Monday, November 2, 2009

NY 23- Orgy of self-seeking reveals GOP void of statesmanship

With the withdrawal of Dede Scozzafava from contention in the special election in NY's 23rd Congressional District, we see a clear result of implementing Michael Steele's infamous 80/20 approach to candidate selection. Grassroots conservatives still hampered by their allegiance to the Republican Party need to consider the lessons to be drawn from the Republican party's disappearance from that race. Scozzafava was a candidate typical of the predilections of GOP Party bosses and the majority of its big money fundraisers. They believe that the Party's formula for political victory requires people who oppose or just give lip service to conservative stands on the issues of moral principle, like respect for the unalienable right to life and defense of the natural family, but embrace conservative positions on other fronts, especially when it comes to money issues.

But the problem with candidates like Scozzafava is the priorities they represent. Her eager endorsement of the Obama faction Democrat in the race points to the truth. In principal, politicians like her are in tune with the moral and intellectual culture of the leftist Democrats. Their election stands on money issues are a matter of cynical political calculation. In this respect they are exactly what the left has always accused Republicans of being- people willing to sacrifice issues of human life and dignity to win power. They put money ahead of every other consideration. Then in order to prove that they aren't just promoters of heartless greed and selfishness, they pander to politically correct notions of "tolerance" and "sensitivity" with their stands on issues that involve respect for human nature and moral responsibility.

Newt Gingrich cited her stands on the money issues in the statement reported in an article at politico.com "warning conservative activists that their support for a third-party candidate in a key upcoming New York Special election is a "mistake."
The former Georgia congressman then rattled off a list of Scozzafava's conservative credentials.

"She has signed a no tax increase pledge. She is endorsed by the National Rifle Association. She has come out against cap and trade…She is opposed to the Obama health care plan. She will vote for John Boehner instead of Nancy Pelosi," Gingrich said. "All of those things together make her – it seems to me – a legitimate, authentic, Republican nominee."

Former U.S. House speaker Gingrich wants to make it crystal clear that conservative stands on issues of moral principle are not an essential part of the Republican identity. So long as a candidate is right on the issues of money and power, that's all that matters. In a CNN interview the present Minority Leader in the House, John Boehner, took pains to make a similar point. "Clearly she would be on the left side of our party," said Boehner, who had financially supported the campaign of the New York assemblywoman. "...We accept moderates in our party and we want moderates in our party." He then went on to reject the notion that Scozzafava's failure had anything to do with "pressure by the conservative "Tea Party" movement, citing his participation at rallies in Bakersfield, Calif., and Ohio…. I've work with these people, and what they're concerned about is the growing size of government. They want someone who's really going to actively reduce spending and reduce control here in Washington."

Even as their nominee falls prey to the revulsion caused by her denial of the moral principles of liberty, these GOP leaders want to pretend that the angry uprising caused by the Obama faction's betrayal of American values has nothing to do with moral concerns. They desperately want the votes and power that angry uprising may deliver. But they don't want to represent Americans who know in their hearts that the Obama threat isn't just about money or the usual Washington power grab. It represents a profound destruction of the whole American way of life, destruction rooted in Obama's rejection of the moral idea of God-given individual rights, and constitutional government based on the consent of the people.

The battle with the Obama faction is in the end a struggle to determine whether this moral concept of humanity will continue to be the basis for American government, or whether it will be replaced by a moral vision that discards the whole idea of a distinctive human nature so that human beings can be treated simply as objects for manipulation by an all powerful administrative state. At the grassroots many Americans, regardless of political labels, instinctively grasp what is at stake. They long for leaders who also understand, and will rise to defend the moral idea of America, from which so many have gained inspiration and hope, and for which so many have risked or given their lives.

An appreciation for this longing has been a hallmark of American statesmanship when leaders arose in response to the crises of the past. The Republican Party's founding President, Abraham Lincoln, understood and spoke to it as he represented and articulated the moral causes of the American Civil War. But GOP leaders today not only lack the depth for such statesmanship, they appear utterly devoid of any sense of the compassionate concern for humanity from which it arises. Their preference for so-called "moderates" proves the point. What is moderate about rejecting the natural right of human family life in order to accept a paradigm of human sexuality freed from the responsible discipline of human procreation? What is moderate about rejecting the idea of natural, and therefore inherent, human rights in order to accept a so-called "right" to murder our offspring?

