Some Thoughts On the State of the GOP Nomination

Random thoughts about last night’s debate:

Kasich, Bush, and Christie should go away. This doesn’t look like the year for liberal RINO’s not named Trump.

Fiorina and Paul are admirable, principled and quite sharp. But they have Achilles’ heels—Fiorina on political correctness (how many sensitivity seminars do you think she’s attended?) and Paul with respect to his childish naivete on foreign policy (utopianism is dangerous whether it comes from the Right or the Left).

Carson is nice, trustworthy, and more respectable than anyone with a D currently after his or her name. But it’s painful to watch the guy try to answer questions in that halting, deer-in-the-headlights voice. He seems out of his depth on foreign policy, though not as badly as Trump. This electorate is too angry for a softie. He’s done.

Trump spent an hour saying nothing, while the two candidates who flanked him took everyone to school with their mastery of detail and specificity. The last 30 years of his career have spoken louder volumes than anything he’s saying right now: he’s supported single-payer health care, advocated for open-border amnesty (until about 10 minutes ago when he changed his mind), donated heavily to both Clintons, voted reliably Democratic in the last three decades of elections, and sued for the right of eminent domain as a corporate entity. This is what has traditionally been called a “Democrat.” The fact that none of his followers seem to know this is strange. The only real rationale for his candidacy is his “winning” motif….and once the caucuses start, none of those internet troll-Trumpkins will be trudging through the snow to make rational arguments in a loud room with other caucus-goers….this is strictly a grown-up affair. He’ll lose Iowa and South Carolina, and the drumbeat for his surrender should start around the 2^nd week of March. Side note: voters who like him typically issue the same reason that Obama voters used to support Obama in 2008; they see him as a messianic figure who will fix things. That’s not how the American executive branch works. It’s sad when the dummies who never passed senior civics class swing elections. Same people who don't understand the electoral college, or the difference between a democracy or a republic. It wouldn't surprise me to learn, in the final analysis, that these are actually THE SAME PEOPLE. Keep your eyes peeled for someone in your life who voted for Obama in 2008 and plans to vote for Trump in 2016. Good chance they didn't pass high school civics. In any event, their eyes probably glazed over last night every time a candidate started talking about actual policy. I doubt if any of them are motivated to even read this far in these musings.

There isn’t too much daylight between Cruz and Rubio. Both of them capture the flag for people who are angry with both parties and with the Media, though these two guys can actually give you deeper detail and a better rationale for voting for either of them. Yes, Rubio fell into that unfortunate Gang of 8 trap in 2013…but he’s recanted his heresy, and his immigration plan is almost identical to everyone else’s now (and WAY more detailed and knowledgeable than Trump’s). He is reliably conservative, sunny in disposition and temperament, is encyclopedic in his attention to detail, and would make a formidable general election opponent. Cruz, also, is exceedingly knowledgeable with respect to both foreign and domestic policy. He has the integrity that Rubio might have lacked in 2013, as well….he has kept every one of his campaign promises to Texas thus far. He has been a principled conservative who (unlike Trump) has actually stood up to Obama, the Democrats, the Media (but I repeat myself) and the liberal RINO Republicans in Washington. He was a championship debater who is brutally effective in cross-examination. This is a man who has argued in front of the Supreme Court and won…he has a ton of experience in the judicial branch of the government, more involvement in the legislative branch than Obama ever had, and is an actual constitutional scholar of repute (unlike Obama).  The media hate him, their sycophantic fans in the Left hate him, and those who regularly subscribe to conventional wisdom hate him…..this is the perfect storm. For those not old enough to remember 1980, this was the exact same situation with Ronaldus Magnus…..hated and feared by the Leftist media, adored by those who were sick of being exploited by Washington. And that guy won the largest landslide in the history of American politics. Don’t look past Cruz’s ground game, either…..he’s got precinct chairmen in every county in Iowa, South Carolina, and all the states for Super Tuesday. He may have enough delegates locked up by mid-March, while the media is still over-covering Trump. Trump’s fans, meanwhile, aren’t sure what “delegates” are….they honestly think that “rolling daily average” poll says something important.

