A Divided Party

The Divide

We have a divided nation. More importantly, we have a divided Republican Party. Why do I say “more importantly”? Because, this divide is what has prevented a conservative win in the White House for two elections, now. Not a popular thing to say, I know. And even if a Republican candidate had won one of the last two elections, the winning nominee still wouldn’t have been our most conservative contestant because this division started in the primaries and assured us that we ended up with a more liberal contender in the final race.

Now I am not saying there is anything wrong with the primary process. It is a necessary and vital part of our system without a doubt. We  should have healthy, competitive primaries. But there are some issues that are taking place within that primary, (and beyond) that assures this divide will continue.

We see attacks on candidates - all members of the same party - that continue well after the primary is over. We see candidates that won’t drop out well after it is clear they have no chance to win the primary. (One candidate wouldn't drop out even after the primary was well in the past and the election in full swing.) We see candidates that attack our own Republican Party to a nastier degree than we even see them attack the opposing party candidate. We see supporters that are so enamored with their candidate, that they proudly state they will not vote at all, rather than vote for someone who wasn’t their first choice. All of this ensures a divided Republican Party that is left ineffective, disrespected and discombobulated.

As with anything, we point out the faults of one group in order to promote our own preferred faction. More than that, we also sometimes, make our group look like we are somehow more special. We believe we have a special insight that the other assemblage simply doesn’t have. We are somehow above – more spiritual; more knowledgeable; more compassionate; etc. - than the opposing group. It makes us feel wiser; it makes us want to belong; everyone wants to be best. This draws supporters that may not otherwise be there. We all want to be a part of the elite party. It’s popular and it’s contagious. It is sometimes a “jump-on-the-band-wagon” affect.

We begin with an element of valuable truth whether it is our precious Bible for religious organizations or groups; or maybe it’s our respected Constitution for political groups. Somehow we tell everyone that we understand it better, we love it more…we are the only ones that truly “get it”.

We are seeing a divide in the Church for these very reasons, I believe; but it is our politics that I intend to discuss in this post.

Enter The Tea Party movement: Now I believe the Tea Party is an important part of our modern day politics. The Republican Party had drifted and is clearly moving left of our traditional platform. The Tea Party was necessary to remind us where we should be and made a valiant effort to bring us back there. However, there is a fringe group within the tea party that can be very damaging if we are not careful. We see neo-Nazis, radical militia groups and even libertarians that are, in fact, left of center taking great strides to affect (or dare I say, infect) this important grass roots movement.

With this inclusion come problems and affiliations that may not be in the best interest of conservatives that wish to bring our nation back "right of center". Attitudes and beliefs, even interpretations of our beloved Constitution may be affected. It all rubs off on others, and if we are not paying close attention, we may be deceived. We believe we are all united for the same cause, if we don’t dig deep enough into the roots of what ones agenda might really be.

We are also seeing a blatant attack on Republicans from within these ranks. It is my firm belief that attacks such as these do far more harm than anything else. One cannot go around attacking our party of choice and expect anything constructive to come out of it. We are only aiding and in effect, joining the other side when we do that. We must support and work within what we have in order to change whatever it is that may be faulty or that which has gone awry within our political party.

In the last two Presidential elections, as well as some Congressional and Senate races, we have seen a trend toward “libertarian” Republicans. Now this began, not by candidates identifying themselves with that name, as much as it began with a simple claim from them that they were in fact, the most “conservative” candidates. Eventually, these candidates became more comfortable distinguishing themselves with the label they are actually more aligned – libertarian. And now, finally, we are actually seeing articles and discussions about this trend toward libertarian leanings in regard to some candidates of the Republican Party.

One could say some almost used Saul Alinsky tactics to incorporate themselves into a legitimate position within the Republican Party. They identified themselves as the most coveted position of those of our party – conservatives who love and understand the Constitution more than any other group. When these candidates were successfully identified and maybe even erroneously recognized as such, their actual title and ideology was automatically accepted i.e. libertarian.

Libertarian Defined

Libertarian is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary – 4^thEdition as “One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.” While that sounds pretty simple and actually very noble and indeed a desired end, “libertarian” has in reality, come to mean much more. Libertarians have somewhat mistakenly believed moral issues are not for the government to legislate, thereby leaving moral excellence by the wayside. Libertarian candidates and supporters would argue this simply isn’t true, but the end result of their position leaves no other alternative or outcome. In some cases, this has lead to inappropriate application in deciding or understanding laws that need our attention.

