons to take the White House with President Bush the Younger. As Younger President Bush continued his term in office the NeoCons showed complete control leading to great disenchantment from the Libertarians first, the PaleoCons second, and finally even the TheoCons are getting nervous.

That brings us to this year’s historic run for the White House. Each candidate really represents a different slice of the pie and a different attempt to forge bonds between the four separate groups.

Mitt Romney – Romney tries to be the complete package and is making overtures toward the TheoCons, but he is not really their man. Romney is stuck somewhere in the middle. He is trying to forge an alliance with the PaleoCons, TheoCons, and NeoCons. He is promising less government spending for the Paleo branch, he is promising anti-abortion activism for the TheoCons, and a continued foreign policy laid out by the NeoCons. His attempts at this have so far fallen a bit flat, but he is the best at naturally appealing to al groups.

John McCain – McCain has a long career as a NeoCon. He has some PaleoCon tendencies such as a hatred of wasteful spending, but his willingness to increase government in education, Medicare, and restrict freedoms in campaign reform shows he is really the establishment NeoCon candidate. The reason he is not fully supported by the NeoCons is his constant criticism of how the first true NeoCon administration ran things has hurt him. The PaleoCons and Libertarians are not behind him because of the above reasons as well as opposition to tax cuts. The TheoCons are not with him because of how he insulted them when he lost South Carolina in 2000.

Rudy Guiliani – He is purely a NeoCon candidate and was counting on big support from the White House and from 911. He has no credentials as a PaleoCon, Libertarian, or TheoCon. His presence in the race has also hurt McCain. Although Guiliani really angers the TheoCons by hjs open support of abortion.

Mike Huckabee – Huckabee is a smooth talker, but his version of the Republican Party contains only NeoCons and TheoCons. He has completely abandoned the PaleoCon and Libertarian wing of the party. President Bush always kept up a veneer of tax cuts to try and placate the PaleoCons, but Huckabee has never done that. The other difference between Huckabee’s version of the Republican Party and the President Bush/John McCain version of the party is that Huckabee will invert the power structure. Huckabee wishes to keep a coalition of NeoCons and TheoCons, but would put the TheoCons in the driver seat of the party for the first time.

Fred Thomson – Fred is the best attempt to keep alive the old Reagan Coalition. Unlike Romney, Fred keeps trying to bring in Libertarians and has a smaller place for the NeoCons and TheoCons, although he clearly tries to keep them by not renouncing President Bush’s foreign policy. Instead of giving the TheoCons what they want in Federal Amendments he actually tries to appeal to the forgotten Libertarian wing of the party by rejecting the need for such amendments. His pro-life stance may not be enough to make TheoCons happy and the NeoCons do not want to be replaced in the driver seat by a PaleoCon such as Thomson. Thus, his attempt to keep the Reagan Coalition alive is almost dead.

Ducan Hunter – Hunter is an old fashion PaleoCon who does not try to keep the NeoCons in his alliance. Hunter has the pro-life positions to satisfy the TheoCons, and although he is not advocating a withdrawal from Iraq focus his foreign policy more on economics and returns to the threat of Communism as a main talking point. Hunter is an old fashion PaleoCon who barely tries to reach out to anyone else. His view of the party is solidly PaleoCon.

Ron Paul – Ron Paul is the attempt by the Libertarians to gain footing again in the Republican Party. Paul’s positions are considered extreme today because they are solidly libertarian. He does appeal to PaleoCons as well, but stands more in the Libertarian position than the Paleo. He out right rejects the NeoCons as true conservatives and will not give the federal government to the TheoCons. Paul’s version of the Republican party is Libertarianism in control with PaleoCons sitting shotgun.

Thus, this race is real interesting when seen as a fight for the future and soul of the Party. Will it stay with the Reagan Coalition, is that even possible? Will it become the party of TheoCons? Will the Libertarians win, or will they run off and make Paul a third party candidate? It is an extremely interesting primary season on the Republican side. The question on the Democratic side is whether or not they will hide their Progressivism behind nice rhetoric or not? That is the only thing going on the Democratic side.

Reagan as a Neo-Conservative?

It is the political season again. I always enjoy watching the politics, but I feel much more distance from it this year. This is for two reasons: politics is not the answer to real problems, and there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

That being said, I wanted to comment on Andrew Sandlin’s discussion about Republican candidates and the Reagan coalition. Rev. Sandlin has always been a bit more of a pragmatist than I have when it comes to politics, but this time I want to take issue with his historical reading of Reagan. Sandlin proclaims that only McCain and Giuliani are the only two people that can hold the Reagan coalition together. He says the most important point is a ‘muscular foreign policy’. This is what he believes Reagan had and that was what brought the Soviet Union down. He obviously thinks that only the supporters of President Bush have that ‘muscular foreign policy’. The question is whether or not the Neo-Conservative doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on countries that might pose a risk is the same as Reagan’s foreign policy?

