Political power isn't everything
worldnetdaily.com
As usual, a moment's thought reveals that putting truth first is the most practical thing we could do, and that the advocates of "practicality" at the expense of principle are -- at best -- playing the fool. If we compromise our national sense of moral common ground, we will lose all incentive to compromise on anything else. We will become a bunch of squabbling groups, completely caught up in our own separate identities and lacking any sense of common ground and common identity. Under such circumstances, the fashion of compromise will quickly yield to the hard reality of the "anything goes" approach to power. So those who are pretending to be in favor of a politics of compromise and opposed to "extremism" are actually pushing us toward a politics of greater extremism.
..................................................................................................................................
Of course not. The compromise that our system of representative government constantly requires of its citizens depends entirely on the belief that our procedures of government, including the Constitution, are our best attempt to implement true principles of justice, best expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
That is why it is vitally important to our peace and to our decent spirit of compromise that we be uncompromising in our adherence to the basic principles that constitute our national identity. The heart of compromise is not the system, it is the moral principles we believe are embodied in the system. The real reason for our compromising spirit, when compromise is called for, is to perpetuate those principles.
.............................................................................................................
So when we are appealed to on behalf of "compromise" and "moderation" to seek agreement with our opponents, from where must our incentive finally come? It must come from the non-negotiable sense that the great principles on which the nation stands are principles that respect human rights and human dignity, and that embody an understanding of mankind that is true from the perspective stated in the Declaration of Independence
Why the Republicans lost
worldnetdaily.com
What these leaders have done is to play the Democrat game for the past two-and-a-half years. Newt Gingrich thinks that he is going to out "New Deal" the New Dealers. He thinks that with small portions of tax bribes here and there, and by stitching together the various constituencies based on the "money is God" approach, Republicans can continue to win electoral victories.
It's not going to work. The Republican Party must be the party of moral vision and moral principle, or it will lose. And if we go on playing the old Democrat, materialist, New Deal, coalition game -- we will lose. And, sadly, I think that is what Newt Gingrich wants to try to do, and he will take the party to disaster. It is what G. W. Bush and the rest of the Clinton Republicans represent, and they will take the Republican Party to disaster. If we go down that road, it will be over.
...........................................................................................................................
The results that we saw Tuesday for people like Matt Fong in California show that unprincipled, squishy-soft, "back away from the real issues" Republicans will not win. It is true that if we take a principled position we are still sometimes going to lose, as Jim Ross Lightfoot did in Iowa. But if the Republican leadership goes down this squishy-soft road, they will be sacrificing an historic opportunity. And that is certainly what they have been desperately trying to do for the last several years.
And believe me, if they keep moving in this direction -- the unprincipled, power-mongering, New Deal direction, with the motto: "let's be Republicans but have a Democrat agenda and heart" -- then in the year 2000 they will suffer real and stunning defeat. They will lose the Congress and they will lose the presidency.
...............................................................................................................................
If the Republicans continue to imitate the Democrats in their approach to politics, as they have been increasingly doing, they will become a party composed only of the half-hearted, the unprincipled, and those who are willing to do whatever it takes for the sake of power. Such a party will not perform the historic role that is needed to save this Republic.
The dangers of 'pragmatism'
worldnetdaily.com
Monday's speech does indeed appear to have been the launch of a full-throttle strategic shift for Senator Ashcroft, and I find it very disturbing. The reports that I have seen suggest that, consistent with much of the post-election media and liberal spin, the senator has formed the totally wrong interpretation that that any serious Republican presidential contender must move to the left and begin to prove that he doesn't care nearly as much about moral matters as he might have said he did before.
The key to Republican victory
worldnetdaily.com
Some people think that Republicans should only talk about the things that we, as they say, "agree on." This is code for the suppression of the moral questions that matter most, in hopes of achieving electoral success and triumph of the Republican agenda. Abortion and other nasty and divisive moral topics are to be avoided, so that Republicans can win on tax and budget issues, and achieve an overall rollback of federal power.
Let's examine this strategy for Republican political success. What are the things we Republicans all allegedly "agree on"? I can tell you quite briefly. One simple principle runs through every part of the agenda that the Republican Party agrees on. We believe in the people's ability and capacity to govern themselves. Democrats believe only in the power of government. It is that simple.
.............................................................................................................................
Two consecutive Republican presidential candidates have been defeated because they acted as if the moral heart of the Republican Party was the black sheep of the family. A congressional majority that could have faced down the depravity of the Clinton White House has been almost entirely squandered. I am tired of hearing those who have lead us to defeat after defeat in the post-Reagan years lecture the moral conservatives in the Republican Party about how to win. If the Republican Party wants to rally truly effective support for its agenda of limiting government and enabling economic enterprise -- and it certainly should and must -- then it must turn with courage and confidence to the task of reminding the citizens of this nation of the moral foundations of responsible self-government.