The only daylight between Cruz and Rubio is foreign policy: Rubio seems to tilt a tad toward the old Bush Doctrine, though without all the Wilsonian “export democracy” utopianism. Cruz correctly gets to the right of that view…..though both of these guys are knowledgeable about the topic and would make good commanders-in-chief. They are reliably pro-American. They are not ashamed of their patriotism, and are desirous of defeating the enemy that has declared war on us. Either of these guys would do the job well, and either of them would make formidable opponents to Hillary Clinton, whose ineptitude and dishonesty has already caused the loss of American life. Both of them possess the ability to debate both the Democrat and the Moderator/Media, which is necessary (and which Romney/McCain, et al, could never do).Yes, the Hard Left, Marx-loving, Climate Change-obsessing, anti-GMO, political correctness-embracing, Euro-weenie wanna-be, Language Police will hate either of these two. But there aren't as many of these geniuses as they believe....and their hatred will act as a propellant in the eyes of the rest of the country.

It is distressing to hear so-called conservatives claim to plan on sitting the election out if Trump is nominated. Trump is a buffoon and I do predict he’ll fade away before summer. But if I’m wrong, he’s still a way better choice than the other Democrat in the race, Clinton. To not vote for the guy is to vote for her. Did you folks learn NOTHING from 2012? Romney got ALL the coveted “independents” and lost the conservatives, who stayed home dejected and throwing a tantrum. Grownups know the system: you vote your heart in the primary and your head in the general. Get fired up in the primary, and grit your teeth and pull the lever in the general. Even Democrats know this…..that’s how they win. It’s certainly not because the country suddenly fell in love with Marx and political correctness. It would be nice for our side to have the grownups again.

Official Minutes of the inaugural meeting of the Whiny Christian Wing

4:30 PM: Chairman of the Whiny Christian Wing calls meeting to order. 

4:31-4:40: Betty “Friedan” Murchison begins an excursus on why the title should be changed from the patriarchal “chairman” to the politically correct “chairperson,” but is mercifully interrupted by Bronc Misterfson, who offers a resolution that the title of “chairman” be changed forthwith to “chairperson.” 

4:41: Another member, this one wearing a Social Justice Fist shirt, argues that “chairperson” is an offense to the possibility that his cat Mao is being deliberately marginalized from the proceedings. He identifies himself as Jim. The Chairperson interrupts Social Justice Jim on a point of order, explaining the need for exclusively human involvement in the Whiny Christian Wing. Social Justice Jim sulks angrily, tweeting his revulsion under the hashtag #oppression. 

4:42: the Chairperson asks the group how the Whiny Christian Wing will fund a budget. Ms. Murchison counters that "the 1% fat-cat rich will pay for it!" Everyone seconds the motion. 

4:45: Vice-Chair Ruby Rakelforth brings to the floor a resolution denouncing the Evil Governor Abbott regarding his letter to The Dear Leader about refusing to allow jihadist refugees into Texas borders. The Chairperson opens the floor for debate on the resolution. 

4:46: Two members passionately agree with the Resolution to Condemn The Evil Governor Abbott, saying, respectively, “This is certainly not a Christian response!” and “we are seeing once again the triumph of fear over compassion!”

4:47-4:54: a general time of discombubulatory harrumphing seconds these opinions. One after another, each member decries the action as un-Christian and antithetical to Christianity in general. One member even goes so far as to refer to the largely male group of Islamics, ages 18-45, as “Middle Eastern refugees who are being turned away by the heartless.” 

4:55: one member, Blake Locke, timidly raises a hand and asks permission to speak. The other members, sweat glistening from angry brows, yield the floor. He reminds the other members that a Christian’s duty is to lay down HIS OWN life for the compassion of the gospel—not other people’s. “To willingly lay down someone else’s life for your own principles is tyranny,” he explains. 

4:56: several mouths are agape in the room, but the pause is only momentary, and Blake Locke continues: 

Blake: “We’re not a theocracy. We’re pluralistic.” 

