Monday, January 18, 2010

Is Scott Brown just a sugarcoated Obamanation?

Tomorrow registered voters in Massachusetts have the opportunity to go to the polls to vote in the special election being held to decide who should replaced recently deceased Senator Edward Kennedy in the United States Senate.  Some polls indicate that Scott Brown, the Republican nominee now has a slight edge over the Democrat Martha Coakley.   I know that people who visit this blog on a regular basis are likely to be deeply concerned about the surrender of liberty that is now far advanced in the U.S.  Some will surely be tempted to join the Hallelujah chorus GOP choir director Michael Steele will surely orchestrate should Brown win the vote.  Before they do, I hope they will consider the following information posted on Brown's campaign site regarding his stand on issues that are critical to the restoration of America's liberty in principle and in fact:
  • Abortion
    While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
  • Education
    I am passionate about improving the quality of our public schools. Accountability and high standards are paramount. I support choice through charter schools, as well as the MCAS exam as a graduation requirement. I have worked to ensure that all children have access to a quality education. I am a strong advocate for the METCO program, which provides lower income students with broader educational opportunities.
  • Marriage
    I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people's will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.
This information supports the conclusion that Scott Brown is not pro-life.  Though he pays lip service to choice in education, he gives priority to "accountability and high standards", buzzwords for an approach that leaves control of education in the hands of government, rather than where it belongs, in the hands of those who exercise parental responsibility.  His professed beliefs about marriage ring hollow against the backdrop of actual events in Massachusetts, where he has said "the issue is settled... and he respects the decision to allow gay marriages."

The imposition of gay marriage in Massachusetts was not based on "the people's will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their representatives."  It was the result of a judicial opinion thereafter imposed by the fiat order of then Massachusetts Governor Romney.  In doing so Romney ignored the fact, clearly noted in the opinion itself, that it had no force of law unless and until the legislature chose to enact it.

On his site Brown also says that he is "opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in the Congress and will vote against it."  Yet in almost the same breath he says that "in Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law."  Now the 2006 legislation signed into law by then Governor Romney included a provision that required all Massachusetts residents to purchase health issuance, and provided for government funding of abortions (state funded $50 co-pay abortions for those who qualified.)  In both respects, therefore, Scott Brown supports in substance two aspects of Obama's health care proposal that have been most troubling to conservatives.  One casts aside the principle that limits government's power to dictate the economic decisions of the individual.  The other uses government power to implicate all individuals in a practice that for many violates a paramount rule of conscience while overturning the doctrine of unalienable rights that is the basis for republican government (i.e., limited government based upon the consent of the governed.)

As far as I can tell from his campaign site, I agree with Scott Brown on a majority of other issues of major concern to the country.  If I subscribed to Michael Steele's absurd "80-20" approach to voting, I would heartily encourage Massachusetts voters to support him.  Readers of this blog know that I do not agree with Steele.  It makes no sense to trust one's health to a doctor who rightly prescribes remedies 90% of the time, when the remaining 10% includes inevitably fatal drugs or procedures.  Brown errs on key issues that involve just such fatally flawed positions.  Of course the victims of his errors include not just individuals, but the soul and liberty of the nation.

Scott Brown's candidacy typifies the fatal flaw the Republican Party label now represents.  Though in fact opposed to Obama on the details of some policies, on issues essential to the survival of liberty he actually embraces the fatally flawed departure from moral and political principle that clears the way for those who wish to destroy the moral and institutional foundations of constitutional government.  The label promises remedies, but the bottle contains a few sugarcoated poison pills in key areas.

Some people have suggested to me that Joseph Lewis Kennedy (not part of the Kennedy clan, a libertarian running as an independent) offers a better alternative.  Because of his name he may be siphon support from the Democrat among ignorant voters who think they're supporting one of their clan idols.  But this Kennedy appears to embrace the brand of libertarianism that, by failing to defend the moral foundations of liberty, promotes self-destructive licentiousness instead.

I have pondered and written extensively on the "lesser of evils" arguments that supposedly justify supporting candidates like Scott Brown.   I invite readers to consider my response.  Start with the essay In Good Conscience that I wrote in the context of the 2008 election.  The essays I have written about Michael Steele's flawed approach further develop and apply my thinking.  To find them, just use the search box in the upper left hand corner at the very top of this page to run a search on 'Michael Steele'.

If there were a real conservative in the race in Massachusetts people in the "lesser of evil' crowd would say he or she had no chance of winning.  Of course, as long as we allow their arguments to prevent moral conservatives from uniting beyond what they truly believe, the spoiler effect of the Republican Party means that we will never know.  The "lesser evil" drives out the greater good, leaving us with no choice but evil in some guise.  I suspect that the conservative plurality would win in really contested three way races, even in a State like Massachusetts.

