Ben Carson Not Allowed to Speak at Baptist Event Because He is an Adventist
By AT News Team, April 27, 2015: Dr. Ben Carson, an Adventist doctor who is running for president of the United States, has been canceled as a speaker at the Southern Baptist Pastors Conference in June, according to Christianity Today, the largest circulation Christian journal in America. The reasons include Carson’s Adventist faith as well as concerns about mixing politics and religion.
Baptist21, an independent group of clergy within the Southern Baptist Convention, objected because Adventists believe those not saved will, in the end, be consumed in “a lake of fire” instead of being tortured in the furnace of “hell” without end; and because they “claim that worshiping on Sunday is sin.” More surprising, they also objected to Carson saying that Christians, Jews and Muslims are “all God’s children.”
“Certainly, we do not all worship the same God,” the group stated on its blog. “The idea that we are all God’s children is at best the type of liberalism the Conservative Resurgence sought to address, and at worst, it is universalism.” An Adventist scholar told Adventist Today that this reflects a new type of Fundamentalism that is emerging among Christians in America.
A concern about Southern Baptists being too closely connected with the Republican Party was also voiced by a Baptist21 leader, as reported by Christianity Today. Yet Mike Huckabee, who has run for president in pastor and been elected governor in Arkansas, spoke at the event in 2009 and 2013, the magazine pointed out. Huckabee has also been a Baptist pastor. White, Evangelical Christians from the southern United States are generally seen as a significant block within the Republican Party.
Pastor Willy Rice, director of the pastor’s conference and pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Clearwater (Florida), defended the choice of Carson as a speaker. “He has spoken at the National Prayer Breakfast twice (the only other person to do so was Billy Graham); he was a frequent guest of James Dobson; he has spoken at several Southern Baptist churches for major events. … He loves Southern Baptists and considers them friends. I believe most Southern Baptists equally respect and appreciate him.”
Carson is an active member of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination and retired last year as chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center in Baltimore. He has hired campaign staff and launched an exploratory committee in preparation of a run for the presidency, but has not yet officially declared as a candidate. If a significant number of southern Evangelicals will not support him due either to his Adventist faith or his African American race, then his candidacy faces even greater odds than it has due to his lack of a long track record in politics.
The objections to Carson speaking at the Southern Baptist Pastors Conference based on his Adventist faith also raise a new specter of negative Evangelical attitudes toward the Adventist denomination. Christianity Today has also recently published an article reporting that the Adventist movement is growing at the rate of one million new members per year and “trying to keep their distinctive beliefs while also moving closer to other evangelicals.”
The article quoted David Neff, a former Adventist minister and a former editor of the magazine: “There has been a continuing tension about whether [Adventists] see themselves as distinct, or as one among many evangelical denominations with a few special emphases. … There’s a dynamic that moves back and forth between those poles.”
“The idea that we are all God’s children is at best the type of liberalism the Conservative Resurgence sought to address, and at worst, it is universalism.”
——————
Strangely enough, if Carson had stuck to SDA wording, he’d have known that recently we’ve downgraded everyone from being children of God to merely being “loved by God” (latest tweak in our homosexuality statement).
I disagree. We are all God’s children because He created us, but we are NOT all children of God because it’s living in accordance to His will that makes us children of God as well as AAbraham’s seed!!!
Clearly, Baptist21 sounds like a pretty kooky Christian fringe group, probably not at all representative of mainstream evangelical Southern Baptists, who voted overwhelmingly for Romney. But I wonder if the AT News Team could clarify why it jumped the track from Baptist21 views toward Carson to Southern evangelicals’ politics, suggesting, with no supportive evidence, that 1. the views of Baptist21 may be reflective of the views of a significant number of Southern evangelicals; and 2. Southern evangelicals might be opposed to Carson because of his race.
Why, pray tell, did the AT News Team gratuitously smear Southern evangelicals with innuendos of racism, without citing a scintilla of evidence that race has anything to do with the opposition to Carson? Was that something that was gleaned from Christianity Today? I highly doubt it. I look forward to an explanation from the AT News Team of why it occurred to them to suggest in this article that Southern evangelicals are predisposed toward racism.
“White, Evangelical Christians from the southern United States are generally seen as a significant block within the Republican Party.”
Nathan, do you disagree with this statement?
“If a significant number of southern Evangelicals will not support him due either to his Adventist faith or his African American race, then his candidacy faces even greater odds than it has due to his lack of a long track record in politics.”
Nathan, do you disagree with this statement (which begins with an IF)?
Neither of these statements says to me that “White, Evangelical Christians from the southern United States” are racists. But it does allow for the possibility that a “significant number” might not support Carson because of his religious affiliation or his ethnic origin.
Would it be fair to speculate that a “significant number of southern Evangelicals” did not support Obama? Would it be fair to speculate whether his religious affiliation or his ethnic origin played any role? Or was it only because Obama is a Democrat whereas Carson seems to be a Republican?
My own speculation would be that among most voters these gentlemen’s political views would tend to prevail over their religious affiliations, which in turn would prevail over their ethnic origins. But all of these would be factors in the eyes of at least some voters.
And I think that Carson’s political naivete and inexperience and ineptitude would doom him regardless of these other factors.
A “significant number” of Evangelicals did not vote for Romney in 2012 because he was a Mormon.
Indeed, American voters can do better than electing a devout member of a cult to be their president (e.g, Romney and Carson). I heartily applaud my Southern Baptist friends for increasingly seeing Seventh-day Adventism and Mormonism as false gospels.
Given the history of the Southern Baptists we could question the calibre of their gospel as well.
This coming from someone who worships on a day set aside by the popes of the Catholic Church. How ironic to call adventist a cult. They seem to be closer to the word of God then you
Ignorance is bliss. Cult? Are Adventists a cult because they are Bible believing and practicing Christians? Do you know your world history? Please go study when and why Sunday worshipped was introduced. Step away from your cult following – lack of knowledge/ignorance.
I am a SDA. It saddens me to read your accusations about the SDA belonging to a cult. That couldn’t me any further from the truth. I would like to challenge you to learn more about the SDA denomination before making uneducated statements. I’m sorry you feel the way you do. Blessings to you always.
Good points, Jim. Of course both statements are true, though the second one is badly constructed. But true statements suggesting irrelevant, tangential possibilities (anything is usually possible) can be misleading and inflammatory.
Suppose a Black African was in the running for G.C. President, and I wrote a newspiece saying that, if a significant number of N.A.D. Adventists will not support him – either due to his opposition to W.O. or his race – his candidacy could be in trouble. Would you not find that statement offensive? Doesn’t the mere mention of that possibility suggest that N.A.D. Adventists have a statistically significant likelihood of being racist?
Of course you can speculate that conservatives are more likely to be racist if you wish to do so. But I don’t expect to see drive-by speculation gratuitously injected into what should be objective news reporting, especially when it is totally irrelevant to the story.
Once we allow editorial speculation to creep into news reporting, anything can become news. And as long as we’re speculating, do you believe for an instant that President Obama would even have been nominated, much less elected, if not for his race? I happen to agree with the last paragraph/sentence of your comment, although with a fawning, complicitous media/entertainment industry, anything is possible. We know from the last two presidential elections that political naivete, inexperience and ineptitude do not necessarily doom a presidential candidacy.
Ironically enough, your GC example was not quite as hypothetical as you might have intended. But for his age, there would probably have been a fairly strong contingent supporting Matthew Bediako for GC President last time around.
So now I am probably accusing the Nominating Committee of age discrimination as opposed to racism?
PS – Given the amount of right-wing racist hate mail I have received targeting Obama in the past 6 years, I think there is a good case to be made that at least some of the opposition to Obama WAS and IS racially motivated. Whether that might also be true for Carson I cannot say with certainty, but it would seem to be a distinct possibility.
“We know from the last two presidential elections that political naivete, inexperience and ineptitude do not necessarily doom a presidential candidacy.”