Ruby Rakelforth: “So? What difference does that make?” (several other members fist-bump Ruby for quoting the next Dear Leader, Hillary Clinton.) 

Blake: “According to the rule of law, the first and only task of government is the security of its citizens. When a governor looks out for the safety of both his Christian and his non-Christian citizens, he’s doing his job.” 

Ruby (brow furrowing as she attempts to process this contrary thought): “But…refugees….suffering…..compassion….”

Blake: “Maybe the issue here isn’t the false dichotomy of fear and compassion….maybe it’s the very real one of security and suicide.” 

Social Justice Jim: “You can’t see the truth of what we’re talking about here because of your white privilege! Confess it now!” (Social Justice Jim shouting now) “Confess and repent, and be healed of that privilege! Although you can never be healed of it, and because of that fact, no opinion of yours can ever be considered valid!”

5:05: the room erupts in loud disarray. Social Justice Jim calls for a Sociology or Communications or Anthropology professor to come physically remove Blake Locke, but apparently they are all at another organized tantrum elsewhere. 

5:06: Chairperson attempts to gavel the meeting back into order with his shoe, but it is a Tom’s and makes little noise on the table. He reaches for his locally-sourced pencil made exclusively from hemp fibers and the deep, deep love of endangered rhinos and taps the table in front of him. “Order! Order in here!” The room gradually becomes quiet when it sees the violence being done to rhino love. 

5:07: Blake Locke attempts to close his argument, but is shouted down by a Gender Studies major whose gender has been carefully disguised so as to draw the maximum amount of attention to it. 

5:08: Chairperson recognizes Blake Locke for the express purposes of finalizing his argument before a vote. 

               Blake: “I think we’re sort of representative of the problem….we are sitting in this comfortable room, wringing our hands existentially about a crisis that is real everywhere else except here—and simultaneously wishing it upon ourselves. We lack clarity about the problem, and what’s worse—we consider our lack of clarity and abundance of hand-wringing to be virtues in and of themselves.” 

5:09 PM: the Chairperson, bristling with righteous rage, picks up his cell phone and calls the Anthropology department of the local university. He asks for anyone—even an undergraduate—to come forcibly remove “this Republican” (spoken with dripping contempt) from the meeting. 

Chairperson: “I move that we permanently expel Blake Locke from the Whiny Christian Wing. Do I hear a second?” (thunderous applause from the room; Social Justice Jim tweets approvingly. 

5:10: Two undergraduate Anthropology majors march stridently through the Student Center, past astrophysics majors who are actually busy studying, and enter the meeting of the Whiny Christian Wing with appropriate bellicosity. They manhandle Blake Locke out of the room. With love.

5:11: the Chairperson rhino-loves the meeting back into order, asking the Secretary to take a letter addressed to “The Repugnantly Evil and Morally Abhorrent Governor Abbott.” 

5:20: the letter finished, Vice-President Ruby Rakleforth suggests that they order lunch from the fair-trade vegan place next door. For the next hour and a half, they wait for the sheafs of notebook-paper-like substance to be delivered by hourly employees with lip piercings, ironic t-shirts and zero map-reading skills. 

5:46: the Secretary is ordered (but in a very nice, non-confrontational, sensitive, non-patriarchal, multicultural, gluten-free manner) to record that the Whiny Christian Wing reflected the values of Christ in some manner. 

5:47: The Secretary agrees that the best way to record that is to close the meeting in prayer to some deity. The Chairperson offers a prayer to the Goddess, so as not to offend any non-Christians in the Whiny Christian Wing.  

5:48: the Chairperson calls the meeting adjourned. Social Justice Jim angrily tweets that he is now late for the official watching of the Rachel Maddow Show in the Student Center. His tweet is favorited by everyone in the room, who have been adjourned but are too busy with their phones to get up and leave.

Hey "Conservative" "Christians"....Stop it.

