Just Learn Yer Lesson, Woodja?

Written by Douglas Wilson

Sunday, 11 November 2012 21:19

Since Reagan, the GOP nominees have been Bush I (88), [Bush I] (92), [Dole] (96), Bush II (00), Bush II (04), [McCain] (08), and [Romney] (12). And yet I feel the takeaway lesson from this last election (that many will urge upon us) is that the GOP has to stop nominating so many far right radicals.

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

Mitch Turner - Not gonna change.

Monday, November 12, 2012 6:25 am

All the Christian ministries/conservative PACs are calling for more of the same. They have spent 25 years supporting the guys above, and losing every issue we care about in the culture war (except homeschooling and guns, and those are special cases). Now we're gonna do four more years of the same, and at the end of the four years people are going to be saying we have to vote for the GOP moderate because there is no viable alternative. Of course, all the Christian and conservative leaders, including Mr. Wilson here, have been suppressing the growth of any alternative and feeding the pragmatism over principle approach that has failed so spectacularly.

By being afraid (in most cases) or unwilling to lead with a "duty is ours, results are God's" philosophy has, IMHO, been a major contributor to the failure of said leaders to lead in repentance, which Mr. Wilson has talked about very correctly.

Speaking of repentance and bad candidates, I certainly don't recall Mr. Wilson repenting of supporting those moderates, who in every case had used their authority in government to help kill babies, and do other evil. And while Wilson may claim he did not support Romney, he helped him by not talking about principled voting or the 100% pro-life candidate offered by the Constitution Party.

A lot of conservatives like to talk the talk about how bad the GOP is between elections. But they do nothing about it between elections, and then support the GOP at election time. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

Douglas Wilson

Monday, November 12, 2012 10:06 am

Mitch, I am afraid you are misreading what I am doing entirely. Out of that whole list, I believe only voted for the Republican candidate for president once. And I voted for the Constitution Party candidate this time around. Where did you get the idea that I am "supporting" the moderates?

Dale Courtney

Monday, November 12, 2012 6:30 am

Here's how times have changed. Bush I was kicked out for raising taxes after saying he wouldn't. Obama was reelected after promising new taxes.

Matt Weber

Monday, November 12, 2012 7:12 am

So maybe tax cuts have politically gone about as far as they're going to go. At least Bush I raised them out of a desire for fiscal responsibility rather than just love of taxes.

'right' and 'left' are two terms that just confuse things though. The Republicans should nominate someone who isn't a complete ideologue about tax cuts, free trade, foreign interventionism, etc. I have no idea whether this would be righter or lefter than Romney was.

Ken L - Realities

Monday, November 12, 2012 8:05 am

It has been said that primary elections are for philosophy and general elections are for "damage control." Well those elections and candidates to which you referred merited damage control. Some were successful, some were nauseating failures.

Faulting DW for supporting, while, like many of us, holding his nose, those who would stand for the unborn to the extent the law would at that point permit or slow our descent into the maw of European-style collectivism, is not just.

Mitch, you and I might have candidates we'd have preferred to the Bush's, Dole, McCain or Romney, but they either weren't running, or weren't viable choices early in November.

If we all just go to the sidelines and wait for the perfect candidate, we'll end up merely being a marginalized light under a bowl. And we wouldn't have the thin wall of protection called the House of Representatives either.

I spoke to a young, conservative, Christian nephew of mine this past week. Many of his friends are libertarian (smaller government but apathetic about social issues - gay marriage, abortion etc.). He said his sense was that many of them just sat out the election. Abstaining in Idaho might not have made any difference, but in Ohio, Minnesota, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida, it may have changed the course of American history for the better rather than toward the greater damage we will now experience.

Mitch Turner

Monday, November 12, 2012 8:14 am

This "Reality" thinking you offer is exactly what has failed repeatedly. It is totally unbiblical as well. You can make up your strawman of us waiting for a perfect candidate if you want, but that's just not true. We just want people who are going in the right direction, as opposed to the wrong direction. As long as you keep with your "viability" and pragmatism approach, the GOP has zero reason to change. You are helping to prop up an evil, failed group, and that makes you complicit in the evil they do. God doesn't excuse supporting evil because doing the right thing doesn't seem "viable" to you.