Well in the interest of “fair and balanced” reporting one could cite many examples going back much farther than the last two elections. And not only among Democrats 8-).
You’re not really engaging with my point, Jim. I’m not a reporter. I don’t purport to be fair and balanced. Nor do I expect NEWS items to be fair and balanced. O’Reilly doesn’t do news; he does commentary. I expect news reporting will stick to facts and evidence.
You haven’t responded to my central point. News pieces are supposed to be free of editorial bias. From the perspective of intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity, leaving aside whether you agree or disagree with the drive-by speculation, are you okay with the way that race was injected into this news piece to smear by innuendo a particular group of Americans? It feels to me like your sympathy with the editorial perspective is blinding you to journalistic malpractice.
As an ardent Adventist campaigner for Dr. Carson, I have witnessed far more objections to his candidacy based on his perceived “anti-2nd amendment” position that his race or religion. That he has thoroughly debunked these allegations seems to make no difference.
Didn’t know Ben had declared his run for the presidency. I think there is a typo of fact in the opening paragraph.
He has made several public statements about his interest and a few days ago announced that he will formally declare in May that he is running. He has been actively raising money and organizing a campaign staff for some number of months.
Ben Carson will announce his candidacy in Detroit on Monday (May 4), according to official email from the SuperPAC supporting him.
Correct, he he will declare his candidacy or not on Monday May 4. AT committed several sophomoric typographical errors in the pice, significantly jeopardizing its credibility.
This is a crazy form of religious discrimination. Goes to show how fundamentalists of any denomination can be snobbish, exclusive, and myopic. Not the kind of religion I want to be a part of.
What denomination do you belong to?
Speaking of snobbish, none approach that characteristic more than Baptist21.
Fair enough that they disinvited him. Just as Adventists don’t want non-Adventists addressing them on spiritual issues. We may disagree with their theology but at least they’re standing up for what they believe
Adventists are much more open about inviting non-Adventists to speak at similar events. Dr. Carson is not a theologian and he was not invited to speak at a Sunday morning worship service. He is a doctor, maybe a politician, that happens to be a Seventh-day Adventist. His presence would be comparable to James Dobson who, I believe, is a Baptist and who has many beliefs contrary to SDA beliefs, but who also has spoken in person and on video frequently to SDA audiences. Many politicians of varying beliefs and faiths have spoken at Baptist churches in the past. IMO, the decision of Baptist21, as stated on their website, is inconsistent and indefensible.
Dobson does not claim allegiance to any denomination, but strongly leans toward Armenian Church of the Nazarene.
“And as long as we’re speculating, do you believe for an instant that President Obama would even have been nominated, much less elected, if not for his race?”
Whereas it isn’t clear to me where the aforementioned speculation (as in “…as long as we’re speculating…”) occurs in the piece, Nathan’s admitted speculation—and bizarre talking point—doesn’t acknowledge/consider that every single one of BHO’s predecessors have been elected in some measure because they were white and male.
Obama was nominated in 2008 because he worked the caucus states better than Clinton. He got clobbered in many primary states. If being black had previously been perceived as somehow being a natural advantage—even though no black had previously been elected—there would have been many more blacks seeking the Democratic nomination back in 2008 (or any other year for that matter).
Hi Stephen –
I was referring to Jim’s “would it be fair to speculate” suggestions when I said, “as long as we’re speculating…”
I want to resist the temptation to be further sucked into the diversion that your response offers (Yes, I admit, I started it.). Suffice it to say that I think your points are well taken, but I would love to examine this issue in greater depth in a different forum. I don’t think being Black is or ever was a per se natural advantage in politics. But I do think that being half Black was and is a natural advantage for Barack Obama in the context of other qualities and factors that led to his nomination and election, and keep his personal approval ratings astonishingly high, particularly considering the low approval ratings for so many of his policies.
BTW, as long as I’m speculating, would it be fair to speculate that we wouldn’t be seriously talking about Ben Carson as a potential Republican candidate for President, were it not for his race?
I’m not sure I understand your view “that being half Black was and is a natural advantage for Barack Obama in the context of other qualities and factors that led to his nomination and election,” except to the extent that I do believe that his personality and/or persona have a lot to do with “[keeping] his personal approval ratings astonishingly high, particularly considering the low approval ratings for so many of his policies;” as was true with Ronald Reagan—and true with Bill Clinton, considering Clinton’s tabloid infidelity scandal and impeachment.
Interestingly (to me) Ben Carson likely “wouldn’t be seriously [talked] about…as a potential Republican candidate for President, were it not for his race” because, in my view, black conservatives…especially conservative ‘firebrands’… get every conceivable benefit of the doubt, can do no wrong, and are the political darlings of the base of the Republican Party—white men. That isn’t a criticism but an observation.
The criticism from my perspective is that this is a deliberate and strategic objective of black conservatives; and always has been.
It would take more space than we have here to unpack my “views” about how his race has been particularly advantageous for Obama – at least among Caucasian voters. Basically, two words – White guilt. The jaw-dropping, insulting bigotry of Harry Reid about Obama (“light skinned’ with no Negro dialect”)and Joe Biden (“…the first African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”) suggest to me that many White Americans – liberal as well as conservative – harbor feelings and attitudes toward Black Americans that should make them feel very guilty. Remember Clinton’s statement about Obama? – “A few years ago this guy would have been carrying our bags.” And after Hillary’s loss to Obama in the South Carolina primary, Clinton opined that Obama had won because of his race.
When you consider the fact that the Democrat Party was the party of slavery and Jim Crow until it reinvented itself in the ’60’s, you should feel very cautious about finger pointing when it comes to political exploitation of racial biases and prejudices. Working American families form the base of the Republican Party. That includes a large number of white males. Unmarried, dependent Americans, which include an indispensable contingent of single and unemployed Americans, form the base of the Democrat Party.
Assuming each Party wants to expand its base, I’d go with the party that wants to increase the number of working , self-sufficient families over the party that builds its base with dependent, unproductive, single adults.
I don’t understand why you are critical of Black conservatives, whose strategic objectives are to strengthen American families and make them self-sufficient – unless of course you think they really don’t believe what they say, and are cynically preying on the need of Republicans to gain the trust of Americans who are seduced by the Robin Hood rhetoric of Democrat leaders.
BTW, Stephen, have we been over this territory before?(LOL)
I saw some stats the other day about (white) Liberals in the USA.
Given a hypothetical:
Apparently, if a liberal is asked a question like, “If your car was about to collide with two people, one black and one white, but you could avoid hitting only one of them, which would it be?
It seems that the liberal would avoid the black person and take out the white person virtually every time.
Does that explain how Obama had an advantage? I have to agree with Nathan’s white guilt.
Barack Obama obviously won the 2008 South Carolina primary because of his race—because Democrats in South Carolina are predominantly black. He won that primary for the same reason that Jesse Jackson did in 1988. (He won the nomination because his campaign outmaneuvered Hillary’s campaign in the caucus states. By the time Hillary’s campaign got their footing, it was too little, too late.)
There is no doubt that liberals can be prejudiced; but as you know, the history of party identification, particularly in the white ‘Solid South’ is unmistakable and undeniable. (At this point, ‘the usual suspects’ arrive. Unfortunately this is a topic most people would rather not discuss; thus the ignorance. Thankfully Nathan, you’re not one of them.)
The problem with your “White guilt” theory is that the facts don’t support it. If your theory held water then Obama would have received a somewhat larger percentage of the white vote than recent/white Democrats. Judging from the numbers Nathan, there isn’t much “White guilt” at the ballot box.