It has been said that “only Nixon could have gone to China.” In the spirit of that axiom: since I am a conservative who is also a Christian (or a Christian who is also a conservative, depending on which perspective raises your blood pressure more), I feel I might possess the credibility to critique my brothers on the Right. And a critique is, I fear, necessary.

At first glance, you and I seem to be the same: we believe in Jesus, we affirm the authority of the Bible, and we don’t trust Democrats under any circumstance. And yet, every time you feel the need to express yourself politically in the public sphere, I find your observations cringeworthy. Why is this? Is it because I am a spineless RINO who doesn’t love his country? Is it because I’m a closet atheist who finds your faith distasteful? Not at all, friend. I am an unapologetic conservative who is not afraid to proclaim the gospel of Christ with every breath I take. Rather, I argue that you are not conservative—nor, for that matter, particularly Christian. When you say idiotic things on social media like “we need a King David” or “when will our country turn back to Jesus” or “vote for Mike Huckabee,” you reveal an ignorance about the history of the United States that is commensurate with the morons who lapped up the pro-Obama Kool-Aid that the media was doling out in 2008 and 2012. Before you burn the Wheels-Off Theologian in effigy, allow me to do something you NEVER do: walk you rationally through my reasoning.

Reason #1: YOU ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE. The definition of the term “conservative” is not up for subjective debate; in the general discourse about political theory, it is the tendency to preserve the status quo of First Principles. If you believe in preserving the status quo of First Principles, you are a conservative. If you believe that those were wrong and should be changed, you are a modern liberal. You and I both agree that the Democrat Party (post-1972, anyhow) has largely bought into the fallacious and demonstrably false narrative that America is a terrible place of institutionalized racism, selfishness, greed, and genocide. This hysteria doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously, although many in the media and on Facebook appear to believe that it does. You and I, however, both know that America is an exceptional place that was designed to be different from all others—and indeed is. But in what ways?

This is where you have bought into an equally false historical narrative: that this was originally a Christian nation. Read my lips, Dobsonite: this country was NOT set up to be a Christian nation. In fact, the signers of the Declaration of Independence were largely Deist (which is heretical—for those of you in Oklahoma, that means “not Christian”). Rather, the Framers of our nation were intimately familiar with the dangers of a governmental system built on one faction’s definition of “Christian;” that’s why their ancestors fled to these shores to begin with. You might have to dig deeper than your church’s voting guide, but if you do you’ll learn pretty quickly that this was set up to be a pluralistic nation. That is, our system is designed to guarantee the safety of any citizen, regardless of belief. That’s why Americans are comfortable voting for a teetotaling agnostic racist like Woodrow Wilson, or a (Protestant) Christian like Ronald Reagan, or a (Catholic) Christian like John F. Kennedy, or a non-Christian like Mitt Romney. If this is a “Christian” nation run by ANYONE other than Jesus Christ Himself, then we’re all in trouble….because, as all Christians confess, we are fallen and broken, and cannot fix ourselves. Ergo, we cannot be trusted with power. It is the “progressive” who believes that we are basically ok and can be trusted to figure it all out with a better bureaucracy. When you wish for a country whose government mandates your faith, you are occupying the exact same asinine position that progressives do—they just have a different religion.

The conservative understands this and doesn’t trust an individual with much political power; First Principles dictate that power is disbursed from the central to the disparate; our Framers didn’t want a strong central government; that’s why they hamstrung this one with the 10^th Amendment (any power not specifically given to the feds goes AUTOMATICALLY to the states—you know, like the privilege of issuing licenses of any sort). When you pine for a “King David,” you demonstrate either ignorance of this First Principle, or outright rejection of it. We don’t need a “King” ANYTHING. We don’t believe in kings. We are the governing authority in a Republic; not some Dude. If you’ll recall, this is what’s wrong with the Obama Administration: the belief that it is above the law and can issue edicts (overturning Prop 8, ignoring Arizona immigration law, weighing in on racially tinged news stories before they have made their rounds through the legal system, leaning on the Supreme Court to usurp legislative power). The only King Who will do a good job is the King of Kings, when He returns to reign. Until then, utopianism of any hue only results in tyranny—and the murder of the innocents.