By those (such as myself,) that strongly support Israel, libertarians are perceived as a group who is seriously lacking in regard to the national defense of Israel. Libertarians are left of center, (sometimes even left of Obama) on issues of national defense and foreign policy. Libertarians are joined by people like, John Stossel, Judge Napolitano; Pat Buchanan; and Dr. "We Started It" Ron Paul - some of whom bash Republicans at a greater degree than they even target Democrats with their attacks. Though difficult to admit, if one were to take an honest, heartfelt look, one would see that is indeed a fact. Take a look at anyone of the people mentioned above in regard to their stance on Israel, or foreign policy and you will have a clear understanding of what it is that bothers me most about the libertarian world view. You will have to look a bit deeper than a superficial glance, because the libertarian will tell you, they fully support Israel. They will tell you they simply believe it isn’t America’s place to be involved with Israel's politics. Or they will tell you that they support Israel by ensuring we don’t give money to her enemies. We absolutely shouldn’t give money to her enemies, but the fact is, we are! Removing financial support from Israel, at the same time we remove it from her enemies, does nothing to demonstrate the type of alliance we have always given Israel in our past. Our alliance and support has come out of and in accordance with a Biblical mandate. We have simply forgotten that.

A definition of the "libertarian" written by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service reads:

“Libertarianism is a philosophy. The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it."

Now that is a fine definition and maybe even doable in a society without sin. This type of viewpoint might even actually have worked during the time of our Founders when it was clear, they based the whole of our Constitution on Biblical principals, and had an honest desire to create a more Godly society. As examples:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~ John Adams

"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." ~ Continental Congress, 1778

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~Benjamin Franklin

“Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.” ~ George Washington

Clearly our Founders believed freedom will not work without a moral foundation and as Franklin stated, "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom". Neither have we defined the fact, that some of these so-called “victimless crimes”, that libertarians tend to promote in the name of freedom, actually do have victims, try as we might to say otherwise.

Confusion in the Ranks

I think one of the main problems we are seeing due to this trend toward the libertarian philosophy, is that Republicans are truly confused about libertarianism and conservatism. We have had some convince us that the libertarian viewpoint is closer to the views of our Founding Fathers. It is not! By the above quotes we can understand that a strict libertarian viewpoint will not work in a Godless society, of which we are sadly becoming. Of course our Founders wanted a limited government, but not at the expense of morality; not at the expense of our citizens generating harm. The Founders understood that our rights and freedoms come from God; but they would never go against His Word in order to promote freedom. They wouldn’t even call that freedom!

“The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” ~ Noah Webster

We hear from the libertarian camp: “You can’t ‘legislate’ morality.” Oh, really? Morality has been legislated since the beginning of governments of which God is the creator. Now of course, legislation is not going to change the human heart. Only God can do that, but God is a God of law and order, and the world would not be a very nice place without both. When there is a behavior that is having a direct consequence on the safety and morality of its citizens, legislation absolutely has its place. The end result would be anarchy without it. I believe libertarians in their quest for the ultimate freedoms may have taken things a step too far. Libertarians love our Constitution, but they have forgotten that our Founders said our Constitution will not work in a Godless society.

Noah Webster, also said, "The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence."

Neither do I believe the libertarian belief system of today is the same philosophy as defined by our Founders’ words and actions, contrary to what libertarians would have us believe. Do we really believe our Founders would have been in favor of legalization of marijuana? Do we really believe our founders would have been ok with the legalization of prostitution? The truth of the matter our Founders did see the Constitution as a means of safety for America’s citizens. I hardly think our Founders would understand that there are those that want to help in the legalization of dangerous drugs, by calling for the “defederalization” of these drugs. Libertarianism has evolved much over the years, as all the parties have, even from what the philosophy meant at the time of Ronald Reagan. The degradation of society has ensured that difference. There is simply no two ways about that.

It is a fact that one of the few jobs of the government is to protect our nation from our enemies. In regard to war, most libertarians oppose the wars since 9/11. I don't know how anyone with an accurate understanding of our enemy could not support these endeavors. I recommend reading The Terrorist Next Door by Erik Stackelbeck for an eye opening account of what we are up against. It seems to be a fact that libertarians simply do not have a clear understanding of what our enemies have plainly said in regard to the U.S. and Israel. Rather, they view America as the aggressor or the "occupier". This is the same view the Obama administration has of America, and I believe without understanding, libertarians are joining Obama in his "anti-colonial" views. I recommend Dinesh D'Souza's book, Obama's America.