Jimmy Carter’s share of the white vote averaged roughly 41.5% in his two presidential races; 47% in the year he was elected (1976) and 36% in his defeat in 1980’s three-way race (John Anderson got 7%). Mondale’s share of the white vote was 35% in 1984; but Dukakis got about 40% of the white vote in 1988. In 1992 Clinton received 39% of the white vote in another three-way race (Perot got about 20%); and 43% when he won in another three-way race in ’96 (Perot got about 9%). Al Gore got 42% of the white vote in winning the popular vote in a three-way race (with Ralph Nader getting roughly a 3% share of the white vote). John Kerrey received 41% of that vote in 2004; while Barack Obama received a 43% share of it in 2008, but only 39% of the white vote in his re-election campaign in 2012—which of course is an average of only about 41%.
Where is the numerical evidence of “guilt”? Obama’s aggregate share of the white vote was slightly smaller than Jimmy Carter’s was. In terms of total share of the white vote, Obama has averaged about what other Democratic presidential candidates have—not more. Are you suggesting that had it not been for “White guilt” he would have gotten a much smaller share of it? If so, please explain how that works.
As for Democrats and Republicans, the fact is that party labels historically mean little. For purposes of pure political science, the ideological outlooks of the parties are what matters. I would be quite happy to show you how and when the slaveholding, then Jim Crow, and then segregationist South was dominated by white ‘southern Democrats;’ and how, starting with Strom Thurmond (of the ‘Dixiecrats’), his ideological descendents have now completely migrated to the Republican Party—following the Civil Rights Era Movement and legislation of the mid-1960s, and Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ in 1968.
The South is still as ‘solid’ as it ever was in its one-party allegiance/dominance. Unless the South has undergone a radical ideological change—which we know hasn’t happened—then party labeling is what has changed. The realignment is in the party identification. Strom Thurmond was the southern conservative canary in the northern liberal Democratic coal mine. The fight over the civil rights platform plank at the 1948 Democratic National Convention was the catalyst for this generation-length flight/realignment. To use another familiar, typically political metaphor, Strom Thurmond discovered that the Democratic Party tent wasn’t big enough to comfortably house people of Hubert Humphrey’s ilk AND his.
Democrats didn’t reinvent themselves in the 1960s; but by then, especially after the Civil and Voting Rights Acts had been signed, southern Democrats stopped voting for northern liberals (and were effectively on their way out). In the North, Democrats actually started reinventing themselves much earlier than that, as some notable progressives starting associating themselves with Democrats as early as the late 19th century.
Casting Democrats as the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, etc. is misleading (and why it’s effective with the uninitiated). It would be more revelatory of the truth to admit that, over time, most southern Democrats have since become southern Republicans. Today’s southern Republicans are not like Nelson Rockefeller, Charles Percy, Javitz, Brooke, Chaffee, Weicker; or any of the other northern moderate/liberal Republicans (who helped to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). Such Republicans have been, or are being, purged—after having been marginalized as RINOS.
(Even the likes of Eric Cantor and Thad Cochrane are considered too moderate today. Exactly how can one be too moderate?)
As for black conservatives, “it would take more space than we have here to unpack my ‘views,’” …put it that way. Since we may have a member of our denomination officially seeking the American presidency; the divide among our membership deserves discussion.
(As an aside, why is it that right wingers have at times referred to the Democratic Party as the ‘Democrat’ Party? Does anyone refer to the Republican Party as the Republic Party (of course not)? Perhaps someone should research this some time.)
Conservative whites like to offer the excuse of “white guilt” to explain why liberal whites who should have “known better” voted their political opinions rather than participating in “white flight” from a “black” Democratic candidate. Of course no thinking white person would vote for a black Democrat. But then no thinking person would vote for a Democrat anyway. Ergo white voters voting for Obama were guilty of stupidity or emotional excess or inverse racial bias.
Meanwhile the Republican party in this country faces a huge demographic tidal wave. Their most loyal voting base since the days of Nixon’s “southern strategy” is now a shrinking minority of the US voter base. Unless they figure-out how to expand their voter base into some growing demographic groups, they will find it harder and harder to win national elections. And they will increasingly lose their grip over the more populous and/or most rapidly growing states.
Being allied with neither camp, I still have a strong stake in this process because I still live here. I tend to vote for the lesser of the evils as I perceive them. I have lived long enough to witness no shortage of folly on both sides.
Stephen,
Surely you above all the rest of us must understand that being Black is an advantage in most sports including politics? Don’t you know that white men can’t jump and ask how high on the way up? Not to mention that white SDAs are rhythmically challenged and therefore cannot possibly dance to the tunes of many conflicting political constituencies, as engagingly as can a black man?
Disclaimer – A (white) high school senior here in Oregon just cleared 7′-1″ in the high jump.
And our local day academy has a student “soul” choir where almost all of the singers are other than Afro-Americans, though their director is of your ethnicity. And they are GOOD. And their energetic accompanist is a fair-haired freshman boy whose ethnicity and surname are actually White (yes I actually heard him say at a concert “I didn’t think I could do this because I am too White”).
Which just goes to show how stupid some of these widely held myths and biases really are, at least here in Left Coast Oregon.
I should clarify that Obama worked the early caucus states and played the proportional delegate game better than Senator Clinton did.
Incidentally, Carson’s plan is to follow the Obama playbook in the caucus states.
BIAS’S are evident in all commenters. Dyed in the wool Obama supporters can’t possibly see his his lack of loyalty to the USA; his preference of support to Islamic principles due to his childhood environment; and his 20 years of attending the church of America hating Jerimiah Wright; lack of attention to the rigid parameters of the US Constitution; and his very evident narcisistic personality mania. Yes, he could not have won the presidency without the socialist machine, and 90% of the black vote. Here was a man, a product of the Chicago political machine, their protégé to move this country to a Socialism sphere of global prominence. Where did he come from?? Actually without any National identity. He was a nondescript Community Organizer. A state politician. A first term Senator without any credits to his name. A totally unknown before he became a presidential candidate. But his party machine organized behind him, a seemingly highly desirable candidate, attractive, well spoken, charismatic man, speaking what the country wanted to hear. The era of the Bush’s
having soured the nation. If he doesn’t stay on after his term by declaring martial law, he will be a prime candidate to head up the United Nations.
Asking another black candidate, who happens to be a Conservative, a non polititian, a devout Christian, to be electable in the Republican Party, is an impossibility. Bias’s in the Repubican party, are equally as strong, and nauseating.
Brother Carson’s American conservative family values and integrity are sorely needed on our American landscape, but are not wanted by our corrupt politicos.
Perfect illustration of bias.
Hmmmm….wasn’t that long ago that an SDA conference president made Oakwood withdraw their invitation for T.D. Jakes to speak to a group of Adventist pastors having a conference. Sounds like what goes around comes around…
Apples and oranges. TD Jakes is a theologian and an outspoken critic of SDA beliefs. Dr. Carson is merely a doctor who has some political aspirations and who happens to be SDA.
Years ago I had numerous friends at work who were dedicated members of several different Baptist churches in the area around Rockford, IL. All of them advocated that America should support Israel. Since Baptist 21 seems to think the Jews are not Gods children it causes me to suspect that group is not totally in tune with the majority of Baptist teachings.
But again, maybe they teach we should support the nation of Israel all the while believing they are not children of God. Is that possible?
Probably, since they ignore God said, “the soul that sins shall die”.
Those without bias, let them cast the first stone.
The “totally detached, perfectly objective observer” is an old myth. Every human observer has biases, whether they
are aware of them or not.
Adventists have parts of it right. Wicked being consumed is one. They do not say this: God’s light is what consumes the wicked. Lost bodies and souls become the lake of fire. They become ashes under the feet of the righteous. Hebrews 12:29:For our God is a consuming fire. 1 John 1:5 – This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Malachi 4:3. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
Exodus 33:20:And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
This is describing God in his glory.
Both sides don’t have the whole truth.
Truth is in me in all things in the bible. God did not start what is with a bang. The fallen angel Lucifer made the universe to look the way it looks when humanity accepted Vanity willingly.
(KJV) Genesis1: 16:17 – And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.