The answer is clear. No. Not even close. While I can agree that Reagan had a muscular foreign policy, Reagan had no pre-emptive strikes. With the possible exception of Grenada, Reagan never once invaded a country to prevent war. He defeated the spread of the Soviet Union not by force as previous presidents had done, but by increased defense spending and helping our allies spend on defense. Reagan pushed the ‘Star Wars’ defense program and put defensive missiles in West Germany. But never did Reagan take us to war to end the Soviet Union. Not that he did not have his chances. Many forget the shooting of Korean Air 007. This flight included 60 plus American citizens, and was shot down by Russian aircraft. Reagan took economic action, but no military action. This stands in stark contrast to the foreign policy of President Bush and the neo-conservatives. It is in stark contrast to McCain who supports the Bush Doctrine and Mayor Rudy who also stands in line with the Bush Doctrine of ‘War that Prevents All Wars’.

In the end, I agree with Reagan’s muscular foreign policy. It was one based on a strong military and defense. It was based on calling a spade a spade or in this case an Evil Empire. It was also based on economics and economic pressure. Even beyond that it was based on optimism. Reagan never doubted that the USSR would be put in the dustbin of history and that its last chapters were being written. This is also a far cry from the rhetoric we hear from Neo-cons. Sandlin misrepresents the foreign policy of Buchanan and Paul (and perhaps the others I just don’t know them as well). They are not isolationists. Paul has specifically refuted this many times. He is simply not an interventionist. But he favors the Reagan approach of economic allies and trade and diplomacy all of which Reagan used to bring down the USSR.

If someone wants to defend the Neo-conservative view of foreign policy, fine. Do so. However, let us not pretend that Ronald Reagan is an example, at least not with regards to his policy toward the USSR. It just seems to historically inaccurate to swallow.

Whatever happened to Paleo-Conservatism?

I found this map on Patrick Ruffini. I find it an insanely interesting map. I think it demonstrates the break down of the Republican Party very well. The Neo-Conservatives have risen to power by aligning themselves with the Theocrats, who value social issues and are willing to have big government fix it. They are also then willing in return to let the Neo-Cons have some other big government programs.

Not surprisingly the Theocrats live in the Bible belt and are the most dedicated to riding the party machinery that got them this far. Thus, Ron Paul and his traditional paleoconservative / libertarian values are rejected out of hand. These states prefer instead people like Gov. Mike Huckabee. It produces a constant supply of Republican Senators who are not going to change government, but use it. Example, Trent Lott. The Neocons also reside in the South, but also reside in the Ohio River Valley and in some Mid Atlantic states. Thus, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia give little to paleoconservatives like Ron Paul. The best example of this is Rudy Gulliani, but one could also use some of the ousted Pennsylvania Congressman and the current Minority Leader in the House. Now we also see light pink in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Dakota. The reason here is that these states are Democratic to the core. It is one of the great shames of the Democratic Party that they fail to win Iowa and North Dakota in Presidential election years.

Thus, Paleoconservatives live in Plains and in the West. Here are the people who would rather not have government messing things up. These people are also not so free trade oriented. This is where real conservative values still live on. Senator Tom Coburn serves as one example. Perhaps a more poignant example is the Constitution Party actually got a man elected to the Montana State Legislature, a legislature that has an equal number of Republican and Democrats with one Constitutional Party man to break the ties. A harbinger of the futuer?

The only surprise is that so much of New England is dark red or red at all. However, it could be because that region is anti-war and give money to the anti-war candidate. It also could be that Libertarianism is stronger than I thought in New England.

Regardless, this map shows that Ron Paul is not a lone wolf. His thorn in the candidacy of the Republicans will continue. He has won most of the debates despite being attacked by every moderator in every debate. If something does not change, I am not sure the Republican Party will survive. Look for more losses for the Republican in Congress in ’08, and then remember this map. I bet it will keep bearing true that the darker red the state the more the Neocons in office lose. In ’06 the Republicans lost seats in Montana, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Maine, and narrowly won in Tennessee.

Obama's Solution to Faith and Politics

The intersection of faith and politics is something that is always discussed, and every four years can become something of a hot topic. Barak Obama has made some very interesting comments regarding his views of faith and politics. They are thoughtful, not normal democratic rhetoric, and deserve some interaction. Now in my comments I will ignore his small discussion of his own conversion that mentions nothing of Jesus Christ, sin, and salvation. The avoidance of the words sin and salvation are interesting, but not really the point of this discussion. Instead, I will focus on his discussion of the role of faith and political decision making.

