Banner
As Blue as Anybody's PDF Print E-mail
Culture and Politics - Politics
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Sunday, 19 February 2012 21:33

Now, before I say what I am going to say, let me qualify some things. I have qualified them before, and it doesn't seem to do any good, but hope springs eternal. I am a conservative, barely within the legal limits for Idaho. If someone bumped me too hard, I would probably tip over into a defense of feudalism not too far to the left of King Alfred. Not only so, but I would do so in a manner calculated to allow me to embrace virtually every future variant of conservatism downstream from Alfred -- free market conservatism, hard money conservatism, constitutional conservatism, social conservatism, paleo-conservatism, and so on. I am every kind of conservataive except for the collectivist kind. Among the spear-Danes my loyalty is unquestioned. Among the Picts, my face is as blue as anybody's. We stand out better that way against the red state background, and it gives liberals the creeps. Anything to give liberals the creeps.

Now one of the central characteristics of every form of true conservatism is a deep suspicion of ideology. Conservatism at its best is good at playing it as it lays. You might find yourself in a system that you would never have built yourself -- like Daniel in Babylon, say -- but are quite capable of working for reformational good within that system. This is pertinent because I believe that a right reading of the Constitution would not have built the kind of American empire we currently see all around us, but I also believe that there are good men within the current system pushing in the right direction -- which is not necessarily the same thing as pushing your way toward a mythical restart or do-over button.

The purist is incapable of seeing the possibility of good men within corrupt systems and corrupt empires. The purist thinks that Obadiah, who had charge of the wicked Ahab's house, had no business being there (1 Kings 18:3). This is because the purist would prefer purity and dead prophets to Obadiah's fear of the Lord, service to Ahab, and protection of the prophets. This weird preference is what it means to be a sectarian ideologue.

The Paulbots (as distinguished from those who give thoughtful support to Paul such that they will certainly vote for him, or who are willing to support him where they agree with him . . . such as myself, fer instance) are the political equivalent of primitive baptists. They want to get back to the pristine days of the early church so they can figure out some kind of way to split that one too.

Now the conservative suspicion of ideology (and consequently ideological purity tests) is a tendency that has been used against conservatives effectively. This is how we have been consistently snookered into voting for the "most electable" rightward candidate, with professionals on the take informing us on who is most electable this year. Because we are not ideological purists, we can be more easily persuaded to hold our collective nose and vote for the establishment Republican yet again. But as Joe Sobran once put it, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times . . . I'm a Republican!"

Coming to this realization is what caused me to leave the Republican Party a decade or two ago, and is why I didn't vote for Dubya either time, and why I won't vote for Romney or Gingrich. I have allowed that I could vote for Santorum or Paul, depending on the circumstances. That's me, being as judicious as all get out! That's me, tip-toeing my way through complicated political analysis.

But it nevertheless gets me harangued by zealous Ron Paul supporters, and so the time has come to talk about that. I am showing Insufficient Zeal for the Cause, and I guess I ought to feel worse about it than I do, but part of this is driven by the fact that I was leaving behind standard Republican politics when a lot of these critics were in short pants riding around the driveway on their Big Wheels. Maybe I should work on generating some remorse for being in the tank for business-as-usual, but in order to do that, it would have to be at least kind of true. So there's that obstacle.

Last time I checked, I was a theocrat for King Jesus, which is a position that would give the Republican National Committee the fantods, if they knew about it, which they don't, because what I write on the Interwebs is invisible, and besides, they don't know much of anything outside the Beltway. But if they knew, I can promise you they wouldn't like it. I am advocate for mere Christendom -- a dreamy utopian vision in which Catholic hospitals would not be forced into paying for abortifacients.

So, straight to the heart of the Ron Paul business. Over the years I have been very generous in my appreciation of what Ron Paul gets right. I have urged those who don't support Ron Paul to cool it with the jabs about caucuses being won through effective nutworking. I have voted for Ron Paul in the past, and can easily envision circumstances in the future where I might do so again. But if I ever vote for him, it will not be with the swallow-tailed guidons of ideology snapping in the breeze above our bright and shiny light brigade.

Eric Hoffer once wrote a fantastic book called The True Believer. In that book he described the kind of psychological make-up that needs a cause, any cause, just so long as it has a direction to march, a flag to fly, and a gun to point. This is nothing but ideological excess, and it has to be said there is more than a little bit of it in the Paul camp. Please note -- and here I feel like Dave Barry anticipating the reactions of Neil Diamond fans -- that I know and acknowledge that there are many sober and judicious Ron Paul supporters. I know a bunch of them. I have a memorial shrine set up for reasonable Ron Paul supporters in my study, and we always keep a candle lit in front of it. But even with those qualifications, someone might complain that to point out the existence of any Paulbots whatever is an ad hom, and ask me to interact with Paul's arguments -- which I have done for years, sometimes agreeing with him, sometimes not. Happy to, and I will continue to. This blog has a search bar, and if you want to, you can go see.

But something else has happened, and is happening. This is no longer about the arguments alone. It is also about a sociological movement. One commenter said in response to a previous post that many of Paul's followers were so zealous because they were recent converts. Yes, that is obviously true. And it should be pointed out to somebody that fresh converts are often a cause's worst liabilities. New converts often do a great deal of damage. Do you really love liberty all that much? Then learn how important it is to cool it.

Stop lecturing your elders on their deficient love of liberty when they brought you up outside the state educational system, making enormous practical and financial sacrifices to do so. This was the first time such a feat had been accomplished in the West for centuries. A number of years ago I was talking with a libertarian friend, a secularist, who was upbraiding me for how evangelical Christians were insufficiently attentive to the cause of liberty, liberty as he defined it. I asked him how many non-government schools for kids the libertarians had built. The conversation lagged a bit after that. There was the kind of silence that you might experience the moment after the ambulance crew takes the body out.

Stop telling us about an America that was somehow morally equivalent to the Soviets or the Maoist commies. Whatever it is you are using to cause your sense of indignation to grow so big, trying using some of that fertilizer on your sense of proportion. We grew up in the Cold War and were facing a truly expansionist ideology that had murdered approximately 100 million people. That was not a trifle, or at least we kind of thought it wasn't at the time. When I was a kid in school, one of the drills was nuclear war drills, and that was not the result of fevered imaginations.

Stop acting like you are bored with the traditional pro-life thing. An older generation of conservatives has kept that issue alive over the course of four decades. You are tired of that, are you? Abortion is so politicized? Focus on the Family is against abortion, and Focus is just way uncool? That's like a German underground activist complaining in 1941 that concern over the Jewish thing is "so thirties."

Now when you consider this third item, and compare it to the second, it would be quite fair to point to a moral equivalence now. The abortion carnage has gotten us almost to the halfway point that the lunatic Marxists achieved. And we are now pretending, in ludicrous civil ceremonies around the country, at sorry excuses for courthouses, that a man can marry a man. But never forget that we have gotten to this point by giving the time of day to those leftist sob-sisters who made every excuse imaginable for the communists back when they were still killing lots of people, and who have now moved their expertise at logic-chopping to a defense of one of their central domestic objectives, which appears to be baby chopping. These ghouls have somehow gotten control of a narrative which they like to call social justice and as far as I am concerned, they can take it to Hell with them.

There is only one other issue, resulting in a related and generic admonition to Ron Paul supporters under the age of 25. Be sure to check one other thing, and this would be in the realm of motives. That means that only you can check, not me, and if you do it honestly, I am happy to take your word for it. But being a Ron Paul supporter is, as it seems to me, a way to be given a pass by the zeitgeist hall monitors in the junior high of cool as a passable non-conservative. This means you can adopt a position that won't rip it with all the conservatives in the church you few up in, and you can also pass as some form of non-conservative with all the leftist cool kids. Those cool kids -- you know, the ones who line up outside Apple stores in Portland before the newest release -- are either leftists or libertarians. Libertarians are tolerated and accepted by the left, and this should be recognized as a significant selling point (and temptation) by many of the Christian youngsters who have been attracted to Paul. Take your Ron Paul sign to a paleo-hippie peace rally and you just might be received with a strange sort of respect. Makes you feel warm inside. Just realize that it may not be the glow of a good testimony.

One of the reasons I like Santorum is that he generates the right kind of hatred from the usual suspects. And I like even more the fact that he doesn't care. His sense of morality is far less cool than his sweater vests.

 

 



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Sunday, 19 February 2012 22:21
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Tom Thistleton  Monday, February 20, 2012 4:23 am
Doug,

I agree with everything in this post. I've followed and supported Ron Paul for over 20 years. He's not the closest thing to perfect that some of the "newer converts" seem to believe but he has demonstrated a consistency, especially as it relates to understanding what it means to be a constitutional republic, that makes him different than any politician on the national stage in a long time. In other words, I believe he can be trusted to follow through on what he's saying because he truly believes it ... and he's saying the right thing on most of the most important issues.

I can't get past believing that supporting Santorum is just one more round of the phenomenon Joe Sobran described in his quote. I would love for you, or anyone, to help me see why Santorum is different than the previous "conservatives" that have continually disappointed. Remember, all those "suspects" hated George W. Bush as well.