Libertarians love to say we don’t need a strong defense –that we should cut our defense spending. They really don’t understand, nor do they promote Reagan’s doctrine of “Peace through strength.”

“We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.” ~Ronald Reagan

As pointed out in the above quote and by the facts of history, we know Ronald Reagan held a deep belief in a strong defense.

Libertarians seem to ignore the above quote by Ronald Reagan, but love to point to this quote by President Reagan: “The very heart and soul of conservatism, is libertarianism.”

What they fail to acknowledge, or understand is libertarianism is not the same as it was in Ronald Reagan’s day. Again, the libertarianism President Reagan mentions in the above quote has evolved like all the other parties and “isms” of our day. Again, the lack of God in our society has ensured that difference.

We have those seeking to destroy our nation by debauchery that we didn’t have in the Founder’s time, nor even in Ronald Reagan’s time. Libertarians of today, forget one more thing, we have involvement with the UN that we didn’t have when our Founders wrote our Constitution. Now by saying that, I do understand libertarians have a distinct disdain for the activities of the UN and anything that aligns our nation there, as well they should. But what I believe they are forgetting and thereby ignoring is that we are already there – we are already in the midst of a huge dilemma as the UN seeks to force their will upon ours. The intrusion has become a fact and it is something that cannot be left unaddressed. If we are to prevent a further slippage into UN control of our blessed United States, aggressive action is required. It will most likely require amendments to our Constitution that libertarians tend to lambaste, but that in reality - though none of us like to see them - have become a necessary protection tool.

Unfortunately, a Parental Rights amendment is needed to protect the rights of parents to raise their own children. A marriage amendment is now needed to protect the union between a man and a woman. I think our Founder’s would be turning in their graves to see we are at a place where we even need to discuss and defend such issues. But ignoring it and saying our Constitution is already enough to protect us is just fool-hardy. We have already digressed enough within our nation that we absolutely do need to take steps to prevent further intrusion. Freedoms such as these are not going to be maintained at will. We have strong forces working against us to make sure otherwise.

It is almost impossible to convince a citizen with his newly recognized libertarian stance, that he is not the traditional conservative voter, nor is he the most conservative activist. The chart below shows the position of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians in regard to the degree of philosophy each holds. This chart is actually taken from a Ron Paul website. Ron Paul and his supporters are the first to claim they are the most conservative, but the “Nolan Chart” (David Nolan) shown below, which the Paul group clearly advocates, shows otherwise.

The Nolan Chart as defined by Wikipedia is a “political view assessment diagram created by the American politician, David Nolan. The chart divides human political action into two categories: economic and personal. The chart illustrates the libertarian view of economicand personal freedom. It expands the "left-right" line which attempted to measure politics along a one-dimensional line into a graph with two dimensions: degrees of economic and social freedom.”

 

 

Recently, Ann Coulter met with John Stossel to be interviewed by a college full of over 1400 libertarian students. Now, if you know anything about Ann Coulter - though she distinctly differs from the libertarian world view - there was not a thing to worry about in the way of intimidation. She can definitely hold her own. I was actually a bit more worried for the 1400 students. Coulter was a bit more crass than I would have liked her to be, so I didn't post the discussion here, but you can google it you wish, and watch the full interview. Ms. Coulter made some great points in regard to libertarians actually unwittingly doing foot work for the liberal agenda. Now maybe it was due to their youth, but these young people seemed to miss the point of her argument entirely. And so did John Stossel. She simply made the point, if they really held to their libertarian belief they would be concerned about a good deal more than just the promotion of legalization of marijuana; and the "it's my body" argument that the discussion always seems to come down to. “What about the invasive laws being inflicted upon those that want to start a business?” She asked them. “Why are you ignoring the "big fights"?

"We’re living in a country that is 70-percent socialist, the government takes 60 percent of your money. They are taking care of your health care, of your pensions. They’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations will be. And you want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, “Oh, but we want to legalize pot."

Ms. Coulter has a great point, does she not? There really does seem to be a lot of jumping on the band wagon, without a great deal of clarity regarding what some actually believe.