Eric the Red

Monday, November 12, 2012 9:30 am

Guys, none of this is why Obama got re-elected.

An increasingly secular America simply does not agree with you on abortion, gay marriage, evolution, taxes, or Obamacare. If the Constitution Party were invited to the presidential debates and given a billion dollar advertising budget, that would not change. The hard right social issue candidate, Rick Santorum, couldn't even make it through the GOP nominating process, and, had he been nominated, the GOP bloodbath last week would have been even worse than it was. The voters aren't buying what you're selling, and in a democracy, it really is that simple.

Now, one of two things is about to happen. If your premises are correct, then this nation is about to go through some harsh times. On the other hand, if the secularists are right and God either doesn't exist or is a social liberal, then we'll continue on as we are and may even find out lot has improved. We'll find out very shortly.

But whoever is right, the simple reality today is that you don't represent mainstream thinking, and that's why you can't win elections. And that's the paradigm within which you need to decide what you're going to do next.

David Stewart

Monday, November 12, 2012 5:31 pm

Eric,

You may have been glad that Obama was elected because you do not agree with most of us on these issues, but if you think Obama won Iowa because the people there just love corn and gay marriage, then you are bonkers.

Obama won because the majority of Republicans and Democrats get elected by promising people largesse for votes. Obama, unlike the Republicans, ran on a "share the wealth" platform, and so as a self-realized auctioneer, he just simply had a better list of swag for the masses.

Free healthcare, free birth control, subsidies for farmers, bail outs for banks and failing auto industries. Need I go on? Who pays for all of this, again?

Eric, did you get your free Obama phone yet? Mine is awesome. In full disclosure, I have a Biden ringtone.

Matt Weber

Monday, November 12, 2012 8:24 pm

I understand why people think this, but if it is indeed true then what hope is there that conservatives can win an election? If it all comes down to who gives out more government cheese, then conservatism loses every time, no?

If it is true, then what is left but secession or marginalization?

David Stewart

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:30 am

Matt,

There is no political hope for our country. The so-called conservatives can outspend the Democrats in some cases. We have a large portion of the population who isn't thinking in an economically cogent manner, and whose time horizon extends to next week as opposed to the time of our grandchildren. These people are looking for a political savior.

We're going to see just how vicious people can get when they fight over a shrinking piece of pie. This won't change from the top down. Biblically, you and I should not be surprised. The politicians are like the head of a pimple, the purulent flower that comes to full bloom from a culture that believes in theft by third party. This election was an auction, and until enough people get tired of paying, it will not change.

Paul	Monday, November 12, 2012 10:24 am

Eric the Red wrote:

Now, one of two things is about to happen. If your premises are correct, then this nation is about to go through some harsh times. On the other hand, if the secularists are right and God either doesn't exist or is a social liberal, then we'll continue on as we are and may even find out lot has improved.

It will be instructive to see your response when the harsh times come.

Ken L

Monday, November 12, 2012 1:51 pm

God does exist and though passionate about justice for all, it's pretty clear He does not approve abortion, nor does He approve homosexual practices. If those are qualifiers for God to be a "social liberal" then He's not a club member in good standing.

The timing of His judgment is up to him. I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, so I'll not presume there. He may show great patience awaiting our repentance (II Peter 3:8-9). He may not.

Yet if public acceptance of what God clearly calls "sin" is in itself a sign of God's judgment (Romans 1 & 2 i.e. "God gave them up to"....), then it's clear He's not pleased with us. We ARE in some judgment now, and November 7 seems to just confirm that.

I take great comfort that an omniscient, sovereign God has already given us instructions on how we are to respond to all this: Psalm 37:1ff, Proverbs 24:19-20; Daniel 12:10 and Revelation 22:10-13. Though debauchery and Planned Parenthood bloodshed (300,000+ last year alone according to Guttmacher) seems to be a hot ticket now, it will not triumph when God has the final word.