If you were a conservative, you would argue forcefully and consistently for a pluralistic society in which a Christian (and everyone else) is free to exercise his choice of faith without political consequence. Like you, I am uncomfortable seeing Kim Davis in jail (as opposed to being fired or suspended)—but that’s not because she shares my religion. It’s because I am conservative. The Framers would have been horrified to see this sorry episode, because the notion of religious liberty exceptions has been codified into the rule of law in this country since the very beginning. Leave it to Orwellian “progressives” to re-cast such exception as “proselytizing” instead of “exception.” Don’t line up with them.

And what of the issue of gay marriage? Like you, I am opposed to the Supreme Court decision—but, again, not because of my religious faith. Rather, I oppose it because I affirm First Principles—the right of the people to be governed by the rule of law, which always has its genesis in the legislative branch of the government. It’s the liberals who love the tyranny of the judiciary (until you remind them that Dred Scott was also a majority opinion—that got overturned by the people in an Amendment). I don’t like the idea of 5 people in robes writing law for the rest of us. If their edict had somehow been friendly to Christians, I would be just as vehemently opposed to it. Where there is tyranny, life is devalued. And as a Christian, I must place the highest possible value on human life. The Framers envisioned a country in which the states could make such laws for themselves; if you are a conservative, learn this and live by it.

Your failure to understand First Principles and vote according to them is what makes you NOT conservative. In fact, you are more accurately described as a “theocratic populist.” That’s worked out really well for Iran, by the way. Stop taking the title “conservative” in vain…..until you learn what one is.

REASON #2: IT IS POSSIBLE THAT YOU ARE NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN. No, I’m not talking about the nebulous “concern for the poor”—only a moron would fail to recognize that government paternalism hasn’t helped the poor, but has further harmed it, stripped the poor of dignity, devalued their lives and contributions, and been a cynical ploy to buy votes. If anyone really cared about the poor, the FIRST thing they’d do is stop voting for Democrats. But the ignorant cannot be swayed by evidence—mountains of which are readily available to any interested party.

No sir, I’m referring to your poor anthropology. You actually TRUST a Santorum or Huckabee to be different from the others? You REALLY think that a believer in Christ can be trusted with political power more than another? One of the oldest orthodox understandings of Christian anthropology is the affirmation that man is born totally depraved and totally unable to do anything about it (Augustine). Remember, it’s the drum-circle-attending Commies who think we’re “born right the first time.” Why do you suddenly change your mind when it comes to your political candidates? When you are voting for your congressional candidates, do you imagine them wielding great power for the cause of Christ? Or do you just roll into the Presidential elections every four years and hope that a wave of Jesus-y feeling sweeps the elections and we can be returned to greatness?

There is no doubt that God blessed our great nation. But one thing that made our nation great was our Framers’ understanding that because man CAN’T be trusted with centralized political power, any just government must seek to mitigate the resulting damages caused by the wielding of power. That’s why the over-arching value of our country was never “equality” (see: “French Revolution” for how that turned out) but “liberty.” Our Constitution guarantees the God-given liberties of individual citizens (or used to before the Supreme Court changed its mind on that). The Christian understands that.

He also understands that “rights” aren’t defined as “stuff I want.” Remember: that’s how Democrats think. Despite the careful, 12-year-long process of our Founders to deliberately elucidate the specific rights of its citizens, liberals are constantly feeling that anything they want this week should be a “right.” This has led to a slippery slope in which the murder of innocents is a “right” (Roe v. Wade, 1973), or the tenuous belief that a person has a “right” to an education. Liberals didn’t learn the lessons of high school civics class, but that’s no reason for Christians to join them in the Dunce Corner.