As I said in one of the prior threads, Santorum doesn't appear to have an overall governing philosophy. The result is a jumble of pro-life convictions, big government "compassionate conservatism", and foreign war mongering. I just can't see how a Santorum presidency will look substantially different than a George W. Bush presidency looked.

I'll close by saying that I've been learning from you for a long time and find myself in agreement with you on most things. However, given everything that you've written and said over the years, your support for Santorum has been a mystery to me.
Gaelic Nationalist  Monday, February 20, 2012 5:04 am
Pr Wilson,

In your book *Mother Kirk* you bemoan, quite rightly, that Evangelicals' influence in politics is akin to giving whiskey to a 3 year old. Well said.

For the record, I reject Paul's libertarianism (compare Rothbard's definition of morality with Alistair Crowley's sometime).

Following upon something Mr Thiselton said, that Santorum has no governing political philosophy, how will Santorum be any different from the "slappy clappy Baptist" in politics? Basically he is pimping the Evangelical vote by saying he's against abortion, knowing that Evangelicals will approve him regardless. But which Republican candidate has ever even made modest attemnpts towards that? And let's not forget the disastrous judges that Republican Regean appointed.

The irony of your blog post, most of which was quite excellent, is that you give a fine critique of ideology and Paul-botism, but I suspect you will give the same ideological defense of Santorum that you seemed to give of McCain four years ago.
Will S  Monday, February 20, 2012 6:27 am
Doug, great post!

Regarding the comments of Brad and Tom. How is Santorum different from Bush? Three ways:
1) Experience: I think that first of all we have all gained wisdom over the last decade. While many of the Paul-bots had a conversion to a man (the candidate Paul), many others had a conversion to math. We realized that while abortion (the singular issue for me during the 1990s) is still far and away the most important issue, other things like saving the from bankruptcy need to be considered pretty darn important too. Listen to Santorum. He is quite passionate about cutting spending, taxes and the size of government. Compare that to the measured and modest rhetoric of the moderates and see the difference. He puts it in dire terms: cut spending or America as we know it ends. Maybe he is lying or maybe he had a conversion to math.
2) Pro-Life - Santorum has been very solid on this for years. In a year when it was really uncool to be about social issues (up until a couple weeks ago when the government over reached), Santorum made it his centerpiece. I remember that Michelle Bauchman and Rick Perry (two ostensible evangelical candidates) didn't even have abortion listed under issues on their website. For those of you that think that this doesn't matter, it does - and Santorum has shown an ability to understand this issue better than anyone. This includes W. Bush (who was ok with killing babies if their dads were rapists) and Paul who has said things like abortion 'cannot be policed'.
3)He is not afraid of debate. If you read Frank Luntz (arguably the founder of compassionate conservatism) the goal of politics is to align your rhetoric with what the public already believes. Use key words and phrases that sound nice (like compassion). Bush followed this approach (probably in part because he was so inarticulate that it was embarrassing when he did try to debate). But we all want a leader who, like Reagan, will make a passionate and articulate defense of conservatism. Santorum does that way better than Bush did and better than any of the other candidates in the GOP race.

But I am not a Santorum-bot. I realize that his record has plenty of warts on it. I remember hating him after the Specter thing. I think his statements on earmarks (that he loved them) are hurting him for good reason. But I feel he is a good choice among a field of fallen and imperfect men.
Douglas Wilson  Monday, February 20, 2012 6:41 am
Tom and Brad, reasonable comments and concerns. I share them. But I don't think Santorum will be more of the same (though I certainly could be wrong on that). I don't think so because of the Republican establishment's resolute ignoring of Santorum up until just recently, and then after that their reaction has been mostly made up of panic (because of the social issues). They have also been retooling for an attempt to get their bit and bridle on him.

And one minor correction. I didn't support McCain at all. I did support Palin.
Joseph Hession  Monday, February 20, 2012 1:12 pm
Look at his voting record and you will have the info you need.
Jeremy Larson  - title  Monday, February 20, 2012 7:00 am
Imho, a better title for this post would have been "far less cool than his sweater vests."
John Caneday  - Santorum's voting record  Monday, February 20, 2012 8:27 am
Pastor Wilson,

I've been skeptical of Santorum, but decided to look at his voting record with an open mind and see for myself what he's supported. Maybe you already know these things, but I hadn't gone to the pains of actually looking this closely.

I reviewed his record here:
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27054/

I was surprised to see that he did a pretty good job during the Clinton administration, voting relatively conservatively--even voting against NAFTA, which he evidently now says "is a good thing."

But his record during the Bush administration is not quite so commendable. He voted for:
The Patriot Act (and later to reauthorize it--twice), the Iraq War, No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley (Account Industry Reform Bill), to establish the Homeland Security Dept., not to mention countless other bills, including to increase the debt ceiling.

Looking at his record confirms his record as a "big-government" conservative. His voting record shows a pretty modest (at best) attempt at controlling the size and scope of government.

One can hope that Santorum will be different than previous Republican presidents or nominees, but we all know what happens when we hope in politicians.
David C. Moody  - All the Right Enemies  Monday, February 20, 2012 9:08 am
I liked your post. Rick Santorum does have the right enemies when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. He is a radical when it comes to obeying the sixth and seventh commandments. I only wish that he were as ardent about the eighth commandment ("Thou shalt not steal.") I think fundamentally the source of our ills in America comes down to stealing from our neighbors. If we can get a President who will curb that, and if America really does repent of its covetousness, I think the Left will find they have much less funding for their abortions and gay groups. One of the biggest ways that gays take power is by getting grants to promote their ideas in education, etc.

Being in a Christian school myself (with a preschool), I see that most of the preschool groups are headed and manned by gays. They are pushing for "early literacy" as their excuse for pushing for gay rights.

Rick Santorum might be hated by the right people. But he won't cut off their funding, especially since they appear to be helping with literacy (or health care or whatever else). If we are to stop these people, the best way is to cut their funding. Fight them with their source of money. Ron Paul is the best chance at cutting their funding. I don't think Rick Santorum has the heart to cut funding to things. (And this is coming from a man who voted for Bush and McCain ... and I don't want to be fooled again.)
Gaelic Nationalist  Monday, February 20, 2012 9:57 am
Bingo. Santorum, like all presidents, will continue to spend money like a drunk college girl, not to mention a suicidal foreign policy (which also requires borrowing money we don't have).
Albert Meyer  Monday, February 20, 2012 10:07 am
Thanks for the blog - food for thought.

I don't go to church, but I am not antagonistic towards the teaching of Jesus. Like Gandhi, I just don't like the clergy, the so-called "evangelical" leaders who masquerade as Christian jihadists.

They believe life starts at conception, but ends at our borders. Their "supporters" are the ones who boo Ron Paul when he quotes the Golden Rule.

Among them are those of the Christian Zionist cult, with Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin leading their charge. Santorum, a Catholic, has successfully tapped into their zeal, especially after the likes of James Dobson anointed "St. Orum." (Can we now sell rosaries to Baptists?)

Their Bible states: Curse them that curse you. Hate your enemies. Blessed are the warmongers. Repay evil with evil. Bear false witness, after all it means big profits for the military-industrial complex, etc.

You write, "The abortion carnage has gotten us almost to the halfway point that the lunatic Marxists achieved." In your next blog, could you address the carnage caused by the Bush/Cheney oil wars. How many innocent women and children will die if Santorum has his way with an attack on Iran? How many of the 600 Christian churches in Iran would be left standing once that war starts? Why is the life in the womb of a woman in Iowa more precious than the lives of women and children on the streets of Baghdad and Teheran, whose bad luck it is to live in oil rich countries? (Just Foreign Policy's website lists the war causalities.) Why is the Christian Church not in the forefront of the anti-war movement? In fact, just the opposite, it is the evangelical leaders who are the biggest protagonists of these oil wars; and then they claim to be "pro-life."

We can spot a hypocrite and so could Jesus in His day. In fact, He had some choice words for the clergy. That's why Jesus is so compelling. To me Ron Paul is a true Christian. His humble and self-effacing demeanor, and his integrity reminds me of that one of old, of Galilee, of whom it was said that no man taught like He did and that the common people heard Him gladly.

On another point, you write: "I asked him how many non-government schools for kids the libertarians had built." Please don't tell us you believe the government builds schools. The last time I checked my super-sized property tax bill, it reminded me that we as taxpayers are building these schools, not the government.

Apart from a national defense force and running embassies, and perhaps a few other essential services, there is nothing that the government is doing for us that we cannot do for ourselves, without running up $10 trillion in debt over as little as a decade.
Eric Stampher  Tuesday, February 21, 2012 12:07 pm
Albert,

Good thoughtage.

Except, taxpayers don't build schools. Just boxes, where govmn't makes sure the teachers you're paying for keep the propaganda flowing that God ain't necessary.
Tammy Burns  Monday, February 20, 2012 10:16 am
When families don't have the resources but the corporations do, there's something wrong. Some families don't want to use birth control, but they don't have time, energy and money to support all the children they want.

The economy needs to be back in the family not in the corporations. Ron Paul's the only one to speak out against corporatism.

When Santorum was asked about people with preexisting conditions losing their insurance, he said its no problem because that happened to his family. But he is rich, he doesn't understand the common laborer.