This is what Muhammad saw. 2 Corinthians 11:14: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. That is who Muhammad saw impersonating Gabriel. Muslims have been obeying the destroyer death angel Satan. That is why ISIS is the way they are. That is not hate. That is a fact. This is what Lucifer AKA Satan looks like. Ezekiel 28:13:Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
KJV Cambridge edition 1611 or 1900. Satan wants to stand where he ought not to stand on the earth. Get away from him when that being is seen.
Why don’t the churches teach the truth?
Worshipping on Sunday is not a sin. Romans 14:5: 5 – One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Colossians 2:16 – Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Mark 2:23-27 – 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
27Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
Do not vote for Ben Carson.
Ben Carson needs to change his views. Muslims do not work for God going by the name Muslim. All that are around them are seen as being less than they are. They are seen as Cattle for the slaughter. They will not say that Jesus is the Lord of glory. They ignore the fact that Jesus said I and the Father are one and he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Muslims ignore these verse too.1 Corinthians 2:8: 6Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are…
Adventists have parts of it right. Wicked being consumed is one. They do not say this: God’s light is what consumes the wicked. Lost bodies and souls become the lake of fire. They become ashes under the feet of the righteous. Hebrews 12:29:For our God is a consuming fire. 1 John 1:5 – This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Malachi 4:3. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
Exodus 33:20:And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
This is taking about God in his glory.
Truth is in me in all things in the bible. God did not start what is with a bang. The fallen angel Lucifer made the universe to look the way it looks when humanity accepted Vanity willingly.
Genesis 1:16:17 – And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.
This is what Muhammad saw. 2 Corinthians 11:14: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Muslims have been obeying the destroyer death angel Satan. That is why ISIS is the way they are. This is what Lucifer AKA Satan looks like. Ezekiel 28:13:Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
KJV Cambridge edition 1611 or 1900. Satan wants to stand where he ought not to stand on the earth. Get away from him when that being is seen.
Why don’t the churches teach the truth?
Worshiping on Sunday is not a sin. Romans 14:5: 5 – One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Colossians 2:16 – Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Mark 2:23-27 – 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
Do not vote for Ben Carson.
Ben Carson needs to change his views. Muslims do not work for God going by the name Muslim. All that are around them are seen as being less than they are seen as Cattle for the slaughter. They will not say that Jesus is the Lord of glory. They ignore the fact that Jesus said I and the Father are one and he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Muslims ignore this too. “1 Corinthians 2:8: 8 – Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. The Lord of glory.” Jesus was God with blood in him. Muslims say the bible is corrupt thinking that is the…
Mr. Fox:
America is not a theocracy and Dr. Carson is not running for the position of Prophet or Head Bishop. All of the candidates among whom we must frequently choose have views and beliefs that vary from ours on many subjects. By your standard, we must not vote for anyone. That is your choice, but thankfully, I do not have to follow your dictates either.
I have been amazed at the amount of hateful commentary directed toward Dr. Carson in the recent weeks, even from SDA church leaders in official capacities, including Sabbath morning worship sermons. One pastor told me two days ago that he is sure that the devil wants Dr. Carson to be elected. The last I knew, Dr. Carson is a member in good standing, probably paying more tithe than most. A very high percentage of Mormons supported Romney. It appears doubtful that Dr. Carson will enjoy the same respect from Adventists.
I think Adventists are far from practicing the command of Jesus to “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself” and as such are very far from being ready to enter God’s kingdom. If you have disqualifying information about Dr. Carson’s ability to be President, that is one thing. But attacking him on some personal basis or because his beliefs toward another religion, or another group of people, vary from yours is un-Christian and uncalled for.
I have a criticism based upon a sentiment frequently expressed by Dr. Carson, namely that “the Affordable Care Act is worse than was slavery.” That is absolutely wrong on its face. More troubling, is that it challenges the ability of Dr. Carson to think clearly and compassionately. His position on this issue is a death sentence to many men, women, and children who could not qualify or afford health insurance. Hardly walking in the footsteps of Jesus.
I could give you a Bible study on every one of the points you are trying to make, but would it change your mind?
Nevertheless, God is good and loves all people, even those who don’t know Him, for He created them all, and He is fair in His judgment. He is an inclusive God above all gods.
I would go with the race card on Ben C. Here in Chattanooga the race problem is alive and well!
Calling Carson or anyone an idiot should be cause for reprimand by the List owner.
I personally believe Carson is on the wrong track in his pursuit of the presidency. I believe he is an honorable man but misguided.
But that’s his decision.
I tend to agree with you. Unfortunately on this particular page we see demonizing of both Carson and also Obama. Disrespectful and even hateful rhetoric directed at those who differ from us on matters of religious or political persuasion, is all too common on this web site and elsewhere in society all around the world.
This is not the way Jesus taught us to deal with one another.
We are admonished to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.
This from someone who, 20 minutes after piously invoking the example of Christ, sarcastically smeared the integrity and honesty of conservatives for suggesting that race has motivated liberals to support the most unqualified, inexperienced, unvetted, ideological extremist in American history.
It wasn’t liberals who elected and re-elected Obama; it was independents. Liberals would have voted for Che Guevara, Michael Moore, or Jeremiah Wright over Romney or McCain in a two-person race – not because they are stupid but because, for almost all liberals, their politics is their religion; and religion isn’t necessarily rational. Liberal values have rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the liberal repudiation of traditional moral, religious, and political values.
It is a sad commentary that the moral, political, and economic values on which this country was founded – values that have allowed Americans to be the most prosperous people in the history of the world – only enjoy broad strong support in a shrinking demographic – working, self-supporting families.
Respect for private property, the fruits of others’ efforts, industriousness, respect for authority and the rule of law, studiousness, delayed gratification, charity, limited government – how can one be on neither side when it comes to those values? All one has to do is look at failed city after failed city across America – all controlled for decades by liberal Democrats – to see that White flight from the Democrat party has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with values. If the past six years have not convinced Black Americans that the primary currencies of the Democrat Party – covetousness, grievance, and anger, wrapped in the seductive rhetoric of equality and compassion – cannot purchase better lives for them, I’m not sure what will.
How far down the toilet does Europe have to go in order for the American Left to realize that we do not want to politically emulate the continent that gave us Marx, Darwin, Freud, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler; communism, fascism; Le terror, naziism; and two brutally destructive world wars?
I am an independent with Libertarian leanings.
And you seem not to be able to appreciate political satire when you read it.
And I do think that at least some conservatives honestly believe the racist hate mail that they send to my email in-box. And that soon ends-up in my electronic trash can.
You can find people in the US of A who believe almost anything. I know people who are firmly convinced that a missile was fired at the Pentagon by someone loosely affiliated with the Jews and the CIA on 11 Sep 2001. And that the passenger plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was an elaborate hoax. And that the Jews made-off with a secret hoard of gold buried in a vault deep beneath the World Trade Center.
I do fear that the US of A is well on its way to becoming very much like England. And just as the situation in England is among other things a product of a series of foolish blunders from a succession of Liberal and Conservative governments, the same is true of our mess in the US of A. Not to mention that in most democracies there are too many people who want their politicians to solve the problems, with no sacrifice on the part of the electorate or of the various money sources who finance this loonie bin we call national elections.
There is no shortage of hypocrisy and greed and incompetence and malfeasance to go around.
I think the number 1 reason that Obama got elected twice was none of the things discussed on this web page. It was the fact that most of the electorate have not forgotten the fine mess that we were in after 8 years of the previous administration. Eventually the Democrats will have a big enough mess that Republicans will win-back the White House. But the track record of the Republicans is not exactly a stellar one either.
Your last point is a reasonable one, Jim. But it doesn’t explain the reality that Democrats overwhelmingly favored “Bush’s War”; or that Dems controlled Congress during the last two years of the Bush administration; or that Obama has bungled Afghanistan at least as badly as Bush bungled Iraq; or that the world and our economy are in a lot bigger mess now than they were 6 years ago. And yet Obama continues to have inexplicably high personal approval ratings, despite his imperiousness and divisive rhetoric, and despite the fact that most of his policies are highly unpopular.