 

During the interview, Ms. Coulter mentioned to the group that liberals are seeking to destroy the family and replace it with government. The group actually laughed and booed. Clearly this type of reaction would not have come from conservative listeners. Anyone from a conservative world view that has been paying attention, especially to this administration, would undertand that Ms. Coulter was actually extremely accurate in making that statement.

 

Conservatism

Now for myself, I am without a doubt a conservative. I consider myself a member of the tea party. I believe in limited government, a strong national defense, and the exceptionalism of America. I believe in the Second Amendment; the right to life and I am pro-Israel to the core. I believe in taking the moral high ground and accountability that comes with that, not only as a safety measure, but as a measure to receive God’s blessings. These views are nothing new. This is the traditional conservative viewpoint and agenda.

I am also unequivocally and unashamedly a registered Republican. I don’t feel the need to justify that, or explain that I am a “conservative” first as some seem to feel the need to explain. Sean Hannity would be an example of someone who loves to state he is a conservative first. That is fine. With the new leanings the Republican Party has taken I completely understand why there are those that like to make that distinction. But I am a Republican, I am conservative, and I understood the platform of the Republican Party and identified myself as such even before I could vote. I am also a firm believer that one shouldn’t use Saul Alinsky tactics to change the party by attacking it. We need to work within ones party and within the greatest system in the world to effect the change we need and ensure we get the most like minded candidates we can get. We will not get there by attacking ourselves. That should be painfully obvious after the last two general elections. And because of that firmconviction, I proudly identify myself as a Republican and I believe this is the party that holds to a platform at their roots of which I am proud.

I honestly don’t care if one has libertarian beliefs! I admire anyone that has convictions. I believe there are some positives about the trend that can be beneficial. What I am opposed to is libertarians forcing their beliefs on me and my party. What I don’t like is libertarians telling me I am not conservative, when by every definition of the word I am the one that is truly conservative. What I don’t like is the division it has brought. What I abhor is someone claiming to be a Republican, running as a Republican, all the while attacking the party even to a higher degree than he might attack a Democrat. What we cannot tolerate is those that use our party because they say it is only as close as they can get to their viewpoint. There are libertarians wandering in their leanings trying to figure it all out for the first time in their life, wanting to hold onto the conservative name, but being pushed elsewhere by the new libertarian mantra. They have entered into the philosophy without fully understanding it will not work in a society spiraling downward much as ours is.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~Benjamin Franklin

So if nothing else, the libertarians in their noble quest for limiting government seem to be getting the cart before the horse…if we are to have freedom, we must first have God. Do we really have that much faith in mankind that we believe we can be governed without law? In order for there to be a lawless society, we would need to see another Great Awakening, (at the very least) where people honor the God of the Universe, and desire to serve Him. We are a long way from that, I am afraid.

“Where there is no law there is no freedom.” ~ John Locke

Standing Together

Yes, I want libertarians included in our party, but they must understand we cannot tolerate or accept this division. And in the final days, when all the discussion and debate is over, we must stand together in the final outcome…until the next time. We didn’t loose our nation in one fell swoop and we won’t get it back that way. We lost it incrementally and unfortunately we will need to take it back incrementally and with patience and resolve.

We are also experiencing a great divide between what some call “traditional”Republicans and members of the tea party. No, I don’t like that term either - "traditional Republicans". We are Republicans or we are not. There can be no divide. We must take what is positive, we must take what we have and work with it.

One of the most recent examples of bickering among conservatives involves the tea party and Karl Rove. Now the tea party has long held disdain for Karl Rove which I personally believe evolved more out of the liberal media attacks of him rather than anything that Karl Rove actually did. Recently Karl Roves organization Conservative Victory Project (through American Crossroads) made the news. The very liberal New York Times did a hit piece on his organization dramatizing and incorrectly stating that Rove’s organization was out to destroy tea party candidates. This could not be further from the truth and a thinking person, would have seen a very clear agenda by this liberal newspaper. But the war was on.

Even brietbart. com reported on this declaring that “Rove Declares War on the Tea Party”, again quoting the liberal New York Times rather than taking the steps to hear from Rove, himself. Karl received a number of vicious attacks by tea party groups, despite the fact that he went on a number of conservative talk shows to clarify the mix-up. Rove was very convincing in these interviews and had any one wanted to check the facts they would have easily believed him, because the facts are there.