Jesus came to the regular people. He came as a common laborer. He spoke out against those who would oppress the regular people.

Perhaps as a pastor you don't understand the common laborer and their desire to have a large happy family too. The young people do.

The economy in the Bible has each family owning land. This makes for a strong middle class. Our country use to be the land of opportunity because people would come here and eventually have their own family business. Their kids went on to do better than they did.
Peter Roise  - Big Ideas and Big Wheels  Monday, February 20, 2012 10:25 am
Mr. Wilson, speaking of cool, you sound a little passionate about this. I want to add my voice of reassurance that the resistance you are getting on this issue stems from respect and thankfulness, and that apart from the great non-government education I received and to which you contributed, I would probably not be where I am on these issues. So first, I want to go on record as very grateful for lots of great teaching on true liberty over many, many years. And that includes a lot of political and governmental insight. In fact, I want to echo again what is almost becoming a motif in these posts and that is a sense of mystery about where the support for McCain/Palin and now Santorum comes from. This has a personal element to it for me, since back when I was willing to vote for Dubya, you were the one advocating and practicing voting on principle. I understand that you are more sanguine about Santorum than I am, but that only compounds the mystery considering his record.

Which brings me to the point: I would really still like to know how you think that this convert is wrong or confused about this new (to me) principle that Christians should not support unjust and illegal wars through their vote. It is an honest question from one who is dismayed by your willingness to support a guy like Santorum...while at the same time being extremely grateful for all you were doing while I was enjoying my Big Wheel.
Polites  Monday, February 20, 2012 10:34 am
Pastor Wilson,

Fairly confident I was well beyond the Big-Wheel-in-the-driveway stage when you were “leaving behind standard Republican politics” (born in 1962), rest assured my support for Ron Paul is of the only moderately zealous sort. Paul’s appeals the principle of individual liberty, for instance, are fine to a point, but when larger issues are raised that must appeal to authority above that principle, he tends to falter. Not that he’s ever eloquent, but his clarity of thought does seem to waver when issues aren’t easily addressed by libertarian ideals.

Yet, I don’t see Paul as an ideologue. Rather, he is a man who I could take at his word when he swears to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”. Christians, as “people of the book,” should be encouraged by his steadfastness in that regard. The constant refrain heard from his lips that “there is no authority given in the Constitution” for this or that government action tells me that, among the available candidates, he’s the only one that would be deliberate about submitting his own conduct to the test of Constitutional restraint. I can’t recall any candidate in my years of political awareness (a few years after my Big Wheel broke down) that has come close to his devotion to the law of our land nor his consistency in that devotion.

I agree with you that Paul has flaws and his thinking is muddled on some of the issues for which he clearly hasn’t given enough time to clarify in his mind. But I have an opportunity to send a man to the White House whose first impulse is to consider what the Constitution authorizes him to do. That man is a Christian who, I am confident, considers God’s Law as higher than the Constitution, but also understands that ignoring Constitutional restraints to win more power at the Federal level for any cause will, in the end, work against those hoping that increased power would save them. Christians are often just as guilty as secularists for misplaced hopes on Presidential power. Paul doesn’t desire more power. He desires to relinquish power back to the people under the Constitution. And even though Paul may not have thought through the benefits of that relinquishing, I see that as a path to getting the State out of the Church’s way.
Drew  Monday, February 20, 2012 10:45 am
I currently live in a hippy dippy college town in Ohio, and from my experience, that analysis of Ron Paul's young supporters is spot on. He is cool because it doesn't take much to travel from his policies to that of the left, and professors don't wince when he is mentioned in class discussion. Some of Paul's lines could be inserted in a Chomsky book, and no one would notice. Because of this, all the wrong people like Paul here.
In contrast, all the right people hate Santorum here. His name makes the planned parenthood activists respond with the vilest of slurs, and it would be next to be impossible to put a Santorum sign in my yard. One of my roommates is also heavily involved in the democratic party here and in the Obama campaign, and the mere mention of Santorum gets him going in a hate filled banter that has little cogent argument. McCain never got this kind of response here; he was merely treated as a minor speedbump on the road to the coronation. Santorum is far from perfect, but he is right on a lot of issues. The reactions he elicits from some only serve to convince me more.
Gil Shivers  - Very well said  Monday, February 20, 2012 11:31 am
Excellent, very well said. Party on.
jay niemeyer  Monday, February 20, 2012 12:22 pm
Perfectly put, Pastor Wilson.

For you Paulbots out there...
Supreme Court Appointees.
'Nuff said.
GenStop  - Pro-life presidential SCOTUS justices  Monday, February 20, 2012 1:07 pm
When you say Supreme Court, are you referring to Stevens (nominated by pro-life president), Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter?

Jury is still out on Roberts and Alito.

Pro-life presidents are 2-4-2 at nominating judges that will overturn Roe v Wade. Thomas and Scalia voted to overturn the law. Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor, and Stevens voted to keep the law. Alito and Roberts are unknowns, and I would be willing to say that Roberts would fall in the pro-choice crowd.

I voted for Newt because it was between him and Romney in my state. :oops: Does that make me a Newt-bot?

To me, calling and lumping people into a group of "bots" seems juvenile. Then again, these are just words on a computer screen.
Tammy Burns  Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:56 am
@GenStop Did Kennedy vote pro life in his earlier years on the court? Because he seems to have flipped flopped on some issues. This is a concern when the judges are up for election. To have the moral issues in the state legislatures would give the people so much more control over them.
Gaelic Nationalist  - re:  Monday, February 20, 2012 1:01 pm
jay niemeyer wrote:
Perfectly put, Pastor Wilson.

For you Paulbots out there...
Supreme Court Appointees.
'Nuff said.


You mean these guys appointed by "electable" Republican presidents: Warren Burger, David Souter, and Sandra Day O'Connor?

Again, republicans will hold that carrot above evangelicals faces and get them to do their bidding.

GOP and Dem are two pillars of the same Masonic temple.
jay niemeyer  Monday, February 20, 2012 5:52 pm
Brad, who appointed the conservative justices?
Joseph Hession  Monday, February 20, 2012 1:08 pm
I agree with everything in this post except for the fact that you could under any circumstances vote for Santorum.
Ronald Reisterer  - In Defense of Zeal  Monday, February 20, 2012 1:46 pm
Mr. Wilson,

I bite my thumb at your stuffy derision of the legions of young who support Ron Paul's message of Constitutional peace and liberty. Your arrogant, self-righteous attempt to belittle them as unthinking robots with your fancy prose and poetic nonsense is shameful. As a Christian, I would think you would celebrate and applaud their devotion.

I am a 61 year old zealous supporter of Dr. Paul's message. I stand and cheer - albeit not quite as quickly or as loudly as the young - whenever Paul defends the Constitution, speaks up for peace, calls for an end to incessant nation building and globalism, and exposes the legalized theft of the Federal Reserve.

Why do you "suffer the little children" for energetically responding to such a message?

In defense of your call for the Paulbots to "cool it", you tell us that you "grew up in the Cold War" and that you were "facing a truly expansionist ideology that had murdered approximately 100 million people." As if this somehow justifies your admonition.

Did you learn anything from the so-called Cold War?

Do you not know that the Soviet was clandestinely financed, nurtured, and supported by the same cabal of International Banksters and State Department operatives that support today's aggressive preemptive wars in the Middle East?

Do you not know that the goal of the internationalists is the same today as it was then: world hegemony?

Had our generation and the generation preceding us zealously defended the Constitution and preserved a Foreign Policy based upon the Founder's maxim of friends with all nations entangling alliances none; and had we listened to the warnings of men like Charles Lindbergh, World War II and the Cold war would have been avoided.

Unfortunately we were not zealous for the Constitution or for the precepts of Jesus. We were easily duped into war. We bought the Internationalists' lies and learned to fear and then hate the Japs, the Huns, and the Gooks. Meanwhile, the corpses piled high.

Now men like Santorum are beating the drums for war with Iran. We are told that we must fear Iran, kill her scientists, and blockade her harbors, in the name of peace else like the communists they will destroy us.

Too many good Americans are willing to listen to the lies of Interventionists like Santorum and reject the dictates of the Constitution and the Golden Rule. They laugh at Ron Paul when he suggested that our Foreign Policy should be based upon the Constitution and rooted in the Golden Rule.

I can imagine you shaking your bulbous brain, self-righteously claiming that the murderous bombing raids and wars of the last century were all necessary. And I can imagine you supporting the acts of war that are currently being called for against Iran as justified because they want to kill us. I can also imagine you claiming like Santorum that all the declared and undeclared wars of the past century were ethical and Christ like.

Read Robert Stinnett's book "Day of Deceit: the truth about FDR and the bombing of Pearl Harbor" before you wrap yourself in the flag on World War II. For generations Americans have been duped into foreign wars and the International Banksters have grown fat. Fortunately, the Paulbots at least for now know this instinctively. I thank God for their zeal and hope that men like you will not crush these little ones with your high sounding rhetoric.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Day_of_deceit.html?id=Q2UKN5daNHYC

When I finished reading this blog, I refreshed myself with the following profundities. Ponder them before you throw another bucket of digital ink on the fire of liberty:

"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater

" So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." - Jesus Christ, Revelation 3:16

Ron Reisterer

P.S. If you are an "advocate for mere Christendom" as you say, then GIVE PEACE A CHANCE - use your considerable talent to support Ron Paul's candidacy while there is still a chance to avoid further war and chaos!