This disregard for the natural obligation that binds one generation to the next is precisely what leads to the disgusting orgy of self-seeking that is piling a Mount Everest of debt onto the backs of our posterity with no regard for the national servitude it represents. Why should we expect people who claim the right to avoid their present responsibilities by killing their living offspring to care about the harm they do to the generations yet unborn? Why should we expect people encouraged to justify such murder with arguments about the inferior "quality" of the life they destroy to stop at similarly discarding the elderly when age takes the shine from their physical existence? If the idea of humanity doesn't prevent murder in the womb, all the more reason it should not prevail against the murder of those whose life declines toward death.

The idea of "moderation" touted by the GOP leadership orphans the very idea of humanity, and with it the fellow feeling (compassion) that should stay the hand from murder and neglect, especially when the victims include our offspring or the parents who engendered our lives. It rejects the disciplined understanding of liberty that made successful constitutional self-government possible in the United States.By accepting an idea of right that limited and disciplined our choice, we became a people capable of doing what the scoffing philosophers thought impossible- establishing a government of, by and for the people that promotes order and prosperous decency rather than licentious self-destruction. This is true moderation. Real moderates, therefore, will not support people like Scozzafava, or the covert Scozzafavas the cynical, self-seeking GOP leadership insists on foisting off as "conservatives." They will instead seek out representatives who work to conserve the American idea of right. This is the heart and soul of the conservative cause, which in the end is just the cause of lasting liberty.

14 comments:

Dawg_em said...

Bravo, Dr. Keyes. Keep firing.

It is interesting to see these folks who walk the halls of power have divorced themselves from the "peasants" and continue to be in denial of the current of distress felt by many Americans. By the way, isn't Newt Gingrich a member of the CFR?

I do wonder why people like Newt and Tony Blair wanted to convert to Roman Catholicism. It is a curiousity, not for purposes of judgement, but for understanding. I do thank the Almighty for sparing me the responsibility of inspecting men's souls for motive. Could it be the lack of excommunications for child-killers and the honoring of those who support infanticide encourages the lessening of the importance of respect for His creation?

At the same time I am grateful, being careful of what I wish, I have had laid upon my heart the deep desire for freedom. Primarily the freedom to worship Him. Not only for myself, but for my posterity and everyone else who understands the value of standing up to tyranny.

And isn't that another measure of the tragedy of the American Genocide? Created in His image and likeness, we are destined to love Him, to serve Him, and to be in paradise with Him forever. To minimize the importance of God's will for us is to minimize, in our own pathetic way, our Creator.

OldSouth said...

'They long for leaders who also understand, and will rise to defend the moral idea of America, from which so many have gained inspiration and hope, and for which so many have risked or given their lives.'

Well written, kudos to you.

America is a place, but it is very much an idea. The idea drove the creation of the place, and must be recovered if we are to survive and thrive in the future.

Pat Buchanan, I believe, said it well: 'A culture is not an economy.' (I hope I quoted correctly!)

Good work, keep writing. Not always in total agreement with you, but you never fail to provoke thought with your clear and impassioned prose.

Best wishes,

OldSouth

RubaJiUHpvORyfW6YQklZF9Xera0bAg- said...

"Their election stands on money issues are a matter of cynical political calculation."

You don't emphasize clearly enough the implications of this statement. Whatever a candidate says as a matter of political calculation is almost certain to be an outright lie. This is the nature of politics, it is the reason that apparent sincerity is such a valuable asset with voters. Voters know instinctively that only the heartfelt principles of the candidate matter. Unfortunately, most voters are not particularly adept at spotting faked passion or identifying what exactly a candidate really believes.

Which is why an unwavering commitment to truth is the first requirement of viable candidates for office. Generally speaking, this commitment is only likely to be genuine insofar as it springs from a firm grounding in the moral principles of Western civilization, usually including Christian faith. There are other philosophical grounds to value honesty as a fundamental personal character trait, but most such philosophies are not especially compatible with good governance in the American tradition, and are rarely encountered anyway.

Which is to say, if a candidate does not affirm through current positions and past actions a firm commitment to traditional Western morality in its entirety, there is little basis for confidence that anything the candidate asserts is sincere. This is the real flaw of what you call the 80-20 argument. It isn't that the 20% with which we disagree about is more important (though it probably is), but that only by agreeing about that 20% can we have any confidence that the candidate is being remotely honest about agreeing with us on the other 80%.

This is, incidentally, why we must also never trust Islamic nations to be good allies or keep their word to us. Islamic morality explicitly condones the use of deception against all unbelievers...without any qualification. Muslims are never under any moral imperative to tell the truth to anyone who is not Muslim.

The same principle applies to those who accept the New Age moral codes which emphasize "self-esteem" and "personal liberation". Except they don't even tell the truth amongst themselves.

chiu_chunling said...