I think most Americans do not pay all that much attention to politics and do not think it makes much difference who is president. For several decades, White Americans have been cloaked by the media and academia with a presumption of racism, just as history has been rewritten by the Left to portray American success as the product of White male exploitation and aggression. This message, imparted through education and entertainment, has caused many Americans to feel, despite their reflexively conservative personal values, that they can purge themselves and America of these stains at the voting booth. After being incessantly bombarded by accusations of bigotry and bias, the need to be perceived by cultural and academic elites as “fair and balanced” often trumps common sense and reason.
Like you, Jim, I don’t put much faith in politics or politicians. I vote for the lesser of evils. Unlike many Americans, I refuse to be intimidated by charges that my opposition to President Obama is fueled by motives and values any different from those that fuel my antipathy toward George Soros, Michael Moore, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Jim Wallis, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, or any number of other Leftist power brokers in America – just as I refuse to be intimidated into wondering if my opposition to Ben Carson, as a nominee for President, has anything to do with his race. The truth is, if I felt he was as qualified as say Condoleeza Rice, I would probably be inclined to support him over other candidates with whom my political values are more closely aligned. Why? Because I believe that his race would be a distinct advantage in a national election, other things being equal.
Nathan,
I realize how difficult it is to step back from your ideological passion, but before criticizing Jim for “smearing the honesty and integrity of conservatives,” consider what you have said about liberals and Democrats. In response to my observation that white men form the base of the Republican Party, without the benefit of a solitary fact about the demographics of actual voters you then promptly ‘reported’ that “the base of the Republican Party” is composed of “working American families… that includes a large number of white males,” and contrasted that with “the base of the Democrat [sic] Party”—composed of “unmarried, dependent Americans, which include an indispensable contingent of single and unemployed Americans.” (While such Americans may well be inclined to vote for Democrats, I would like to see evidence that such individuals actually vote in sufficient numbers to comprise anything.)
I am cognizant of how closely these stereotypes are emotionally tied to your ideology; but why then criticize Jim for anything? Do you realize how holier-than-Democrats and therefore how self-serving your stereotyping of liberals/Democrats sounds? Do you understand the reality that many conservatives would likely vote for Augusto Pinochet, Michael Savage, or Pat Robertson in a two-person race over Obama or Hillary Clinton? (And that some HAVE voted for Robertson.)
Is it remotely possible Nathan that when one believes, as you apparently do, that Republicans are just more upstanding citizens than Democrats, that one might conflate character and ideology, or perhaps somehow confuse ideology with character development, or capitalism with Christianity? It isn’t nearly true to suggest that only liberals regard their politics as their religion (although liberals may well be more intentional).
Is it possible that someone who thinks that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were better presidents than Ronald Reagan and the Bushes might also be more better informed and more Christ-like than you or me? (This can be said of some who admire Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Western Europe.)
In any case, your ignoring (and spin) of the facts that the “Solid South” remains the “Solid South,” but that Democrats have received a rather constant overall share of the white vote for at least 40 years, does not go unnoticed. This does not appear to be so much a white flight from the Democratic Party as it does a white flight from the Democratic Party in the states of the confederacy. And, since the American South has not undergone any seismic ideological realignment, can you explain Thurmond becoming a Republican?
Can you explain why Louisiana’s David Duke has run as a Republican multiple times? (I won’t even ask you about Scalise.) Can you explain why Alabama’s own Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is a Republican; and why, he along with (former Democrat, and Alabama’s senior senator) Richard Shelby are the only two-term Republican senators in Alabama since…
Reconstruction? Why is it hard to understand why black people vote for an opposing party? Do you deny that the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (the latter of which had pre-clearance hurdle provisions for certain specified states) were the catalysts for party identification realignment in the South? Do you believe that things were so wonderful for black Americans when Reagan or the Bushes were in the White House that they would ignore this stuff?
At some point Nathan I would have thought that you would have challenged my belief that political conservatism is about conserving the institutions and privileges of the advantaged. It is a plain reality that in our society, it is and always has been advantageous to be a white male. Political isn’t as complex as rocket science.
Please, Stephen – Great Master of Zen detachment – teach me your secrets to freedom from ideological passion. You do it so well!
I criticized Jim, not because he smeared conservatives, but because he did so immediately after a pious plea for Christlike rhetoric. Where did I suggest that Republicans are more upstanding than Democrats or that God is on the conservative side of the political spectrum? It is highly likely that there are a multitude of upstanding God-fearing Democrats who are better Christians than I. What does that have to do with whether their political values or mine are more likely to produce prosperity and happiness?
You pose a lot of foolish questions that I am not going to bother to answer. Over the past 50 years the Democrat Party has undergone a radical shift to the Left. The only explanation you can think of for Party realignment is the Civil Rights Act. You ignore the advent of the Welfare State; you ignore the repudiation of American exceptionalism by the Left; you ignore the repudiation of limited government by the Left; you ignore the federal judicial imperialism that the Left is so fond of; you ignore the repudiation of traditional family values by the Left, etc. Why? I know it can’t be that you are emotionally tied to any ideology. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. The South has not undergone any seismologic ideological realignment. But the Democrat Party certainly has.
And yes, I’m sure I could explain why David Duke ran as a Republican many times if I knew more about him. (BTW, I am not registered as a Republican) And I’m sure you can readily explain why an anti-semitic race-baiter like Al Sharpton has run as a Democrat multiple times, and why anti-semitic racists like Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright endorsed Obama for President.
I guess I didn’t address your belief that political conservatism is about conserving the institutions and privileges of the advantaged because I thought you realized you were engaging in vacuous demogoguery. I might as well argue with the contention that medicine is all about conserving the institutions and privileges of the healthy; or that family values are all about preserving the power and prerogatives of parents; or that education is all about conserving the institutions and privileges of smart, informed people.
By your definition, Stephen, all sustainable political power is conservativism. Fidel Castro is a conservative; Kim Jong-un is a conservative; Barack Obama is a conservative. They use political power to create and preserve an advantaged class.
Actually, politics is far more complex than rocket science because it isn’t science at all. A generalization that may seem plain based on selected facts, or may even be statistically true, is easily called into question and/or refuted by other facts if one is willing to look beyond the cultural assumptions and preconditioning that govern his/her world view, and see things from a different perspective.
“I criticized Jim, not because he smeared conservatives, but because he did so immediately after a pious plea for Christlike rhetoric.”
So Nathan, does this mean you wouldn’t have criticized Jim had he “smeared conservatives” without the “pious plea for Christlike rhetoric”?
“Where did I suggest that Republicans are more upstanding than Democrats or that God is on the conservative side of the political spectrum?”
Your words: “Working American families form the base of the Republican Party. That includes a large number of white males. Unmarried, dependent Americans, which include an indispensable contingent of single and unemployed Americans, form the base of the Democrat Party.
“Assuming each Party wants to expand its base, I’d go with the party that wants to increase the number of working , self-sufficient families over the party that builds its base with dependent, unproductive, single adults.”
More: “It is a sad commentary that the moral, political, and economic values on which this country was founded – values that have allowed Americans to be the most prosperous people in the history of the world – only enjoy broad strong support in a shrinking demographic – working, self-supporting families.”
Now, this reads like you were suggesting that the base of the Republican Party (“Working American families…self-supporting families”) are more upstanding than the base of the Democratic Party (“Unmarried, dependent Americans, which include an indispensable contingent of single and unemployed Americans”), Nathan. And wouldn’t God at least be on the side of the “moral…values on which this country was founded” which in your words “only enjoy broad strong support in a shrinking demographic”…that same demographic which happens to comprise the base of the GOP (or at least ‘appears’ to do so)?