What could be more Pro-Life?
Tammy Burns  Monday, February 20, 2012 1:55 pm
Ron Paul takes the good parts of the Tea party (small government) and the Occupy Wall Street (corporations aren't people and they should not be bailed out) and combines them.
Will S  - SCOTUS - Lost Cause?  Monday, February 20, 2012 2:23 pm
Let me say something on the SCOTUS picks.

The strategy to get strict constructionists on the court and then overturn Roe has been mocked in this chain and elsewhere. It has been noted that Reagan nominated O'Conner and Kennedy and GHW Bush nominated Souter and therefore all republicans cannot be trusted to nominate judges and therefore we should abandon that technique.

There are so many things wrong with this line of reasoning I don't know where to begin.

For one thing, the SCOTUS is important regardless and it needs to be a focus. It affects not only abortion but every other law and reform. The SCOTUS could discover that there is a constitutional right to healthcare next.

For another, it assumes that there is some grand conspiracy of Republicans to pretend to be pro life but not really be. This would an amazing Illuminati style conspiracy. And with this conspiracy comes the fact that Paul is a republican. So if all republicans are in on the conspiracy, so is Paul.

Since Roe, the republicans have nominated 4 strict constructionists and one guy that is not great but at least not a raving liberal (Kennedy). Those five have helped prevent the Democrats from silencing speech and imposing full reign of terror. So.... 4 for 7 (57%)sucks but now think of the democratic appointments Kagen, Sotymeyer, Breyer, Ginsberg. The democrats are 100% accurate on their side. They never fail.

The next president is going to appoint at least one judge (Ginsberg, a 78yr old leftist) and possibly three (add Kennedy 75, and Scalia 75). Do you think that Santorum will do worse than 57%? So, there is a 57% chance that Roe could be overturned in by the next president even if you assume Santorum is just another republican. If Santorum is who he says he is (a hardcore pro lifer running on pro life when it was really uncool to do so) the odds are much much better.

Are you Ron Paul fans convinced that this is a bad strategy? Are you convinced that such an approach is nonsensical? It seems like a logical and straightforward approach with clear path to victory.
GenStop  Monday, February 20, 2012 2:41 pm
Roberts is not a constitutionalist.

Alito MIGHT be. You are giving too much credit to where none can be proven.

The only ones who we know would overturn Roe v Wade is Scalia and Thomas.

Pro-life presidents are 2-4-2 at nominating pro-life Supreme Court judges. That's a known 25% success rate. If you throw in Alito, that's 43%.

Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Stevens are/were pro-choice.

Rehnquist was nominated by a pro-choice president. Rehnqhuist was pro-life.

Then again I voted for Newt.
GenStop  Monday, February 20, 2012 2:51 pm
If Alito is included, it will be 37.5%. Pardon my Washington math
Will S  Monday, February 20, 2012 3:55 pm
Ridiculous.

Alito and Roberts have been in the conservative voting block with Thomas and Scalia on every single vote since they got the nod and they were before. They were approved by every pro life group prior to being nominated. Roberts wife was a member of a pro life group and he attends a very conservative church. He and Alito are both members of the federalist society.....

And you didn't address the second point. If it is a GOP conspiracy and all the repubs are in on it.....so is Paul.
Albert Meyer  Monday, February 20, 2012 3:18 pm

"The next president is going to appoint at least one judge (Ginsberg, a 78yr old leftist) and possibly three (add Kennedy 75, and Scalia 75). Do you think that Santorum will do worse than 57%? So, there is a 57% chance that Roe could be overturned in by the next president even if you assume Santorum is just another republican. If Santorum is who he says he is (a hardcore pro lifer running on pro life when it was really uncool to do so) the odds are much much better."

This is how the GOP Politburo cons Christians. We'll give you this hardcore pro-life guy called Santorum. (By the way, he endorsed Arlen Spector who was running in the primary against a red hot Conservative pro-lifer. Hardcore? Santorum is an opportunist.)

In the debates, Santorum said that we should send our people to Iran to KILL their scientists. Pro-life? Christian? (Count me out. Christianity is just another clandestine arm of the GOP establishment.)

He was asked should the President have the right to assassinate US citizens? "Yes." Prosecutor, judge, jury and EXECUTIONER? Pro-life? Christian? How many innocent women and children (Alwaki's 16 year-old son was vaporized in the process) have been blown apart by our drone attacks? This is pro-life? What am I missing?

George Bush, another pro-life "christian," wanted our country's energy corporations (can you say Halliburton, Exxon; Tony Blair joined in because British Petroleum wanted a stake as well) to have a slice of Iraq's oil reserves. To achieve this, he needed a more complaint ruler in Iraq. So, he "bore false witness" (prohibited by one of the ten commandments, I believe) about WMDs and effected a regime change by means of a brutal war, with Christian pastors here in the US cheering him on. (I know. I made the mistake of going to church one Sunday morning - must have been "stoned" on coffee - and the pastor told us that "We fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here." The congregation cheered. I knew straightaway that the church was just another criminal enterprise. I was civil enough not to stand up and walk out in protest, for which I berate myself to this day.) Santorum told us during a recent debate that he was happy to have voted for the Iraq war. Pro-life? Christian?

Now, pro-life warmonger supremo, Santorum, wants another war and regime change for yet another oil rich country. Santorum is the GOP Politburo's biggest lapdog. How many innocent women and children are going to give up their lives in the pursuit of this venture, for the benefit of our country's war profiteers? (Just Foreign Policy's body count for the Iraq war is 1.4 million). Pro-life? You must be kidding me.

That's why I said in a previous post: Christians believe life starts at conception, but ends at our borders.
Will S  Monday, February 20, 2012 3:58 pm
Hi Albert,

Glad you are a part of the discussion. Did you read this post:

http://www.dougwils.com/Politics/santorum-just-war-and-false-equivalence.html

What are your thoughts on it?
Drew  Monday, February 20, 2012 4:10 pm
Ah yes, the great evangelical criminal syndicate. I'm sure the FBI has extensive files on their soup kitchens and outreach programs. I'm sure that pastor was probably a plant from Haliburton too, sent to sway the mindset of that community into a war so they could use Iraq as a giant ATM for oil.
Andrew Roggow  Monday, February 20, 2012 3:57 pm
As a recovering, mild Paulbot I think a great deal of the problem is a failure to pass on the baton in this relay race. I am completely willing to tow the line for the next several decades on traditional, conservative tatics IF 1) I can be convinced that the tactic in question is the right tactic to use and 2) that the tactic is working or at least has a good chance of working. And it would not hurt any if these two things could be explained in a positive, uplifting, optimistic, inspiring way. Quite frankly a lot of the old gaurd of conservativism is rather stodgy (though the author of this blog is certainly an exception).

For example, as a product of 12 years of home-schooling, I am completely on board with the education thing. And I am all gung-ho about trying to build on that with a classical method. But I am not convinced that the traditional conservative tactics in regard to choosing who we vote for are necessarily all that great. If someone wants to convince me that voting less-of-two-evils is ALWAYS the right way to go, then please go ahead and convince me. But please do not just assume that "everybody knows" that this is how we do it around here and give me weird looks when I question "the realities of politics".

The abortion issue is a great example. If continuing to try to undo Roe v Wade via court appointments is the best tactic, then by all means let's do that. But if the best tactic is to clobber the funding for it, as David C. Moody suggests, then let's make that the primary goal. The movie Amazing Grace shows how Wilberforce used an interesting tactic to decimate the slave trade via a back door since the front door was so well gaurded. Perhaps it is time to switch tactics in the abortion arena for a similar reason. My point here is that if someone wants me to keep voting for the pres who will give us the best court nominations, they are going to have to convince me to do that. Until then, all the options are on the table.

As an avid blogger Pastor Wilson certainly has done an excellent job defending his positions, but much of the rest of the old gaurd has not.
Tammy Burns  Monday, February 20, 2012 4:05 pm
"One of the reasons I like Santorum is that he generates the right kind of hatred from the usual suspects." Did Jesus generate the right kind of hatred from the usual suspects? The religious and political leaders didn't like Jesus. The common people did.
Tom Thistleton  Monday, February 20, 2012 4:42 pm
First, as a strong supporter of Ron Paul, who can't see how he could ever bring himself to vote for Rick Santorum, I want to say that I have a tremendous amount of respect for Doug. He's been clear that he agrees with Ron Paul on many topics and could vote for him. I think his warnings about the "true believer" syndrome are right on. That said, I can also understand some of the "true believer" phenomenon as it has been so rare in American politics to find someone who truly believes in something and stands up for it, no matter the opposition.

Secomd, the idea that the primary driving factor in choosing a President is being able to nominate the right Supreme Court Justice nominee seems incredibly narrow to me. I would never want to minimize the importance of the pro-life cause and agree with Doug's previous post that there is not a moral equivalence between abortion and promoting un-Constitutional foreign wars, but there are many very important issues facing our country.

I really wonder how much difference there'd be between a Supreme Court nominee from Santorum and a nominee from Paul. I'd think very little.