I know many voters who profess Christian faith who would rejoice to see that outcome.  They would thank God for the miracle.  The sad fact though is that their own lack of courage and conviction prevents it from happening.  Faith can move mountains, but only after those who profess faith allow it to move their own hearts.  I pray that the Massachusetts situation isn't a harbinger of the 2010 elections, for that would mean a strong showing by the GOP that left us with a bunch of national legislators who don't disagree with Obama about the immoral, liberty killing, socialist cliff we're driving over.  They just think we ought to use a different vehicle and drive toward the deadly drop at a slower speed.  Unfortunately, in what now is the ever shorter run, that leaves constitutional liberty just as dead and gone.

Update:  (1/18/2010, 11:04 PM)- Scott Brown's stated intentions seem to justify my position.  Consider what he says in this article in the Boston Herald.  It's worth reading all the way through.  Quite an eye opener.  The GOP sure needs another Senator who'll vote for judges like Sotomayor.  That's alright, since Brown says he'd  vote for a pro-life nominee, (whom Obama is sure to propose someday.)  How admirably even handed of him! Of course he may have spoken as he did just to curry favor with Democrat voters.  If so, who's he lying to- them or the conservatives so anxious to get him elected?  But why worry? There's a chance he'll betray the other guys rather than be true to his own stated convictions.
Sure, and the name Arlen Specter rings no bells.


Unknown said...

I agree. During the presidential election I felt the difference between the two major was one was on steroids and the other was not. So I cast my vote for the candidate whom I felt best represented what I believe in and I am writing on his site.

Unknown said...

Well, Brown vs. Reagan leaves much to be desired. Brown vs. Coakley = clear choice.

MaryAnnH said...

Like Alan, I don't like to support pro-abort, pro-homosexual RINOs. Unlike Alan, when faced with 3 pro-abort candidates, I would select the one I felt would do the least amount of damage. I would do my best to educate him about abortion, homosexuality, and other social ills. But I cannot see wasting my vote on a write-in name, or not voting at all. No matter what you do, MA is going to have a pro-abort Senator. I guess I'm a realist not an idealist.

I do not know how much unexpired time there is left on Teddy Kennedy's term. Perhaps one could hope when this seat comes around again for re-election, maybe there will be a REAL conservative in the hunt.

Derek P. said...

"They just think we ought to use a different vehicle and drive toward the deadly drop at a slower speed." (Dr. Keyes)

I take it that you are referring to the nearly five hundred billion dollars in interest paid annually on the debt that fills up either of those vehicles. Outrageous, to say the least.

I would truly be interested in hearing how a real conservative would propose to address that issue. A real conservative. I truly would be.

Done with it all said...

I was truly confused about this situation until I viewed it this way: If this guy was in Texas and I could vote for him I would not on principal even if it meant he lost. Why do I support his campaign because he is in Boston?

They're all corrupt and dwell in darkness. Look no futher than Nancy, Harry, Barney, Hillary,...... The republicans fare only slightly better, and thats because a very few skew the mean.

I wouldn't vote for him. I voted for McCain and I'm still dirty from it.

Jesus Christ is still Lord, regardless.


MaryAnnH said...

Hey, Dave, if Scott Brown were running in Kansas he would be soundly defeated (as would the spineless democrat and nutty libertarian). BUT, there would be a better choice on the ballot than Scott Brown. Remember that this race resides in Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state in the union. As distasteful as homosexual marriage and abortion are, there are other considerations. Seeing that they are going to have a pro-abortion senator no matter what, I would weigh the benefit/risk ratio on shaving one vote off the dems "filibuster proof" majority. Of course, with Olympia Snowe that may not matter. I would vote for the one who could do the least damage or most good. My husband would draw his line in the sand and write in his own name. He would like to take his chances with the democrat, hoping that MA would get a better conservative candidate the next time around. That's a valid analysis, too.

Anonymous said...

Not sure why Alan Keyes waited until January 18 to publish this. We all knew Brown wasn't a rock-ribbed Conservative and just want to do the only thing we can at this point to avoid another Teddy Kennedy clone.

Dawg_em said...

...for the things we have done, and the things we have failed to do.

The last time I voted for the lesser of two evils, McCain, will be the last time I vote for the lesser of two evils. I'm fed up with holding my nose and stifling the gag reflex. After struggling with the idea I've come to the conclusion that a somewhat passive position is preferrable to an active support of evil.