(If I have not quoted you correctly, or have twisted what you’ve said or have taken your words out of context, by all means correct the record.)
I’m sorry you find my questions “foolish,” but when you (generically) utilize charged political rhetoric it will sometimes provoke challenging responses.
Generally I prefer to address each point, but for know perhaps it would be wise to deal with my perception of conservatism. Yes, since it is true that political power is an occasionally short-lived societal advantage—especially in democratically operated states—that which systemically sustains it is conservative by definition. In this sense all dictators are conservative.
Conservatism is about conserving the advantages—whether natural, economic, sociological, or political—of those who are advantaged; and it is about conserving the institutions that undergird these advantages.
Finally Nathan, this comment I find particularly rich; given your “White guilt” assertion/assumption: “A generalization that may seem plain based on selected facts, or may even be statistically true, is easily called into question and/or refuted by other facts if one is…
willing to look beyond the cultural assumptions and preconditioning that govern his/her world view, and see things from a different perspective.”
It has occurred to me that your observation that the Democratic Party has, over the course of the past 50 years, “undergone a radical shift to the Left,” actually makes my point relative to your previously casting it in terms of what it was that Southern Democrats—those who have left—once proudly and defiantly supported/defended.
The Democratic Party’s response to Civil Rights, particularly starting with Hubert Humphrey’s 1948 convention speech, is precisely what catalyzed this “radical shift to the Left” that you lament. It ignited a fuse. Detonation occurred in the wake of the ’64 Civil Rights Act and the ’65 Voting Rights Act.
Strom Thurmond and later George Corley Wallace (among others) opposed such legislation as liberal/leftist and big government—on ‘state’s rights’ grounds. Democrats held practically all governorships, U.S. Congressional/Senate seats, and state legislatures in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina in 1964; however Barry Goldwater CARRIED those states—ALL of those states—and ONLY those states (with the exception of his home state).
By 1968 the Southern Strategy was in implementation; AND George Wallace ran for President. (What do you suppose Wallace’s rationale was for running for president was? This was years before Roe v. Wade. Medicare had just barely even gotten started. Did you think it was foreign policy?) With southern Democratic office holders continuing to hold nearly all statewide and federal offices, etc., other than barely carrying President Johnson’s home state of Texas, and West Virginia, Hubert Humphrey—the Democratic nominee for President—carried no southern states at all, much less the Deep South. It wasn’t long before Democrats who had been voting for Republicans became Republicans, as McGovern’s anti-war candidacy cemented it; and Reagan’s presidential candidacy (and subsequent presidency)—kicked off in Philadelphia, MS of all places—sealed it once and for all.
(One really should read what the late political operative Lee Atwater had to say about some of this late in life.)
This is all ‘eyes-glaze-over’ history about which conservatives would rather not be reminded; but unfortunately is all nonetheless true. I had to recount all this to explain and document how it was (possible) that the Democrats were once the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and discrimination; but how when they became the party of Civil Rights, the Democrats in the South—where slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and discrimination largely took place and were defended—slowly but surely migrated to become Republicans; having effectively abandoned the Democratic Party at the presidential level in advance of becoming full-fledged Republicans.
I was raised a hard core hell fire baptist but after getting older and reading and studying the bible for myself I found the truth and the love of God for his creation that resulted in the plan of salvation. Satan has done a good job in deceiving the world mixing truth with error. The bottom line is God identifies his people as those who keeps his commandments and the testimony of Jesus. Jesus kept the commandments as well. God accounted it to Abraham righteousness because he kept his commandments, statutes, and judgments and believed.
Who ever you support for president, you better hope that the man has some solid biblical moral values. This country is already riding the fence of becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah.
There doesn’t appear to be a lot of difference between Adventism and hard shell Baptists: add seventh day observance and a few incidentals that have little affect on one’s thinking and they could be confused as the same.
i respect Dr Carson. He is a saver of life. He has admirable Christian values. He has the right to sound off on His values, as he did when invited to speak at the National day of prayer. He didn’t disrespect the president, he told the truth. The truth hurts those who support the current president. A person to have respect must earn it. The reason i do not support the political system is that it is rotten to the core. Corruption reigns supreme in the top political offices of the United States, both the Democrats and Republicans. They are in each others deep pockets of cronyism
as they receive “under the table”, benefits and payments of every passed piece of legislation. The only way to be elected to high office, and remain in high office more than one term, is to acknowledge and become a member of the “CLUB”. Every senior politician retiring, if not before
elected, retires a multi-millionaire. The perks and privileges, and secret corruptive options, are doled out to all members of the “CLUB”, according to seniority.
Dr. Carson, an honest man, hasn’t a chance of becoming the Republican nominee. Yes, i believe Christians should not vote in the country’s elections, and permit the sinful corruption to continue.
Dr. Chen’s back-engendered pain reminds me of my long, excruciating journey with lumbar issues and resulting nerve damage to the sciatic nerves. The still mysterious world of back pain, and its many causes and effects, plague around 80 million Americans. I am one of the fortunate ones, who through persistence of trial and error, finally found relief. Now, 25 years later, am still virtually pain-free.
Advice about how to “fix” my back came from many quarters. A friend, who was an oncologist, earnestly advised me against any surgery because he had known so many who had only been made worse–or at least no better.
As well-meaning as was his counsel, he did not know what was causing my misery. Neither did the other compassionate souls who wanted desperately to help. Doc 1 said it was spinal stenosis. It wasn’t. Doc 2 said I had a ruptured disk. I didn’t. Doc three, a neurosurgeon, said “There’s nothing that can be done–you’re going to have to live with it. I can’t exaggerate the disabling pain I was in, how miserable I was to live with, having lost all hope.
I wish I could tell the whole story–how my wife left me, how my colleagues at a counseling center mumbled about my issues being psychosomatic, and the helplessness in which immersed myself.
Until I sought out a Dr. Doan at the Cleveland Clinic. He was a neurosurgeon with a great capacity for empathy. He spent one and a half hours with me and at the end of our meeting, I had dissolved into a catchment of tears. Not out of the hopelessness that came with the previous neurosurgeon, who practically gave me a death sentence after ten minutes, but with a solid promise that we would work together until the challenging solution was found.
It took six months of testing and searching until he declared the issue was not yet resolved, so he would have to do exploratory surgery to locate a condition he knew must be there somewhere.
While I was in the recovery room, Dr. Doan walked up to my bed with the broadest of grins, held up his thumb and said, “I found a bone spur as big as my thumb and ground it off a vertebrae. Mystery solved.” In Time, a life of serving the wounded was restored and continues today. You might imagine the enormous love and gratitude I feel for this skilled and caring physician.
Since at this point in time we are probably the only ones reading each other’s comments on this topic, Stephen, I’m going to start a new thread, especially since the above comment by Bruce is so mystifyingly off-topic.
You are correct. I would not have criticized Jim for smearing conservatives were it not for the context. Look, I smear liberals. You smear conservatives. We have substantive differences. But neither of us gets on a moral pedestal and criticizes others for being unChristian in the manner or tone of their comments. Usually Jim doesn’t either. I generally love his comments, whether I agree with them or not.
But back to the topic(s)… The moral values that I believe America was founded on, and that I believe lead to happiness and prosperity are not exclusive, nor are they necessarily Biblical priorities. Furthermore, those who espouse them do not necessarily live by them.
Equality of outcomes, collectivism, interdependence, determinism, materialism, redistributive justice, restorative justice, gender equality, homosexual norms, rule by elites, etc., are all moral values and/or beliefs. They just aren’t the moral values the country was founded on, and I don’t happen to think that they produce prosperity and happiness.
They may have nothing to do with salvation or God’s ability to use us to build His Kingdom. The Bible knows nothing of liberal democracy, capitalism, or religious liberty as a political values – all things I believe in. When I speak of moral values I am referring to particular civic values, and do not mean to imply that there are not other moral values which wonderful, upstanding people may prioritize more highly. I have many friends with whom I sharply disagree about these issues, who are probably better Christians than I.