No excuse for this type of thing!

But the war continued! Finally, one of the tea party groups (Tea Party Patriots) posted a photo of Karl in a Nazi uniform, basically calling him a fascist. They had gone too far, and were forced to come out with an apology to Karl which he accepted graciously. I probably would not have been so gracious. I was furious at the lack of understanding and common sense to see that this fiasco was escalating and only hurting our own party. Liberals were of course, loving it! Good did eventually come out of it, I guess. The Blaze finally printed an excellent article written by Todd Cefaratti (Tea Party activist) about the need for conservatives to unite.

Well duh!! I wanted to post in regard to the article. I refrained though, in order not to discourage an effort to finally unite the party.

Honestly, after all the attacks Rove has been receiving, I am inclined to believe someone is desperately fearful of his organization and if we check things out fully, we will find it needn’t be the tea party. One will be hard-pressed to find any positive articles or videos about Roves project. Though Marco Rubio is one who came out early in his defense.

Rubio is one that has added a little common sense to the equation, and understands the need for unity in our party, and that we are not going to get there by attacking someone when they have made a sincere effort. While clearly supporting the tea party, he appropriately defended Karl Rove. Now that is a leader. I am going to be watching Marco Rubio.

Obviously, Rove isn’t correct about everything either; I am not saying that. But these kinds of antics within the conservative base is extremely damaging. If you are a doubter, or one that distrusts Karl Rove, please just listen to the facts as he makes them in one of the televised interviews.

Sincere efforts are why I support the tea party; sincere efforts are why I support groups such as Patriot Voices and ACLJ. No one is ever going to be 100% right, but we need to join together in an all out effort to do what is best for our country.

Seventeen million Christians, who usually take a conservative stance, did not vote in the 2008 election! It has actually been reported at brietbart.com and other places that an additional 2.5 million Christians did not vote in the 2012 election. These votes would undoubtedly have turned the outcome. These statistics also show we are still a "right of center" nation had people actually got out to vote. It seems rather, we simply have people that don’t care enough to vote; or that somehow believe they are betraying their conscious; or maybe they have been taught to believe they can’t change anything anyway. So many love to say they "will never vote for the lesser of two evils". This is such destructive thinking. None of our candidates are perfect - ever! The Bible says we are all evil! It isn't a matter of compromise when it comes to our elections. It is a matter of simply voting for the best candidate, and sometimes even more importantly, voting against the candidate that goes against Biblical principals and may even seek (knowingly or unknowingly) the destruction of America. I am not too proud to say I will vote against a candidate when I see that their agenda will do more harm to our nation than the other candiate's agenda will! We need to continue striving for perfection, while understanding we will never achieve it until Jesus returns. When I think of the changes we would be seeing in our country if even the more moderate candidate would have been elected this last election, it is absolutely heart-wrenching.

In reality, there is no excuse for not voting. It is more than our right; it is our responsibility! There is simply no excuse for any of this. The lack of desire and accountability to vote has to be changed. It is a travesty that must be dealt with without delay. There is no time left to waste.

The disunity between conservatives, libertarians, tea party members, and moderates is disconcerting to say the least. The bickering, back-biting and back-stabbing is beyond my understanding. If we do not understand or acknowledge this divide, we only aid the liberal agenda; we are without excuse. Now I am not saying there is no place for disagreement, discussion and dialogue. I am not saying we all have to agree. We should point out the errors of those that may be headed the wrong direction. We must recognize faulty philosophies and try to correct them; but in the end we must find common ground and stick together.

If we do not find a way to unite those that wish to identify themselves with the conservative side, our nation has indeed seen her better days. If we refuse to stand the ground on moral issues, and Biblical mandates, our government - as our Founders informed us - cannot work. If we do not strive for moral excellence; understand the exceptionalism of America and claim it proudly, America will be a thing of the past.

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” ~Daniel Webster

 

 

Resources:

• http://www.nolanchart.com/article6792-can-libertarians-overthrow-the-neoconservatives.html
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/15/1162077/-Libertarians-provided-the-margin-for-Democrats-in-at-least-nine-elections
• http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/03/5002/
• http://libertarian.jimeyer.org/
• http://www.libertarianism.com/content/definitions-of-libertarianism/
• http://www.breitbart.com