There are at least 2 reasons:

One, it makes no sense to vote for a candidate who supports child sacrifice (with very few restrictions) and the abomination known as sodomy. He also supports state socialism. Can someone please tell me how such a position is so much better than national socialism?

Two, not only does it confirm the status quo, it embeds it. When will we learn those who espouse God-given rights and the natural law can never be taken seriously so long as we continue to compromise our core beliefs. We will be taken for granted, but we won't be taken seriously. Recent history is proof enough.

I know, the old argument goes something like "If we don't do something national socialism will destroy America." Yes, and your point is? I don't mean to sound heartless, for I know there will be great suffering. But don't we as a nation deserve a great chastisement? 50 million+ innocent and defenseless children of God have been slaughtered at the altar of Choice. And we still, stupidly, place our trust and hope in people. Corrupt people who are a part of a corrupt system.

No. No more big tents and no more excuses. It's time to pray and time to fast. Then, perhaps, if we stop leaning unto our own understanding, Godly people will present for leadership a Godly leader.

If not, well, we will surely get what we so richly deserve.

Rachael M said...

I have a rather cynical view of this election and political parties in general. My belief is that when one identifies to an extraordinary degree with one "party," they are no longer objective. They are bound by whatever the group embraces. In other words, a sort of group-think, which to me is very dangerous.

Unknown said...

There has been one good thing come out of the Obama presidency. Conservatives are now beginning to wake up and unite. I agree with you Mr. Keyes in that Brown is not a true conservative, but at least he is not a Reid rubber stamp like Kay Hagan in my state. I am not just praying but I am working to bring the GOP back together under the conservative banner. This will not be easy because Bush did so much damage it will take years of work to undo. Be sure it will not happen overnight. If Brown wins the election I will consider it a victory, however small, but a victory none the less.

Anonymous said...

I find nothing objectionable in what Brown states as his position. True, he leaves unsaid much that would probably be controversial, but such is the essential nature of electoral politics. You avoid talking about anything that would make anyone uncomfortable.

There was (perhaps) a day when the American people as a whole would have been uncomfortable voting for the sort of people who now dominate their government. I imagine it was once common sense to acknowledge that liars and thieves with no moral scruples must not be entrusted with the powers of government. Or even to understand that the best security from tyranny is careful and consistent limitation of those powers.

You live not in such time. Today, the conservative answer is to prepare to defend what is precious to you with the interposition of your own flesh and blood. This is not a pleasant answer to hear. Some may call it the counsel of despair. But the truth is that if you do not prepare to defend yourselves now there is no hope. Americans have always before understood that their natural right to provide for their personal defense was fully compatible with and protected by their government. If you are now forced to choose between standing ready to defend yourselves and full participation in the political process...then one of them is no longer worth doing.

gilbertabrett said...

You just had to end that with Senator Specter, huh? YUCK...

Well, it is the day after the election & MA Senator Brown is now US Senator Brown.

I understand the "lesser of two evils" thing, and honestly I think MANY Americans do, but if there is no other choice? I mean really... If you have two choices and one distraction, you just write in a vote? And let the rest of the loony tunes in this country RUN THE COUNTRY?

How about offer a VIABLE candidate. Where is an American that realizes that GOD gave them the SAME AMOUNT OF BRAINS that HE gave these repulsive thieves that run our government now?!?!?

People who want to make a change need to start planning and STOP WAITING UNTIL THE DAY OR TWO BEFORE AND ELECTION TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.

If you (anyone reading this) wants to run for office in 2012, DO IT NOW. Don't wait until the election season roles around. Then again, who but a crook WANTS to sit in a hall filled with vipers all day long????

Anonymous said...

Jesus said: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;"

"They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Well enough. There are devils and serpents and deadly things aplenty...and many in need of healing. They that believe needn't go to Washington to find them.

Mr. F said...

At first I was opposed to Alan's comment. Then I read the article he suggested. I guess I have been beguiled by the fact that Mass. could actually LOSE Teddy's seat. I have been drunk with the idea that the Dems will lose the super-majority that they cheated to get (see Minnesota). I see now that Brown is no conservative and no one I want in office. But I also see that he prevents an ultra-liberal super majority. That alone makes his election worth it. May God bring about a day when our hope will not be found in charlatan's who may diminish evil, but in men and women of character who openly stand against it!

Anonymous said...

It is not God's will to determine where men turn to find hope.

God has provided that hope for which you seek, and He has told you where it is to be found. But the choice to look there rather than elsewhere is yours and yours alone.

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