Eric the Red

Monday, November 12, 2012 2:57 pm

Ken, and Paul, you're playing with a stacked deck.

If America prospers, you'll simply say that the timing of God's judgment is up to him. If America falls flat on its face, you'll say it's God's judgment. You have simply drafted the premises in such a way that you can't lose, and so essentially you're playing a shell game. And, by the way, your entire premise strikes me as being at odds with the central message of the Book of Job, which is that good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Jesus made the same point when he said that God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust.

If you can look beyond your paradigm for a minute, Germany was far more Christian when Hitler came to power than it is now. Currently, Germany is doing dandy; it's an economic powerhouse. Why would God punish a Christian nation with Hitler while rewarding a secular nation with all the things that are going right for it? Atheist and secular Norway and Sweden are doing great too, while Christian nations like Uganda, with its kill the gays legislation, are flat on their backs.

I suppose God works in mysterious ways, but at some point it's hard to not just take two steps back and observe the forest, and come to the conclusion that very little works out the way that under your theology it should.

Ken L

Monday, November 12, 2012 4:22 pm

Yes, the "stacked deck" is God's Word that tells us God will do what HE will do. Sometimes it seems pretty incomprehensible. Thus the Daniel 12:10 passage I referenced above.

John Jackson

Monday, November 12, 2012 4:27 pm

That God will do what he will do is not incredibly informative as the question under consideration is 'What is God doing here?', it seems trivially true that God does what God does. Who would disagree?

John Jackson - But Eric...

Monday, November 12, 2012 4:22 pm

"These countries are cursed by the paynim scourge! The Islamists are running rampant and the state is too effeminate to do anything about it! By pursuing secular government they are now slaves to the tacit Sharia law!" The 'stacked deck' analysis is spot on. No matter what sensible evidences are given an predetermined analysis of the facts will always spit out the preferred value. In fact, I believe that part of the reason for adopting the 'stacked deck' is the need to be angry, fearful, or stand in judgment of something! How masculine would it be to not force one's predetermined analysis on the facts? Not very. Passive observation of reality is for the effeminate. Active submission of reality is a man's game!

Eric Stampher - Wet Life

Monday, November 12, 2012 5:32 pm

Gents -- specially Mitch & pastor Douglas,

I understood America's Party Hoeffling to be the only full bore consistently 100%, no exceptions pro-life option. I read of Goode saying he'd support all abortion legislation that moved the law to a progressively positive direction.

I relied a bit on this website:

http://prolifeprofiles.com/virgil-goode-pro-life

Mitch, given your no compromise advocacy of principle, does your promotion of the Constitution party represent a bit of a compromise? Or is prolifeprofiles all wet?

Jonathan

Monday, November 12, 2012 11:02 pm

If you vote for the "least of two evils", then you give that lesser evil no incentive not to take you for granted and keep playing to the middle (or whatever special interest they think will put them over the top that would otherwise NOT vote for them).

Of course, someone could technically "not vote" for someone, but still clearly support that person and attack his opponent in the hopes of getting that person reelected. Someone who consistently spoke of how much more evil Obama was than Romney might easily be mistaken with a Romney supporter.

Jonathan - re:

Monday, November 12, 2012 11:06 pm

Ken L wrote:

Yes, the "stacked deck" is God's Word that tells us God will do what HE will do. Sometimes it seems pretty incomprehensible.

Yes, God will do what God will do. I think the point was that some have appeared to be fairly confident about WHAT God would do and WHY he would do it. When such predictions, over and over, come not to pass, it makes it rather easy to stop listening to those who make them.

Imagine if 9/11, the start of the two most recent wars, Hurricane Katrina, and the financial meltdown had all come under Obama. We would all be told that that means something. But since they came under Bush, what did all that mean? God will do what God will do. Or, perhaps, God allows the inherent results of our own terrible decisions to result in their expected consequences.