If you are Christian, you should have a healthy mistrust of humans holding political power. You should mistrust your government. You should never EVER see it as your Provider or your Husband or Father or Helper.  And you CERTAINLY shouldn't want to trust the government to be the visible hand in the arena of trade, which always results in instability and eventually tyranny (I'm looking at you, Huckabee). You should see it as a necessary evil that has one job: to protect individuals from each other. Stop claiming to be Christian while trusting some guy with too much power. A real Christian is a real citizen….voting in off-year elections, caucusing, being a good citizen. The definition is NOT “showing up every 4 years to post a bunch of ignorant Facebook memes that fail to affirm proper Christian anthropology.” Your "hero" is not a candidate but the Messiah. Conflating the two is what Democrats do (see: Election of 2008).

REASON #3: YOU ARE IGNORANT OF OUR SYSTEM. This goes especially for you geniuses who pitch a big fit when your pet candidate doesn’t get nominated in the primary—and you respond by staying home. As all election observers and compilers of data now know, this is the primary reason President Obama is not now “One-Term President Obama.” The conventional media wisdom is that the country is now liberal—until they are faced with polling data that shows that Americans are still overwhelmingly Center-Right (and not even in close numbers). When the uber-squish Romney was nominated, many so-called “Christian conservatives” just stayed home. Romney won the coveted “independent” vote by a mile…..his statistical numbers of “conservative” voters simply never materialized. There were less of them in 2012 than there were in 2008….despite the continued polling that suggests that they exist and are angry. I’ll spell this out for those of you in Oklahoma: when “Christian” “Conservatives” threw their little rebellion fit against the GOP in 2012, they became just as responsible for unconstitutional executive orders, the continued funding of Planned Parenthood, the sophomoric foreign policy that promises to get all of us killed sooner or later, and the excesses of the Supreme Court. Don’t forget, also, the current spectre of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell practically wetting themselves over the possibility of presenting the currently lame-duck President with any meaningful legislation…..if you had just showed up in 2012, how would it all be different right now? Heck, if you’d showed up in 2008, our housing values might have made a comeback by now. Your ignorance of our system hurt us all—every bit as the whims of the anti-GMO-whining, Vespa-driving Barack-tards.

Allow me to re-educate you on the system designed by our Framers: you get two chances to make your voice heard—once in the primary with your favorite candidate, and once more in the general election with the lesser of two evils. This is how it’s DESIGNED, people. You don’t really change that by staying home and pouting. All you really do is hurt your countrymen. There are more of us than there are of the “progressives;” you hand them even more power when you remain silent as a majority.

I know this is a lot to read, “Christian” “Conservatives.” But a good citizen must be well-read (not like liberals). Thanks for plowing through this. Now, remember: If you are a Christian and a conservative, you must affirm the rule of law. We are governed not by the whims of the majority, or the flavor-of-the-week issue that the media whips everyone into a frenzy about. We are governed by the rule of law, people. And stuff that erodes that is NOT conservative.

I don’t hold out much hope for my “progressive” friends to understand much of this. It would require a complete rejection of the ridiculous history revisionism they love (such as Zinn), as well as a challenge to their belief that man is basically good and decent and just needs a little more political power to rule intelligently. But I have hope for you, “Christian” “Conservative.” You have a sense, however vague and ill-defined, that those folks are wrong and are hurting our country. You’re absolutely right; they are. But until you put down your Pat Robertson action figures and pick up a copy of the Constitution and Federalist Papers and the Declaration, your theocratic populism is ALSO hurting our country.

It’s liberals who base a political stance on their own utopian view of the world, coupled with their over-weening confidence that man is capable of achieving it. It’s liberals who formulate political opinions based on emotions and a vague sense of “fairness,” as though we’re all in kindergarten (which is where most of their history understanding originated). Conservatives don’t do this…..so when YOU do, you need to understand that you’re not being “conservative.” A good citizen needs to read these documents and learn from them and affirm these First Principles in order to be a conservative. And a Christian SHOULD be a good citizen.

Back away from that view of politics that seeks a savior in a candidate. Back away from that knee-jerk reflex that only someone who shares every aspect of your faith is adequate as a candidate. Back away from that theocratic/populist view that a Jesus-y candidate will turn us all into a Jesus-y nation. When you invest that much trust in a human being, and fail to affirm First Principles, you betray true Christianity—AND conservatism.

Stop it.