Oops, wrong account sign-in. I'd think that would trigger a re-verification prompt, but apparently Yahoo doesn't really care about their Open ID support.

KC Kim said...

Dr. Keyes, thank you for championing true conservative constitutionalist ideals. It's unfortunate that our GOP still doesn't get it!

I always believed that adversity brings out the true character of men. I hope this holds true for a nation where great new leaders will step forth and resurrect this country so that it can be a shining city on a hill.

I pray that God bless you and your family.

KC Kim

Dick said...

as soon as Sozzafava dropped out she immediately endorsed her Democratic rival. I wonder how Gingrich reconcilled that as a good Republican.

danl1985 said...

corrupt judges and the aclu is what is really leading to the destruction of america. we try to blame parties and leaders for all our problems, but take a good look and you will see that the aclu has destroyed america through corrupting the traditional family values that once glued this nation to God's word. one nation under secularism cannot stand, but one nation under God is indivisible. how did people not realize what was being stripped away right before their eyes? You've followed tghe red herring of fighting over political parties rather than spotting the true culprit.

Terry Morris said...

I see that when the team was up against it and the breaks were beatin' the libs, the voters of 23 N.Y. went out and won just one for the Newter. I don't know where he is right now, but he knows about it and he's happy.

Dawg_em said...

I've just read the CNN interview where Boehner says "...Republicans...are standing on fiscal responsibility, like we have all year, standing on principle..." blah, blah, blah. Yeah, right. Like passing Bush's spending bill, not to mention the 800+billion stimulus package. The GOP moderates routinely vote with the left and so-called conservatives like Boehner welcome them, apparently afraid of what the MSM will say about them. I hope he does continue to lick the boots of the liberals in the GOP because that big tent is going to come crashing down around him.

As far as the tea parties go, he should come down from his ivory throne on the dais and talk directly to the attendees. Or maybe he has and his inclusiveness doesn't account for libertarian minded folks. Many people I've seen are of that stripe and are about as disgusted with the Repugnicans as they are with the Deathocrats.

This just in; according to WND voting machine failures in the 23rd have resulted in a judge ordering their confiscation. Stay tuned.

HistoryWriter said...

Regardless of everyone's thoughts on the matter, the first Democrat in more than 100 years will soon represent New York's 23d CD. What this should tell us is that given the choice of a Democrat or a conservative, Republican moderates (and there are many of them) will prefer the Democrat. Conservatives seem to be suffering from an inflated view of their own relevance in the political process. I wonder if Sarah Palin has scraped the egg off her face.

Alan Keyes said...

Historywriter:
It's not egg but the mark of treachery that is on the face of GOP bosses who spent a million dollars to help Scozzafava to get into a position to distort the outcome. What this clearly suggests is that conservatives should stop giving their money or votes in support of a Party that is in the grip of people methodically committed to thwarting their conservative views.
Time to stop letting the left wing tail wag the conservative dog. As a result of NY 23 more people than ever are finally on the way to doing so. They're starting to see through the threatening sophistry you're practicing as they realize that it facilitates sham elections in which a leftist minority (that includes people of both party labels) exerts de facto control of the political process.
Keep pushing your worn out wares if it makes you happy. Fewer and fewer people are listening to you.

chiu_chunling said...

I realize that the "more than a hundred years" thing could be disputed, but I would rather make a different point.

The Republicans had every reason to suppose that this would be an utterly secure seat for them. But when Palin didn't like their pick, she threw her support behind a completely unknown third party candidate with zero prior political experience (and little mass charm that anyone could detect)...and knocked the Republican candidate clear out of the race. Literally...out of the race.

Think about what that means for any future candidate picks by the Republicans. They can posture about how Palin didn't win...but before this nobody believed that that race was even going to be a contest. She destroyed their candidate in an election that should have been a mere formality. Palin demonstrated that she can effectively veto any Republican's chances of getting elected anywhere in the country.

Electability? The biggest criterion right now is whether Palin will support a third party candidate to the right. If she does, not only is the Republican unelectable, there isn't even any point running one.

The party aklraedy tried political assassination, and it didn't work, in fact it seems to have backfired rather badly. They are basically going to have to run their candidates past Palin and ask her permission for each one.

If they have any intention of winning, that is...the 23rd race would indicate that isn't their real objective.

HistoryWriter said...

Dr. Keyes: With all due respect, it's time conservatives set up their own party instead of riding on the coat-tails of Republicans. That would demonstrate once and for all exactly how relevant the conservative position is. The claim that 40% of Americans are "conservative" is meaningless if the vast majority of them are located in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

chiu_chunling said...

Um....

Someone hasn't been following the conversation here.

For, like...a long time.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.