What you find to be rich irony – my suggestion that perspectives are easily confined within one’s cultural preconceptions – is certainly true for me. I just get the feeling from your dogmatic tone that you are prone to oversimplification and easily confuse your opinions with Truth.
For example, I offered you multiple instances of the Democrat Party’s extreme leftward lurch over the past 50 years to explain why Southern Democrats with traditional values turned to the Republican Party. But all you can see is racism. The Democrat Party’s embrace of abortion, homosexual norms, a secular, anti-Christian world view, anti-military, anti-economic freedom, radical environmentalism, radical feminism, anti anti-communism, together with self-hating, revisionist metanarratives of American history, were completely hostile to the values of Southern Democrats, including folks like Al Gore and the Clintons until the past couple of decades. Can you at least understand why intelligent non-racist conservatives (I know, you think that’s an oxymoron) differ with your expanation of Southern party realignment, and reject your Pavlovian tendency to see conservatism as code for racism?
BTW, Stephen, your definition of of conservatism allows so much practical elasticity in its application as to make it meaningless and useless, except for demogogic purposes. It could be used to categorize as conservative those who want to see Roe v Wade upheld and reinforced. It could also be used to define those who favor welfare state laws and policies as conservative. By your definition, all politicians are conservative. I really don’t understand your penchant for creating straw men on which you pin labels so that you can “cleverly” discredit them. Why don’t you accept classical, non-emotionally charged definitions of conservatism? Would you accept your definition of conservatism to describe your Adventist conservatism?
On the subject of values, Thomas Sowell recently framed the issue quite profoundly, as he usually does: “You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization – including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility, and all the other things that the clever intelligentsia disdain – without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large. Non-judgmental subsidies of counterproductive lifestyles are treating people as if they were livestock, to be fed and tended by others in a welfare state – and yet expecting them to live as human beings have developed when facing the challenges of life themselves.”
Nathan (c’mon), you know that my distillation of what conservatism really is had specific reference to political conservatism in a society. I welcome attempts to destroy or deconstruct my theory based on some historical information; but we at least have to come to terms with what the theory is.
I believe this is more about race than ideology—and that this is an important conversation for Seventh-day Adventists to have. Seventh-day Adventists should actually have engaged in the proverbial ‘conversation about race’ (that we never really quite have) some time ago; so even if we are the only ones reading our conversation, it should continue.
I admit that I used to consider conservatism as a euphemistic code for racism; and that I still believe that some conservatives launder/cloak their racism in political ideology. (I am thoroughly convinced for example that the most famous radio talk show host in America is a purposeful race baiter—much as you believe Al Sharpton is. I know this because I’ve listened to him regularly for over 20 years now (and have even once been a caller).
But now I believe conservatives to be primarily (more than anything) interested in institutional preservation of the advantages of the advantaged. (To your point about religious conservative theology, this is like preserving believers’ belief systems.) I know that conservatives don’t like to be reminded of the self-evident reality that in our nation’s history, the preservation of the advantages of the advantaged has manifested itself to the disadvantage of racial and ethnic minorities; or reminded of the fact that these efforts have been ingrained institutionally. This is to some extent from where the defensiveness against “White guilt” is generated.
But this is human nature at play. If, when, and where black people have had natural, numerical, political, economic, or sociological advantages (even over, or with regard to, other blacks or ethnicities) this has happened. It is part of the sin problem. It has happened under varying circumstances and it will always happen, no matter what.
My challenge is not to judge (or to label) people of your education, intellect, and capacity for critical thinking who apparently nevertheless prefer to deny or wish to ignore that which is undeniable and unavoidable. For example, I pointed out to you the undeniable fact that (then-Democrat) Strom Thurmond ran for president as a Dixiecrat, and that and that Republican Barry Goldwater carried the Deep South states of the confederacy, and (then-Democrat) George Wallace ran as an independent (with Thurmond and Wallace both initially doing so when the Democratic Party was the incumbent presidential party, by the way) all before “The Democrat Party’s embrace of abortion, homosexual norms, a secular, anti-Christian world view, anti-military, anti-economic freedom, radical environmentalism, radical feminism” became issues for any culture war. You know that Truman (Containment Policy),…
Kennedy and Johnson (Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Viet Nam War), and Humphrey weren’t perceived as communist sympathizers or America blamers; and that they weren’t perceived as anti-military.
What you can’t deny you simply ignore. I don’t deny that there have always been significant cultural differences between different parts of the country that have to do with more than race and/or racial issues. But you deny, or at least ignore, the nexus between racism, ignorance, and greed; and that these comprise our original sin (s).
The welfare state dependence that you and Thomas Sowell deplore is an inevitable consequence of what you don’t want to face. Such dependence will always be with us. You believe it is because the dependent are deficient and (certain) institutions enable deficiency. I believe the dependent are victims of our original societal sin, and that our sin is institutionally excused and enabled.
Stephen,
During the 1964 electoral campaign, Goldwater supporters published a paperback book “None Dare Call It Treason” where they did indeed attack Johnson in particular and many other Democrats and “liberal” Republicans also, as Communist sympathizers.
This junk has been going around since at least the time of Sen Joseph McCarthy and the early career of Richard Nixon who first made his national political reputation as a Commie Fighter who had “gotten” Alger Hiss (Nixon’s words – not mine).
Being raised as a staunch Bible Republican, I was exposed to a steady diet of this stuff as a child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Stormer
Jim,
I’m sorry I missed this post. You are of course right that McCarthy and Nixon were rabid in their anti-Communism; and that McCarthy’s approach was particularly inappropriate. There have always however been rational and moderate conservatives—who now are being purged. When I once asked a conservative former professional colleague what Republican between Theodore Roosevelt and Joseph McCarthy was the greatest American, he amazingly refused to answer the question
(In Alabama, where conservatism has run amok, even the conservatives are now seriously considering liberal approaches to help save the state. If the states are laboratories of democracy, then the southern states prove where conservatism, where given its way, takes us. Conservatives like to point to the failure of large American cities, sans a manufacturing base. But the fact is that the states with the lowest educational attainments, worst health outcomes, highest rates of gun deaths, and lowest per capital incomes are ‘red’ states; wherein it is forbidden to even think about “plundering” the earnings of the well-to-do.)
The likes of Kemp and Lugar would have trouble getting nominated in this environment. Both parties are becoming increasingly more ideological. Southern moderates and conservatives can now be nominated by Democrats; but they can’t win. Northern liberal Republicans cannot even be nominated. Furthermore, the way the Senate is constitutionally composed, and the way that the House is politically composed (gerrymandering)—with money regarded as speech and corporations regarded as people—the actual people don’t stand a chance.
Your definition of conservatism is impossible to falsify, Stephen. I have given you numerous examples of how ridiculous it is, and you have not in any way attempted to distinguish those examples. You seem to just enjoy the cadence of the slogan that conservatism is about preserving the privileges of the advantaged.
Why would you not accept that conservatism is about creating opportunities and privileges for the disadvantaged – even if it is wrong in its methodologies? Millions throughout the world have found that to be true. Would you say that frugality and saving money are about preserving privileges for the advantaged? I assume not. That would be absurd, because you know that the principle is intended to create privileges and advantages.
Suppose I said that liberalism is about preserving political power and control over the disadvantaged? Would that not strike you as disparaging demogoguery? I should think so.
I do not deny the reality of historic institutional racism that has been designed to preserve and perpetuate White advantage. But the laws and regulations that produced Southern apartheid were in no way conservative. They required governmentally sanctioned coercion, and denied the equal opportunity that conservatives embrace. Coerced inequality is not conservatism. Do you deny the reality of non-Southern conservatives who have always found the treatment of Blacks in the South abhorrent?