From my perspective, the overarching issue is Paul's allegiance to the constitution which flows from his understanding of republican government. His default position when asked a question is to defer to the enumerated powers in the constitution. I don't see this from any one else. So, even if they believe in a smaller government than the status quo, they don't have the systemic understanding of our system of government which is so necessary to make structural, long-term changes to our current system.

As I said on another thread, I don't think Ron Paul will win (I don't think Santorum will either), but the "movement" he's leading has much more long term potential for change in America than anything the other three bring to the table.

Will S  - Cult Defines Culture  Monday, February 20, 2012 4:35 pm
One more thing that we should all remember is that our politics reflect culture they do not define it. Abortion, homosexuality, and fiscal sins are the outworkings of a nation that bows to false gods. The best way to change a culture is not through politics but through gospel. Cult defines culture.

The best way to end abortion, end the homosexual silliness, and end the fiscal madness is to have 15 kids and homeschool them all. Part of that homeschool better include a clear explanation as to the evils of abortion and etc. Couple that with reaching out, planting new Reformed churches, and being faithful in our witness and this world would change quickly and wonderfully.
Albert Meyer  Monday, February 20, 2012 4:43 pm
"Drew Monday, February 20, 2012 4:10 pm
Ah yes, the great evangelical criminal syndicate. I'm sure the FBI has extensive files on their soup kitchens and outreach programs. I'm sure that pastor was probably a plant from Haliburton too, sent to sway the mindset of that community into a war so they could use Iraq as a giant ATM for oil."

That's not what I wrote. That's your own straw man and evidence of moral bankruptcy.

As a Christian, and no doubt a pro-lifer, defend the Iraq war. Defend the President's assassination of US citizens, and the killings by drone attacks of all the other innocent people in far away countries, regardless of their creed or citizenship. Defend Santorum's call for us to assassinate Iranian scientists. Defend the 150 evangelical leaders (who endorsed Santorum), who stood by in silence while innocent men and women were dying by their thousands in Iraq, because George Bush and his oily friends with their commercial interests held sway. Forget about straw men. Make the Christian case for war against a nation that has done us no harm. Make sure you include references to: do not repay evil with evil. Love your enemies. Do not bare false witness. Do good to those who despitefully use you. Bless those who curse you and blessed are the peacemakers.

Silence is acquiescence.
Julius Amman  - Sometimes the common people are Useful Idiots...  Monday, February 20, 2012 5:08 pm
Tammy Burns wrote:
The religious and political leaders didn't like Jesus. The common people did.

Dear Tammy,

Sometimes they (the common people) did. But when push came to shove you will find them among the crowd chanting (right along with the political and religious leaders) "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!"

Gently,

Julius
Albert Meyer  Monday, February 20, 2012 5:30 pm
Thanks for the link, Will S. (comment above)

Douglas Wilson wrote: "Let me set this alongside a comparable moral failing -- the refusal to acknowledge a distinction between a deliberate targeting of civilians (as when Hamas blows up a pizza joint full of teenagers) and when one of our units targets combatants who place themselves in close proximity to civilians, so that the civilians might get caught in the crossfire. If the rules of engagement instruct our troops to do whatever is possible to protect the lives of such civilians, then this is completely different from the first scenario. These are two military actions which result in the deaths of civilians, but they nevertheless occupy two different moral universes."

A refusal to recognize the said distinction, is not a moral failing (highly inappropriate wording; rational failure or failure of logic), but rather an acknowledgement that when we repay evil with evil, we have become like our enemies, Christian jihadists. When we hate our enemies. When we clamor for war, instead of seeking a peaceful resolution with a country that has 600 churches and a few radical leaders, but has no hope in Hades ever to every do us any harm, neither wants to do us harm. Curse those who curse you is the Christian jihadist response.

First, Hamas has a problem with Israel, not the US, but it always convenient to try and bring Israel into the argument to "sanctify" it. There are Jews in Israel, with a similar group in California (one member in particular whose niece was blown up in a Pizza joint), who actually believe that the Palestinians have a just cause. Search You Tube "Jewish Man Exposes Israel's Lies." Hamas bombs blow up pizza joints. Israeli bombs, in retaliation, blow up city blocks.

"... our units targets combatants who place themselves in close proximity to civilians..." Are these Iraqi's who are defending their country against a foreign invader? Christians, for the sake of morality, have to take the side of the foreign invader to ensure that they are not branded unpatriotic? That's what Joseph Goebells, the Third Reich's Minister of Propaganda argued. I'm paraphrasing, "We can get away with anything as long as those who oppose us are branded traitors and unpatriotic." Dietrich Bonhoeffer a Lutheran minister had no problem opposing Hitler's war. He paid for it with his life. We have no Bonhoeffers in the the US - just the opposite.

George Bush learned the lesson well: CNN.com - "You are either with us or against us" - November 6, 2001 -"President Bush said Tuesday that there was no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism." Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but no clergy was going to stand up and contradict the President.

"If the rules of engagement instruct our troops to do whatever is possible to protect the lives of such civilians..." Why take our troops into that arena in the first place. Someone, make a good moral argument for such action, that caused the deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis (Just Foreign Policy's website). Christians (and this article you referenced) always question this number when I debate them, as if the loss of one hundred thousand innocent lives is better than 1.4 million. How about offering us an abortion quota of 100,000 every ten years. You wouldn't dream of that (and neither would I), but 100,000 deaths in Iraq are OK. For what? For the sin of living in a country with rich oil reserves?

I liked this response in the linked article:

C. Frank Bernard - caught in the crossfire? Sunday, February 19, 2012 12:29 am Quote:
"Let me set this alongside a comparable moral failing... so that the civilians might get caught in the crossfire." (same one I quoted earlier - Frank Bernard and I are both morally bankrupt)

"Does crossfire include bombs? For example, can the "High Explosive Anti-Tank" and "Metal augmented charge" warheads of a UAV's Hellfire missiles be exclusive enough to cause serious bodily injury only to intended targets when "in close proximity to civilians"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

"As bombing becomes an increasingly accepted rule of engagement (jus in bello) in closer and closer proximity of civilians (or as the bombs do more widespread damage), the targeting of civilians becomes deliberate."

Our drones with their Hellfire missiles are killing thousands of innocent Muslims every year. This is how you encourage terrorism, not fight it. This is how you turn 1.2 billion Muslims against your Gospel. If there is any sense in this kind of Christianity, I'm at a total loss, but I do find sense in: Blessed are the peacemakers. Do not repay evil with evil and bless those who curse you. The Jesus way. The Ron Paul way.
Albert Meyer  Monday, February 20, 2012 5:34 pm
Thanks for the link, Will S. (comment above)

Douglas Wilson wrote: "Let me set this alongside a comparable moral failing -- the refusal to acknowledge a distinction between a deliberate targeting of civilians (as when Hamas blows up a pizza joint full of teenagers) and when one of our units targets combatants who place themselves in close proximity to civilians, so that the civilians might get caught in the crossfire. If the rules of engagement instruct our troops to do whatever is possible to protect the lives of such civilians, then this is completely different from the first scenario. These are two military actions which result in the deaths of civilians, but they nevertheless occupy two different moral universes."

A refusal to recognize the said distinction, is not a moral failing (highly inappropriate wording; rational failure or failure of logic), but rather an acknowledgement that when we repay evil with evil, we have become like our enemies, Christian jihadists... When we hate our enemies. When we clamor for war, instead of seeking a peaceful resolution with a country that has 600 churches and a few radical leaders, but has no hope in Hades ever to do us any harm, neither wants to do us harm. Curse those who curse you is the Christian jihadist response.

First, Hamas has a problem with Israel, not the US, but it is always convenient to bring Israel into the argument to "sanctify" it. There are Jews in Israel, with a similar group in California (one member in particular whose niece was blown up in a Pizza joint), who actually believe that the Palestinians have a just cause. Search You Tube "Jewish Man Exposes Israel's Lies." Hamas bombs blow up pizza joints. Israeli bombs, in retaliation, blow up city blocks.

"... our units targets combatants who place themselves in close proximity to civilians..." Are these Iraqi's who are defending their country against a foreign invader? Christians, for the sake of morality, have to take the side of the foreign invader to ensure that they are not branded unpatriotic? That's what Joseph Goebells, the Third Reich's Minister of Propaganda argued. I'm paraphrasing, "We can get away with anything as long as those who oppose us are branded traitors and unpatriotic." Dietrich Bonhoeffer a Lutheran minister had no problem opposing Hitler's war. He paid for it with his life. We have no Bonhoeffers in the the US - just the opposite.

George Bush learned the lesson well: CNN.com - "You are either with us or against us" - November 6, 2001 -"President Bush said Tuesday that there was no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism." Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but no clergy was going to stand up and contradict the President.

"If the rules of engagement instruct our troops to do whatever is possible to protect the lives of such civilians..." Why take our troops into that arena in the first place. Someone, make a good moral argument for such action, that caused the deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis (Just Foreign Policy's website). Christians (and this article you referenced) always question this number when I debate them, as if the loss of one hundred thousand innocent lives is better than 1.4 million. How about offering us an abortion quota of 100,000 every ten years. You wouldn't dream of that (and neither would I), but 100,000 deaths in Iraq are OK. For what? For the sin of living in a country with rich oil reserves?