Jonathan - re:

Monday, November 12, 2012 11:18 pm

Ken L wrote:

I take great comfort that an omniscient, sovereign God has already given us instructions on how we are to respond to all this: Psalm 37:1ff, Proverbs 24:19-20; Daniel 12:10 and Revelation 22:10-13.

Your little guide for practical behavior for Christians at this moment consisted solely of short quotations from a psalm, a proverb, and two apocalyptic texts. Just an observation.

I would suggest you also take a deep look at Romans 12:8-13:10, Matthew 5:1-7:29, Luke 6:17-6:49, 1 Thessalonians 5:12-22, 1 Peter 3:8-4:11, Hebrews 10:19-39, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, and Ephesians 6:10-20. It is a bit clearer that those are instructional texts meant to guide Christian action, the additional context helps reduce the possibility of misinterpretation, and I think they are all quite clearly applicable to "all this".

Paul	Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:40 am

Thanks for not making me wait to watch you move the goal posts or maybe I finally witnessed evolution in action. So when your position reaches evolutionary stasis let me know so I can test it.

And let us look at Germany, Germany is a much smaller country now than in 1932 when Hitler came to power. Norway has not yet recovered since one of the largest mass shootings of all time. So maybe it is your paradigm that is broken.

John Jackson - Let's look at the logic...

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:50 am

Paul...

I'll put the question to you: does it follow from 'Germany is smaller now than in 1932' or 'Norway has not yet recovered since one of the largest mass shootings of all time' that either nation is not prospering? Prospering is not the sort of thing we can study from a single one-time event. Instead, one needs to look at the broader trajectory of the nation. When we step back from isolated events to observe the whole we find that yes, on the whole, both nations are prospering. So, whatever paradigm you're referring to when you suggest it may be broken, it certainly isn't this one.

Paul	Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:38 am

Neither nation is prospering. In fact the German and Norwegian nations are dying out. Their population growth of the states of Germany and Norway are almost entirely from foreigners. Logic is great but you need to learn to combine it with facts for it to make sense.

So lets review:
Claim: Germany is prospering.
Fact 1: The German state is smaller now than in 1932.
Fact 2: The German nation is dying out.
Fact 3: The German state's population growth comes from foreign immigration and non-ethnic German citizens having babies.
Fact 4: A archetype of Biblical judgement is for foreigners to inherit the wealth of a nation.

So no the nation of Germany is not prospering. The state of Germany may be prospering but that should be temporary based upon the demographics but we will have to see on that one.

Ryan B

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:01 pm

I like Pastor Wilson's post. I have wondered the same thing. A friend of mine, I assume quoting someone else, said that conservatism wins every time it is tried.

I am not the best debater, as I proved a month or two back. Since my posts last month, I have been thinking about the Principle/Pragmatic thing. This made sense to me.

As I understand Romans 13, the government is put in place to restrain evil. According to the US Constitution, we, the people, are the government. We are responsible to restrain evil. I would assume that this means everyday not just sometime down the road. My assessment is that Obama's policies enter that category of "doing evil," and they must be stopped. (One instance was, on his first day in office, when Obama turned on the money spigot to fund foreign abortions. This is the same fund that George Bush had shut off during his presidency)

The strongman needed to be bound in the (instance of the past election) in order to take his stuff (office, influence, rule, etc.). If Obama had lost, evil will have been restrained. Would that have meant that evil is gone? Would that have meant the next guy in office, whoever he is, is a savior? No, of course not, no Utopia this side of Heaven. He would have been watched as the next bit of evil to help restrain. I think this is heading in the right direction.

Why is it that a strategic ground game is pragmatic, but the Hail Mary pass is noble?

The Constitution Party was not on my ballot, so I didn't see them as serious or viable for this election. I like the things they say, but I can't pretend them into office.

What elections has the Constitution party won since it started? I would like to know. Perhaps some responders faulting someone else's strategy based on how long it might take for victory is not a prudent line to draw... Then again, it did take the Christians 300 or so years to put a guy in Caesar's Chair. Perhaps we are all right on schedule.