Standing on principle
worldnetdaily.com
An article appeared in Tuesday's Washington Times with the headline, "GOP frontrunners back off hot button: soft-pedal abortion, gun control issues." The article discusses the positions of George W. Bush and Elizabeth Dole, and says that those two "inch away from strict pro-life, anti-gun control positions." This tactic is justified, the camps of the two candidates claim, because the grass roots of the Republican Party no longer care about these issues, and it is accordingly safe for candidates to move to the center. And, of course, they have their own pollsters supporting them by producing polls supposedly demonstrating this decline in interest.
................................................................................................................
I don't believe that many real moral conservative leaders have to pay supporters to come to their gatherings, because those supporters are generally eager to come show their support for the agenda of moral renewal. As I travel around the country I find that people are hungry for leaders who will take a stand on the key moral issues of our time, and are so disgusted by the squishy positions taken by the so-called "front runners" and "leaders" that they are completely turned off and dropping out if they don't think there is a real alternative.
Why Bush fails my litmus test
worldnetdaily.com
I got an e-mail the other day from someone urging me to get behind George W. Bush so that the Republicans could unite behind someone (anyone?) and, supposedly, win the presidency.
I have said for months that I simply would not support George W. Bush. My decision was confirmed again this week when Bush announced that as president he would not have a "pro-life litmus test" for his judicial nominations. Of course, Gore and Clinton will put death-dealers on the Court no matter what, and make it very clear that this is what they are going to do. So why should those of us who understand the devastation that our abandonment of moral principle is causing in American life and conscience be expected to put up with so-called "pro-life" Republicans who simply decline to oppose the culture of death by straightforwardly championing the agenda of life?
.............................................................................................................................
Beyond the specific question of judicial appointments, Bush is no better. He has essentially dismissed the project of seeking a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution because he says the American people won't accept it. This means that he decides what is necessary for the future of the country based on popularity and polls -- just like Bill Clinton. The fact that our abandonment of our most basic moral principles is destroying our conscience, destroying our principles, undermining our sense of moral self-confidence, and thus contributing to the surrender of self-government and rights on all fronts isn't even on his mind.
Mr. Bush's statement that he will impose no litmus test shows that in his political role he is fundamentally unprincipled. His entire discussion of abortion includes no references whatsoever to the great American principles that ought to be most telling upon one's judgment when it comes to constitutional issues. He has taken on consultants and advisors who have put into his head what he has to say -- formulae for expressing himself -- that have nothing to do, in fact, with the great context of American life and justice.
............................................................................................................................
This refusal to serve our heritage is what distinguishes Bush and most of the rest of the politicians of our day from those who really rose to the level of statesmanship required for great leadership in American life -- the Founders, Lincoln, and even Ronald Reagan. For such men there was a constant need to refer, in one form or another, to the overarching truths that had been expressed and put in place at the beginning of America to guide our conscience and to shape our sense of justice and rights in the context of American life.
But what about winning elections? Isn't it time, as my e-mail correspondent asked, that we get serious about winning?
.............................................................................................................................
The Republican Party will continue to lose ground until it remembers that a lack of conviction leads ultimately to a lack of success. How many times will Republicans have to be smacked over the head with this truth before they finally get it? I would think that two or three defeats at the presidential level, and hanging by our fingernails to a razor-thin margin in the Congress thanks to congressional leaders who practice the "go-along to get-along," "stand for nothing," approach, would teach people a lesson. But the George W. frenzy suggests otherwise
.
There is a painful irony in the suggestion that we should put aside truth, principle and what is best for the country in order to try to "unite the Republican Party" behind an blank banner, and a man who is willing to fill up his speeches with whatever formula he thinks is going to do the most polling good. The George W. Bush movement really shouldn't object to Bill Clinton. If we are willing to follow people with the Machiavellian, time-serving mentality, Clinton has proven himself to be a master at it. Perhaps we should just repeal all the technicalities about serving third terms and work to have both parties nominate Slick Willie one more time. Then both parties would win.
As I have said before, the George W. Bush movement is the Republican wing of the Clinton movement. The real Bush supporters are those who think it is not government's place to stand for those principles which defend the basic rights which come to us from God. They say these are difficult issues, which is what was said a century and more ago about slavery. But slavery was never a difficult issue in light of our Declaration principles, and neither is abortion. When we temporize with abortion, what we are confessing is that we have a greater heart for injustice than we do for American principle. I think that is true of G.W. Bush, and it is why I will not back him. |