I liked this response in the linked article:

C. Frank Bernard - caught in the crossfire? Sunday, February 19, 2012 12:29 am Quote:
"Let me set this alongside a comparable moral failing... so that the civilians might get caught in the crossfire." (same one I quoted earlier - Frank Bernard and I are both morally bankrupt)

"Does crossfire include bombs? For example, can the "High Explosive Anti-Tank" and "Metal augmented charge" warheads of a UAV's Hellfire missiles be exclusive enough to cause serious bodily injury only to intended targets when "in close proximity to civilians"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

"As bombing becomes an increasingly accepted rule of engagement (jus in bello) in closer and closer proximity of civilians (or as the bombs do more widespread damage), the targeting of civilians becomes deliberate."

Our drones with their Hellfire missiles are killing thousands of innocent Muslims every year. This is how you encourage terrorism, not fight it. This is how you turn 1.2 billion Muslims against your Gospel. If there is any sense in this kind of Christianity, I'm at a total loss, but I do find sense in: Blessed are the peacemakers. Do not repay evil with evil and bless those who curse you. The Jesus way. The Ron Paul way.
Tom Thistleton  Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:20 am
This is the stalwart pro-life guy ... boasting about funding Planned Parenthood and other organizatons so they can distribute contraceptives ???

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1456869706001/
Ron Smith  Tuesday, February 21, 2012 12:27 pm
I like this one better :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgNJBdTaKE8&feature=player_embedded
jay niemeyer  Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:39 am
Those who fret about the term 'Paulbot' need to pay attention to the target of that nomenclature, mmmkay?

As for the frenzied horror of Santorum's 'drum beat for war with Iran", I'd like you all to remember what sort of ideology - and the consequences thereof - that spring from that fount.
The fact that suicide bombing is a glorious reality in their view should give one pause if the possibility of a Super Suicide Bomb presents itself to an Islamist leadership.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291492/nuclear-realities-victor-davis-hanson

Maybe Santorum is wrong about means.
But he ain't an evil warmonger because he wants to take preventative actions using what was often effectual Cold War tactics, etc.
Peter Roise  - Suicide Terrorism  Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:52 am
jay niemeyer wrote:
Those who fret about the term 'Paulbot' need to pay attention to the target of that nomenclature, mmmkay?

As for the frenzied horror of Santorum's 'drum beat for war with Iran", I'd like you all to remember what sort of ideology - and the consequences thereof - that spring from that fount.
The fact that suicide bombing is a glorious reality in their view should give one pause if the possibility of a Super Suicide Bomb presents itself to an Islamist leadership.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291492/nuclear-realities-victor-davis-hanson

Maybe Santorum is wrong about means.
But he ain't an evil warmonger because he wants to take preventative actions using what was often effectual Cold War tactics, etc.


The facts just don't support this popularly propagated idea that suicide terrorism is a result of Islamic fundamentalism.

Robert Pape is has done the most comprehensive research on suicide terrorism. Here he is talking about his work.

Part 1: http://youtu.be/X4HnIyClHEM
Part 2: http://youtu.be/XwODYq63ku0
Part 3: http://youtu.be/jPhDVigmGQ4
Part 4: http://youtu.be/VD7hdRcapYM
jeremiah black  Tuesday, February 21, 2012 3:49 pm
I suppose us Paul supporters have a certain frustration with what could broadly be described as "the Evangelical Right", and that frustration stems from the fact that all rational Christian discernment seems to go out the window in the presence of that giddy, warm feeling you get inside when your hear someone on TV actually bashing homosexuality and abortion for a change. Yes, it seems a politician can be (a) a proven liar (b) a proven hypocrite (c)corrupt to the bone (d) practically a Marxist in terms of their beliefs on the proper role of the federal government (e) shockingly indifferent to mass human life being killed provided those lives were not on American soil and (f) a trillion dollar thief, but my oh my that same person can make normally rational Christians like Doug Wilson simply swoon with delight by simply tossing out a few shop-worn indignities over our nation's moral degeneracy. Nevermind, that our nation's blood lust and war-mongering are also at the TOP of our current Godless degeneracies. Nevermind that the same sinful spirit which animates the abortionist is also at the heart of the thief who conducts multi-trillion dollar transfers of wealth from the honest workers to the government and corporate interests. (At least pro-choicers mostly keep to merely destroying their own children's futures). Nope, our current Christians would vote for Stalin if Stalin had the cunning to simply throw around the word faggot on Meet the Press. "Hey, say what you will about Uncle Joe, but he's just great on family values, and boy he sure upsets the right people! Yuk yuk yuk."

It's all a ruse, of course. No one, if thinking rationally, would ever expect homosexuality or any other sin to be any LESS publicly accepted four years from now no matter who is president. It also strains credulity to even take a man like Santorum at his word regarding his opposition to abortion since he lies about so many other things, especially given his glowing past endorsement of rabidly pro-choice candidates like Arlen Spector. And why take the word of a man who spent 20 years stealing your money and giving it to both NEAs (the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Education Association) and now tries to lie about it, anyway? Why take the word of a man who's never had an honest job, but has instead made multiple millions as a lobbyist for most of his life? And of course, it never occurs to anyone to ask "what does the job of the president entail?". For, seeing as how it largely involves commanding the troops, executing existing laws, vetoing and approving how our budget is spent- one might rationally think that an applicant for the position should be strongly Christian in THESE areas. But noooo. We like Santorum, who is profoundly unchristian in every area that's actually relevant to the jurisdiction of the presidency, and "Christian" in every area that's not. It's the equivalent of hiring a plummer who horrible at that whole "fixing pipes" thing and also steals your wife's jewelery from your bedroom when you're not looking, but my gosh, you should just hear him go off about birth control! He's got six kids! Please....

I guess this is why the Ron Paul supporters come off as pushy to you. Because they are simply jaw-droppingly incredulous that you can fall for such transparent foolery. It's as if you posted a weekly column full of breathless excitement about that Nigerian prince you recently got an email from who's gonna get you millions. Really, dad? You're actually falling for this? The man I admire who taught me everything I know?

And spare us kids the lectures on growing up through the cold war, and knowing what the face of evil REALLY looks like, and it sure ain't red, white, and blue, son. We're the ones (last time I checked) who were in covenant with God. We can't go pointing fingers, like the Israelites of old, at how wicked our much worse pagan neighbors as some sort of defense. And anyway, the last I checked, the terrorists killed 3500 people about a mile from my apartment here in NYC on 9/11. Yeah, let's compare that number with how many foreigners and unborn babies we've unjustly killed since then. I'm sorry, who were the bad guys in this narrative again? The fact that we profess Christ with our lips makes it WORSE, not better.

Santorum's "Christian" shtick is based around pointing fingers at the wickedness of the other horrible people around us and directing blame and anger at them in our unquestioned righteous superiority. Of course, the category of "the wicked" is conspicuously selective. Muslims and homos are in. The for-profit war-machine and criminal banking cartels are somehow out, presumably, one can assume, because they prefer to screw you clothed.

Ron Paul's shtick, however, is much more spiritually attractive to me because it largely involves contemplating our own part in America's misfortune, examination of our own sins both present and past- foreign and domestic, recognition that we cannot claim to be the righteous with any credibility right now, realization that we can't actually claim much superiority over "those evil pagans" across the globe or "those evil liberals" across the street these days, and moving forward in humble repentance and changed ways because it is simply right, and not because it flatters our sense of exceptionalism.

I prefer we start with humble repentance before moving on to righteous superiority. But sadly, that's not what sells to the Christians these days. Nevertheless, it's time to face facts that our nation will ultimately be judged because of her arrogant church, not her godless enemies. But we don't like that story any more than ancient Israel did. But hey, what do I know, right? I'm just a Paulbot.
Eric Stampher  - What he said, with kisses  Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:36 pm
JB,

Fantastic reply. Though maybe leaves a bit too bitter of an aftertaste. Rest assured, though, DW and some of us will ponder for good.
jeremiah black  Tuesday, February 21, 2012 5:43 pm
Sorry for the tone, Eric. I live in New York and so possess many limitations. For what it's worth, I'm actually considered the nice one from amongst my friends at church.
Tammy Burns  Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:48 pm
Perhaps if Santorum had been a soldier in one of the wars he would be opposed to the wars. Perhaps if Paul had had a daughter whose husband ran off, he would be for the state protecting marriage. Sometimes our views are affected by our life experiences.
jeremiah black  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 5:24 am
I agree. Sometimes when I listen to Santorum, I get the feeling his opposition to abortion is not so much from his commitment to life (he's creepily bloodthirsty and unchristian when the subject of war comes up), but rather from the fact that his wife used to live for years in fornicating sin with a wealthy abortion doctor 40 years her senior before she and Rick hooked up. During that time, she doubtlessly either had abortions or was on birth control or both. No judgments on my part- any sin committed is long "under the blood" at this point as we Christians say, but the whole affair no doubt stuck in Rick's gut a bit. No man really likes his wife's ex-boyfriend too much- even less when they lived together in fornication for 6 years- even less when he was a wealthy babykiller who used his baby killing money to shower your wife with expensive gifts that you couldn't. And then add to that that the only reason they even spit up wasn't because of any moral considerations or loss of affection on her part, but simply because she wanted kids, and he already had some and didn't want any more. And so she then immediately married the next guy she met who wanted kids, too. Yeah, that's a recipe for some serious baggage, man.