Jonathan - re:

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:29 pm

Ryan B wrote:

As I understand Romans 13, the government is put in place to restrain evil. According to the US Constitution, we, the people, are the government. We are responsible to restrain evil.

I strongly disagree with your line of reasoning, because the point of Romans 13 is to explicitly tell us that we are NOT responsible to restrain evil. Romans 13:1-7 is not a random insertion - you can't ignore what comes directly before and after it (Romans 12:9-21 and Romans 13:8-10).

"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them....
"Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God. 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. To the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty , give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." - Romans 12:14, 17-21

"Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,' and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." - Romans 13:8-10

Since Romans 13:1-7 talks about the government being "an avenger who carries out God's wrath", that sounds like a huge contrast from our own role, which is NEVER to avenge, to leave that to the wrath of God. God's role for government appears closer to his role for the Babylonians (Jeremiah 21 and Ezekiel 29) - agents of wrath and justice, who would still be judged for that very wrath. Considering what the Roman government was doing at the time Paul wrote this, considering the historical context of the passage (this is the Romans we're talking about!) and the Scriptural context, I don't think it is at all legitimate to use Romans 13 to put ourselves in the role of carrying out God's wrath.

There's a more sustained argument in the following two posts:

http://totrustingod.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-dangers-of-inappropriate-section.html

http://totrustingod.blogspot.com/2012/08/more-insight-on-romans-13.html

Jonathan

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:53 pm

It is also untrue that Obama "turned on the money spigot to fund foreign abortions". The 1973 Helms Amendment explicitly prevents the United States from funding foreign abortions or even providing information on their use for family planning. If you do research, you will notice that all accusations to the contrary come in propaganda from pro-life lobbyists.

For instance, look at this quote from LifeNews.com, which contradicts other statements they've made:

"The Democrats say they believe the Obama administration is too literally applying the Helms Amendment, which prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortions in foreign countries using taxpayer-funded foreign aid. The liberal members of the House want the Obama administration to review the amendment and funding to determine if abortion counseling, information and abortions themselves can be legally paid for under a looser interpretation of the law."

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/23/democrats-want-obama-to-fund-promote-foreign-abortions/

That makes it clear, by LifeNews's own admission, that Obama is NOT doing what you claimed he was doing.

Jonathan

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:53 pm

I do think that your comparison of the current hopes of certain elements of the Christian Right to Constantine's position and actions as Emperor is supremely accurate and ironic.

Ryan B - re: re:

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 6:20 am

[quote/] I strongly disagree with your line of reasoning, because the point of Romans 13 is to explicitly tell us that we are NOT responsible to restrain evil. Romans 13:1-7 is not a random insertion - you can't ignore what comes directly before and after it (Romans 12:9-21 and Romans 13:8-10).][/quote]

I figured some might think this, I strongerly disagree right back at ya. Who ultimately is our government? Who establishes our constitution?

Here is my big quote: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect , establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States.

This (the big quote above) says we are.

Jonathan

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:38 am

I'm not disagreeing about the Constitution. I'm disagreeing with your framing of our Biblical responsibilities as Christians. Paul said to leave wrath to the government because we are specifically NOT to avenge as Christians. The fact that the government situation changed 1700 years later doesn't mean that our duty as Christians changed. God will always have his means to avenge evil, whether he uses some evil government or "natural causes" or the end-time judgment. Our duty as Christians is to love our enemies. God is telling us to stand down - he's got this one.

Ryan B - re:

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:00 am

Jonathan wrote:

I do think that your comparison of the current hopes of certain elements of the Christian Right to Constantine's position and actions as Emperor is supremely accurate and ironic.

Right! There is no neutrality. All groups hope for the same thing--albeit bent to their own agenda.

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Father
Sister Heather
Avuncular
Femina

Nate
Shadow Shroud
Nephew
Amoretti

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Blogroll

Pastors Blogroll