Obama tries to find a balance for Christian morality in "our modern, pluralistic democracy." Further, he tries to find a place for it in the Democratic Party. Obama makes a few admissions that I find startling from any politician and amazing to be coming from a Democrat at all. First and foremost he states,

I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

To that I give a hearty Amen! The government cannot fix the problem of sin. One could argue whether or not the party of expanding the powers of the federal government (think federally funded Midnight Basketball) truly follows this belief, but specific social policies are not addressed in this speech. More important is his second startling admission.

So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

It is good to hear a politician admit the plain truth about laws. They are a codification of morality. Obama admits that, and good for him. He also goes on to advocate allowing Christian to use their religious values in their public life referencing Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and William Jennings Bryan and others. This is a step in the right direction. It is nice to see someone admit clear historical facts and carry them over to today’s conflict between religion and politics. Obama thinks he has solved this conflict with a new solution.

But, Obama’s solution is what gets him into trouble. He maintains that the religious must recognize the new truths of the ‘modern pluralistic democracy.’

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This is nothing more than fancy mumbo-jumbo that conflicts with his earlier admission that laws are codified morality. It also will not work in the real world. What universal do people of opposite faiths share? What fellowship does Christ have with Belial? The Temple of God with the Temple of Baal? Or Light with Darkness? Let us just look at a few examples to see exactly how Senator Obama’s solution is a false one.

Homosexual marriage might be an example. What universal can those of different faiths agree upon? Will evolutionists agree with Christians on the principle that they do not produce offspring, and thus should not be allowed to marry? Or will they decide marriage itself is an institution that can evolve? Obama says Christians simply cannot point to their faith and say ‘God created marriage, it is what he says it is.’ Right now all marriage laws are codified Christian morality, but according to Obama that cannot be one of our arguing points. Now we have to find a universal that all agree with. What of the Muslims? They may want the marriage laws changed because it allows only one man to marry one woman. Mormons may also follow the Muslim suit because they wish their standards codified. What common ground is there?

More to the point is abortion. Christians believe life begins at conception, but now have to find an universal principle accessible to all people. Evolutionists often believe infanticide is acceptable because it increases survival possibilities for others. See Peter Singer if you don’t believe me. They would especially want to have abortions in the case of the mentally retarded or physically handicapped because they pollute the gene pool. Muslims do not even think murder is wrong if the person dying is an infidel, so what is the big deal about abortion. In other words there is no common ground here either.

Let us see how this revolutionary principle Obama puts forward plays out in his own thinking. The following is taken from an interview about his position on infanticide because of a bill he opposed while in the Illinois Senate. This quote is explaning the existing Illinois law with regards to children born after a failed abortion.

Obama: On the state level that says if there is a fetus that is determined viable and there has to be a second doctor who assists in determining that that fetus is viable- they are required by current Illinois Law to provide that fetus with assistance to make sure that they can live outside the womb. The law already exists. That’s not what Senator O’Malley’s law was about. What Senator O’Malley’s law was about was identifying all fetuses as human beings as a way of going after the right of women to choose to have an abortion pre- viability and that’s the reason that I, like a number of other senators, including Republican senators, voted either present or against it.

Note here what Senator Obama has done. He has found his universal principle to which all can agree. What is it? It is apparently refusing to recognize a baby as a human being or even a baby, but rather simply calling it a fetus. Notice that the fetus is not internal to a mother in her womb, but rather this is an already born baby that was supposed to have died in the womb, but for some reason did not. Senator Obama refuses to recognize that the child born is anything other than a fetus, and it is not even worth saving unless a second doctor comes along and pronounces it a child. So, in finding a universal point that people of all faiths and non-faiths can agree upon, he comes up supporting calling born children fetuses until multiple doctors decree otherwise. I am not sure about anyone else’s experience in giving birth, but I have not seen multiple doctors for any of my three kids, and I bet multiple doctors never work in abortion clinics. Thus, this law is a way to ensure botched abortions still end in death. Yet, Obama finds it the best way to go about things, and poor Senator O’Malley is the transgressor for trying to get personhood given to all children. When is a fetus a person in Obama’s mind?

If you are like me you are probably thinking that Mr. Obama’s Christian informed position sounds an awful lot like abortion on demand because babies are not people. You are probably also asking yourself exactly what did the evolutionists like Peter Singer give up to compromise with the people faith who oppose evolution in Obama’s position? It sounds an awful lot like translating the Christian faith into universal principles that all can access is just a new way to say the same old thing. ‘Leave your faith at the door when it comes to making laws.’

Obama understands laws are codified morality, he just refuses to codified a Christian morality instead choosing for the lowest common denominator morality. Obama has identified the problem by seeing this is a culture war about whose morality will govern the land, he just comes to the wrong solution. Obama’s solution is nothing less than a complete surrender. He sounds a lot like he is taking a new approach to religion and politics, but in reality he just found a new way to couch the old message of keeping the Christian faith out of politics.