Rick comes off as a guy motivated not by the Spirit, but by a lot of angry, personal vendettas that he's convinced himself are holy crusades. How else can you explain a guy who's average day consists of (a) making millions as the #1 lobbyist friendly politician in congress (b) voting to get Americans in trillions of debt for his own political gain (c) cheer-leading the killing of foreigners in unjust wars (d) sucking up to unbelieving, anti-Christian Israel (e) telling bald-face lies about your own record and the record of your political opponents (f) expanding the authority of civil government to nearly every conceivable area of human endeavor (g) taking vast amounts of taxpayer money for his own family through false residency claims, and then (h) giving a big speech about how immoral society has become and how birth control and homosexuality are so awful.

Santorum lives in a creepy world of total Christian disconnect that we should all run far away from. Ron Paul may not fully understand biblical thinking and be far, far too into his abstract libertarian analysis of everything, but at least he's a Protestant Christian who's demonstrated perfectly consistent Christian behavior for a few decades now (mark this) as it relates to the temptations and trials of public office, and who attempts to apply his Christian views to economic issues, monetary policy, tax (or lack thereof) policy, domestic freedoms, the proper role of federal government in matters, and military concerns (which are FAR more relevant to the office of the presidency) rather than to merely personal sexual behaviors. Santorum's bizarre little god lives ONLY in the bedroom, it seems, and doesn't rule over or care about anything else, including the ethical behavior and the oath of office of his supposed advocates.

Not my King Jesus, thanks.
Michael C  - ideologies and identity politics  Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:42 pm
Doug, do I understand you correctly to be criticizing ideology? I've come across this same antagonism in both conservative and liberal political discourse. Without explication, I'm not sure I understand it.

Can't anyone who analyzes ideas from a consistent worldview or demonstrates a commitment to certain foundational principles be labeled an ideologue? To me, having a biblical frame of reference--let alone beliefs about property rights, trade, and currency--seems to require what could justly be labeled an ideology.

As a reluctant Ron Paul supporter myself, your last point certainly gave me food for thought. I like to think that a commendable aversion to the corruption and duplicity of the Republican Party has driven many of us into the Paul camp. Even if that is the case, I can see that there could be a temptation to hide behind RP's stick-it-to-the-Man independence.

I also want to comment on an opposite trend I see. Many politically active Christians seem to work to purposefully marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters. You are about the only visible evangelical pastor who dares to speak a positive word about him. For the sake of unity in my church, I've kept my support of RP quiet on social media. From this vantage point it's even more frustrating to see other Christians implying that RP is a clueless loon.
Michael C  - ideologies and identity politics  Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:43 pm
Doug, do I understand you correctly to be criticizing ideology? I've come across this same antagonism in both conservative and liberal political discourse. Without explication, I'm not sure I see it.

Can't anyone who analyzes ideas from a consistent worldview or demonstrates a commitment to certain foundational principles be labeled an ideologue? To me, having a biblical frame of reference--let alone beliefs about property rights, trade, and currency--seems to require what could justly be labeled an ideology.

As a reluctant Ron Paul supporter myself, your last point certainly gave me food for thought. I like to think that a commendable aversion to the corruption and duplicity of the Republican Party has driven many of us into the Paul camp. Even if that is the case, I can see that there could be a temptation to hide behind RP's stick-it-to-the-Man independence.

I also want to comment on an opposite trend I see. Many politically active Christians seem to work to purposefully marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters. You are about the only visible evangelical pastor who dares to speak a positive word about him. For the sake of unity in my church, I've kept my support of RP quiet on social media. From this vantage point it's even more frustrating to see other Christians implying that RP is a clueless loon.
jeremiah black  - re: ideologies and identity politics  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:19 am
Michael C wrote:


I also want to comment on an opposite trend I see. Many politically active Christians seem to work to purposefully marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters. You are about the only visible evangelical pastor who dares to speak a positive word about him. For the sake of unity in my church, I've kept my support of RP quiet on social media. From this vantage point it's even more frustrating to see other Christians implying that RP is a clueless loon.


I have noticed this, as well. It's one thing to disagree with Ron Paul (as I do on several things), but I've seen more Christians spread more lies and slander about him than Barak Obama. David Bahnsen comes to mind as someone who has (for the nonce, anyway) utterly destroyed his own Christian credibility due to how far off the deep end he's gone in falsely slandering Ron Paul and frothing at the mouth over him.

I believe the reason is because Ron Paul challenges two false idols that have become very important to christian conservatives. Notice I didn't say "two false doctrines" or "two false beliefs" I said "two false idols". Doctrines can, to an extant, be rationally argued if all parties agree on underlying principles. Infant baptism or adult baptism? Well, we Presbyterians could argue that out with our Baptist friends with interesting and productive points made on both sides. But, idols are due reverence; they not simply intellectually approved of, and so to butt up against one is to be greeted with howls of anger against your impudent blasphemy. You are not simply mistaken, you are under the spell of sin and your spirit perverted. The two idols I'm speaking of are (a) the Republican party and (b) the US military. And Ron Paul (quite correctly) doesn't pay much undue reverence to either.

To be sure, Paul is a veteran who likes the military well enough, and they (judging by political contributions) definitely like him back more than the other candidates. And he runs as a Republican and speaks highly of its heroes such as Robert Taft and early Reagan. But Paul constantly judges and criticizes both against higher principles; he doesn't make the institutions unanswerable principles in themselves. The GOP is regarded as merely a private club which has tended to pursure its own interests at the expense of the country and which fails more often than not to live up to its own ostensible raison d'être. And the US military is regarded as largely just another government program, and, as such, comes under his constant criticism for its vast expense, failed missions, backfiring results, unlawful practices, grand utopian promises, false advertising, destruction of families, economic distortions, and tendency to divert trillions of dollars of our wealth to the connected few.

Doug Wilson left the GOP train wreck (back when I was still probably in grammar school) for somewhat similar reasons as Paul did, and so is largely immune to the branding of Ron Paul as a modern day Servetus to his Calvin. And seeing as how Paul gets more military support than all the other GOP candidates combined, I imagine that our soldiers know all too well of the costly military misadventures of which Paul speaks.

But the typical middle-aged Christian conservative has had a lifetime of the GOP advertising itself as THE de facto choice of Christians (Caucasian ones, anyway) and all the wars of the US military being THE unquestioned guarantor of the freedoms we enjoy. And, the uncomfortable fact that we no longer actually enjoy most of those boasted freedoms that were supposedly so successfully defended for us can be always blamed on the godless Democrats. And because the Democrats are so openly hostile to the Bible and Christianity, the partisan blame game can be successfully played.

After all, it was the anorexic theologian Ann Coulter who boldly declared, "God is a Republican." Yikes! And it's been every GOP candidate throughout my lifetime, except Paul, who's boldly declared that our military is "fighting for our freedoms", again ignoring the fact that, going back to Lincoln, our greatest loss of constitutional freedoms have always occurred in wartime.

There is also a third consideration to be discussed- that of national idolatry. That America was blessed by God, faithful to Him and found unique favor and blessing with Him is, in my opinion, unquestionable historical fact. However, the "exceptionalism" in American exceptionalism has to do with the exceptionalism of Christ Jesus and the power and blessing that flows from obedience to His perfect Word, not the American state, per se. It our pledge to the Bible, not the flag, that is the source of our light to this world.

But sold on a patriotism primarily nationalistic and worldly in character, most Christian conservatives see America itself as somehow synonymous with the King of all Nations, even forgetting that even if we WERE the king of all nations, it would be even MORE our duty to lovingly serve those around us rather than bully them, even to the point of sacrificing our own material well being for the good of our "inferiors". (The irony that our murderously savage "inferiors" seem to have murdered 50 million less babies than we have is an irony for another post.)

Why do I love Jesus? Because He first loved me. He sacrificed Himself on the cross for me even though I hated Him at every turn and still do in my weaker moments. But His love never ceases even though mine does daily. Even though I don't deserve it, His patience and faithfulness are greater than my hateful opposition to Him; He smothers my rebellion with his Love, and He will not stop until the work is completed. Oh, what a King! Let's start a foreign policy towards the world with THAT written on our flags. Weapons of mass destruction, indeed.
Eric Stampher  - Jeremiad  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:21 am
What spokesfolks can good-hearted, normal Americans lean on?

Rush, Hewitt, Beck, Hannity, Breitbart, Prager, etc -- all are first and foremost bowing to the flag totem, then following GOP'ers in as much as will promote it.

Is it me, or are our pulpits wastelands?
jeremiah black  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:41 am
Yes, Rush, Hewitt, Beck, Hannity, Breitbart, Prager, etc.- all bow to the flag-wrapped GOP totem, as you say. There's nary a biblically Christian position in the whole bunch, though they're not above using the standard superficial "Judeo-Christian" rhetoric on occasion. Mark Levin doesn't even do that much, but, of course, his totem is the state of Israel.

I don't know any Christian spokesfolks to listen to in this regard. I sure would like to, though. I guess I do what you do to try and make sense of it all- piece things together from writings of various solid Christians and the Bible. I consider Wilson a honest Christian with a heart for Christ first, so I like coming here and reading. But mostly, I guess, my thoughts are my own.

And I've never sat through a sermon on this, either. But I've sat through a few "hurrah for war and for Israel" sermons in my time and even a "Romans 13 means to always obey Uncle Sam" sermon. Most pastors I've mentioned these issue to look at me like I have two heads.

Of course, I'm from NYC, so most of the time, I feel lucky to simply know any Christians at all.
Devin Mork  - You're Not Fundy Enough  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:07 pm
If you don't mind up giving up smoking, dancing, and drinking, there's Chuck Baldwin: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/

David Barton and Gary DeMar might also be worth looking up. But I haven't found any evangelical pundits to subscribe to.
jeremiah black  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:46 pm
Yeah, I know Chuck Baldwin. He's a darn good guy and well worth a read. I don't agree with everything, but (a) at least he tries to argue from a solely Christian standpoint and (b) who said I knew everything anyway? But I'm not ready to give up on my smoking, drinking, and dancing just yet. In fact, I'm doing all three simultaneously as I type this right now which, as anyone will tell you, takes some serious dedication to the Reformed cause. Did we learn nothing from Footloose?
Albert Meyer  - Jeremiah Black  Thursday, February 23, 2012 5:23 pm
JB, I have to express my admiration for your proclamation of the truth. Now if only we had straight shooters like you in our pulpits, souls like myself might be saved.

I'm currently reading the biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas. I'm only on the tenth chapter but the parallels between the German Church at that time, their acquiescence of Hitler's Gleischaltung policy and all that went with it, and so-called evangelical leaders in the US today are startling. Bonhoeffer spoke out forcefully, while his fellow clergy "gave Herman Goring's speech (at their convention) great acclaim."

That was after Hitler's Enabling Act (our version = Patriot Act) and "Restoration of the Civil Service Act," that contained the infamous "Aryan Paragraph." The church leaders were glad that they could trust the Nazis "to stand up and defeat the godless and degenerate forces of Bolshevism." Today, it is Islam, not Bolshevism, other than that, nothing has changed.

Bonhoeffer argued that the German church has an obligation to "bring the Messiah of the Jews to the Jewish people who did not yet know him. If Hitler's laws were adopted, this would be impossible." Today, the Christian Zionist cult that has infiltrated the church does not consider it an obligation to bring the Gospel to 1.2 billion Muslims. Their blind devotion to Israel, worship of neo-conservatism and support for the Bush/Cheny oil wars have made it impossible for them to reach the Muslim world. Go into all the world and preach the gospel, but don't worry about the Muslims if the divine commission clashes with your political convictions.
Steven Hoffer  Friday, March 02, 2012 5:59 am
Hi Doug!

I'm a long time reader of your blog. I saw this on the Aquila report the other day and wondered if you had seen it? http://bit.ly/xPCpNx Since the writer specifically engages you and some of your comments regarding Rick Santorum I am interested in your response.

Best Regards,

Steven
David Kincaid  Tuesday, March 06, 2012 2:19 pm
I realize this comment is belated but I just came across this discussion. What disturbs so many of us about Ron Paul is the underlying radical libertarian framework that animates his maverick campaign. He has variously been described by followers as a "godly statesman," "conservative Christian," etc. But a closer look reveals his philosophical hero to be none other than the godless Murray Rothbard. Paul has publicly mentioned Andrew Napolitano as a potential VP pick. Napolitano is a fierce libertarian who has openly mocked Christian conservatives and has attempted to make constitutional arguments in support gay rights. Ron Paul has also received favorable ratings from the ACLU. If Napolitano and the ACLU are ideological fellow travelers with Ron Paul, that should cause some very serious concern.
Albert Meyer  Tuesday, March 06, 2012 3:50 pm
What's Christian conservatism got to do with it? This is not a theocracy.

Christian conservatism gave us George Bush. George Bush lied and invaded Iraq, a country he had earmarked for regime change long before 9/11 so that his buddies in the oil industry and military-industrial complex could reap the rewards.

Don't believe me. Let the generals at the Pentagon give it to you first hand. Google You Tube DOD: 'We're Taking Down Seven Countries in Five Years'

Before Hitler invaded Poland, he faked an attack of Polish soldiers (German soldiers in Polish uniforms) on German border guards. This is what he said, "I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war; never mind whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth." (Bonhoefer, Eric Mataxas, page 347 - a good read, especially for a Christian conservative with an open mind.) Sounds familiar. No better propaganda than mythical WMDs.

Just Foreign Policy's website puts the death toll in Iraq at 1.4 million. Let's just make it 140,00 innocent men, women and children who died for the sin of living in an oil rich country. You can't make this up, but pro-life Christian conservatives applauded Bush and now want a repeat of the slaughter in Iran. God save us from Christian conservatives.

This is how Christian conservatives are defined: They believe life starts at conception and ends out our borders. What an indictment of Christian conservatives, hardly qualifies them to criticize libertarians.

Ron Paul does not pander to the religious right. He just lives the beatitudes. He cannot be faulted on his record or his moral life, yet he humbly dismisses himself and always redirects one's attention to the Constitution.

He has a 100% Constitutional voting record. You don't have a problem with libertarianism. You have a problem with the Constitution. You don't have a problem with Napolitano. You have a problem with the Constitution.

Instead of making accusations like "radical libertarian framework" and "maverick campaign," why don't you list a few of the radical ideas (Make sure they contradict the Constitution, otherwise they are not radical). Why don't you explain what is so maverick about his campaign? The fact that his top contributors are from the military, instead of Wall Street bankers? The fact he gets his donations from hundreds of thousands of supporters at an average donation size of $63? The fact that 4,180 students at Michigan State gave him a standing ovation, when Romney could barely gather a crowd of 300? (Did you see it on TV? Of course not. The media's purpose is to dupe you.)

"He has variously been described by followers as a "godly statesman," "conservative Christian," etc." I don't know how you define godly, but if honesty, integrity and self-effacement are characteristics of a godly man then how can you take umbrage? Ron Paul has the most conservative voting record in Congress going back to the 1920s, according to those who rate him. Find one vote that contradicts his conservatism, just one.

"But a closer look reveals his philosophical hero to be none other than the godless Murray Rothbard."

Oh, how judgmental. Judge not that you not be judge. I love these Christian conservatives, whited sepulchers. Murray Rothbartyh was an economist. So, if someone is Jewish, he is godless and one must not associate with him. If someone is an atheist, one must not recognize his inherent skills, intellect and personal qualities?

Santorum said that many of "my friends are gay." Uh, uh... Santorum endorsed Arlen Specter, first during his presidential run, sitting on the stage right behind him when Specter held a press conference and berated those in the Republican Party who want to strip a woman of her right to choose. Then he endorsed Specter in his senate race against a pro-life conservative candidate. I guess you voted for Santorum. Santorum is the quintessential Christian conservative. How our standards have evaporated.

"Napolitano is a fierce libertarian who has openly mocked Christian conservatives..." Napolitano is a devout Catholic. Search his website at Fox and watch the clip of his Christmas message in 2011. It was profound. You have obviously lent your ears out to some gossip. I have no time for Christian conservatives, as you see from what I have already written. Mark Levin has no time for Ron Paul. Each to his own. Don't be so sensitive.

"... and has attempted to make constitutional arguments in support gay rights." No, he has not. He merely says what Ron Paul says. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the right to legislate on the issue marriage. It is a matter for the church, or perhaps a state issue, but preferable not even a state issue. Who cares what people want to do in their bedrooms? For some of us, the whole idea is dumbfounding, but I'm not going to judge anyone. I don't understand it, but I certainly don't want the Federal government to interfere with arrangements that partners of whatever sex want to make between themselves. Newt Gingrich is a Christian conservative. He practiced a form of pre-1900's Mormonism, without caring about membership. I'd say Christian conservatives are hypocrites who want to order other peoples lives, but make allowances and exceptions for those who talk their talk.

"Ron Paul has also received favorable ratings from the ACLU.' Good heavens! What's wrong with that? Ron Paul cares about our civil liberties as enshrined in the Constitution. You see, you have a problem with the Constitution. Christian conservatives have allowed fear of a couple dozen goat herders in the Middle East to cause them to surrender their 4th and 5th Amendments rights. Ron Paul will have none of that. The American CIVIL LIBERTIES honor him. The ACLU fought the McCain-Feingold bill on behalf of a pro-life group in Chicago, not that you would know that because you have been brainwashed by the radio talkshow hosts.

"If Napolitano and the ACLU are ideological fellow travelers with Ron Paul, that should cause some very serious concern." If people who respect and revere the Constitution are associated with Ron Paul, then he must be a bad egg. Is this the best that Christian conservative have to offer? How about asking God's forgiveness for the slaughter of the innocent in Iraq?

Do not repay evil with evil. Love your enemies. Bless those who curse you. Do good to those who hate you. Blessed are the peacemakers. Do not bear false witness. Ron Paul's platform. Jesus endorsed Ron Paul. That trumps Donald Trump.