You have just substituted one form of judgmentalism and hate for another. You used to think conservatives were racists; now you think they simply want to deny opportunity and success to all who are non-productive and dependent. You obviously see economics as a zero sum game. We conservatives don’t want poor kids to get good grades, go to college, and be competing for good jobs, because that would threaten our advantages. We don’t really believe in or want to see Horatio Alger stories, because economic mobility threatens the privileges of the one percenters, the five percenters, and the ten percenters.
You know very well that a large percentage of the bottom quintile of earners will be in higher quintiles ten years from now, and a large percentage of the top quintile earners will be in lower quintiles ten years from now. Why is it that conservatives like to point this out, and liberals don’t want to hear these things? Do you really think that conservatives are happy to see women and teenage girls having babies out of wedlock, not finishing high school? Are we glad to see high unemployment among the disadvantaged? Are we glad to see decent full time jobs being replaced by part-time jobs? Are we glad to see regulations that strangle businesses so that businesses have to lay off relatively disadvantaged folks? Are we happy that for decades Democrats have, in failed cities throughout America, created the machinery and pulled the levers of government institutions that have sealed the fate of the disadvantaged in those cities?
Stephen, you employ the meme of America’s original sin, and persist in reverting to conservatism as racism, even as you try to concede the equally damning canard that conservatism may only be about oppression of everyone who is disadvantaged. When you assume evil motives (conscious or subconscious) on the part of those with whom you are in dialogue, it is quite difficult to have a reasoned discussion.
The “original sin” meme is essential for those who seek to perpetuate the racial divide in America and exploit it for political purposes. The welfare state is not its inevitable consequence, but a well-intentioned policy to attentuate its effects – a policy that has proven a colossal social and moral failure, but a political grand slam that keeps on scoring.
You have, I’m sure, read compelling evidence from Harvard sociologists and others that, prior to the advent of the welfare state, Black Americans were making great gains. Out-of-wedlock birth rates were low. Intact families with working fathers were increasing. Crime rates among young Blacks were going down. Blacks were overcoming and succeeding the same way other ethnic and racial minorites had succeeded – working twice as hard as the “advantaged” to overcome language barriers, culture barriers, and ethnic barriers.
You don’t have a better grasp of history than anyone else, Stephen. You see correlation, and infer causation that fits your metanarrative. That’s fine. I probably do the same, though I think evidence, economic laws, and the laws of human nature better support my inferences. The problem is this: I do not question your intelligence, morality, or good faith. I even concede that some pretty infamous, shameful folks have been, and are, on the conservative side of the political spectrum. You seem unwilling to grant me or other conservatives such good will. You give me two options: Either I am conservative because it is a good cover for racism, or my conservative values aren’t really values at all, but simply tools to protect my privileges and advantages from being be accessed by the disadvantaged.
These damning false choices offered by liberals like you are designed to shame conservatives and make conservatism itself an epithet. As George Orwell dramatically underscored, a tactic of totalitarians has always been to control the language. This mindset insures that conservatives will be debarred from the conversation about race – as it would be both immoral and ridiculous to give voice and legitimacy to folks who are motivated by racism and/or ill-will.
You say a conversation about race is important, and I agree. But unless you concede that my conservative political/economic beliefs may not be the product of racist cultural programming, ignorance, or malice, how can we have a mutually respectful conversation? Essentially, the Left in America seems to be saying, “We can only have an honest conversation about race when those who disagree with us admit to racist…
I should be careful at this point because the Nathan I respect has surfaced. The Nathan of the “Democrat” Party nomenclature is one with whom a “reasoned discussion” is not likely to occur (with me).
I’ve confessed that it is a challenge for me NOT to label/stereotype most conservatives; and this is because I do believe, from history, that their motivations are suspect. Further, their motives are suspect to me precisely because of disingenuous things like labeling the CURRENT liberal party as the party of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and segregation; while taking credit for (northern moderate Republicans) helping to push through the very Civil Rights legislation that they would have opposed.
It is likewise perturbing to me when conservatives appropriate for their rhetorical purposes—and embrace for their political purposes—the “content of their character” quote from Dr. King’s monumental “I Have a Dream” speech, to argue against the very policies that got their favorite black guy (Clarence Thomas) into Yale Law School; and, in a cynical way, got him his seat on the SCOTUS. This represents the definition of disingenuous.
It is also suspicious to me when law and order, throw-the-book-at-‘em lock-‘em-up and throw-away-the-key conservatives are suddenly and uncharacteristically AGAINST any legislation that STIFFENS penalties for violent crimes if/when a hate motive can be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) with reference to perpetrators of such crimes against those of differing racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual persuasion/orientation.
I concede wariness of family and traditional values types who’ve been fiscally and/or philosophically (conceptually) against any and every form of minimum wage or welfare legislation ever enacted; and who’ve opposed workplace health and safety regulations, and Family and Medical Leave legislation.
I was suspicious of a presidential administration that opposed the imposition of sanctions against an apartheid governmental regime in South Africa.
It’s also been curious to me how so-called small government conservatives almost invariably come down on the side of police (or police wannabes as the case may be) in incidents of police brutality or excessive force or homicide against unarmed black men.
So when I hear you contend that “the laws and regulations that produced Southern apartheid were in no way conservative [and that] they required governmentally sanctioned coercion, and denied the equal opportunity that conservatives embrace;” it basically sounds like attempted revisionist spin. If small-government conservatives didn’t always give the GOVERNMENT (police) the benefit of the doubt (in such instances involving black people); your contention would be much more credible.
You may not consider the southern racist element to have been conservative, but without question they consider/considered themselves to be conservative.
Please don’t forget, I listen to conservative talk radio five…
days a week Nathan. I also watch O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. I want to hear what conservatives have to say and I want to dialogue. While I agree, I do NOT have a better grasp of history than everyone; I am not ignorant of history either. And please don’t insult my grasp of history with something about Lincoln and slavery; since you know that abolitionists were considered and led by “radical Republican” (liberal) northerners.
Indeed, “non-southern conservatives” like Gerald Ford, Robert Dole, and Jack Kemp, and border state conservatives like Howard Baker, by word and deed earned the benefit of the doubt; as did Indiana’s Richard Lugar and Utah’s Robert Bennett for that matter Nathan. But just as you believe the liberal party in America took a leftward turn 50 years ago, the likes of the individuals I’ve just identified are being purged from the conservative party in our nation now.
I would like to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt on race—because I do think that this is more about race and racial privilege than ideology—but I will need some historical evidence, or some contemporary evidence, that (today’s) conservatives are not by and large ‘ditto heads.’
Finally if you don’t want ‘conservative’ to be POSITIONED as an epithet then you might consider not USING ‘liberal’ as one (or that “Democrat Party” device for that matter).
With due respect, Stephen, I’m going to pass. When it comes to conservatives, you are most comfortable stereotyping and labeling. You are suspicious; you’re curious; you’re wary; you’re perturbed. You find our motives suspect and our rhetoric offensive. These are your words, not mine.
You claim to want a dialogue, but it really feels to me like you mostly want to label, create guilt by association, attack and vent. Instead of actually engaging with questions I have raised, you attack people I have never tried to defend, claims I have not made, and statements that I have not used as authority.
You want to give me – as a self-described conservative – the benefit of the doubt on race. But before you can do that, you need some historical evidence that today’s conservatives are not by and large ‘ditto heads.’ What a mind-bogglingly racist statement. Thank you for your “generous” willingness to give me an opportunity to prove that I am not racist, but I’m not biting.
I erroneously suggested that you were offering false choices between conservatism as racism and conservatism as a means of preserving privilege. You obviously see it not as either/or, but as both/and.
You have made it abundantly evident that you have no interest in dialogue about substantive issues, but simply want to label, attack, and justify your labels. Sadly, until I see some evidence that you do not come at these conversations with the presumption that I am motivated by racism or a desire to preserve White male privilege, there is no point in conversing with you. Until then, this conversation is over as far as I am concerned.
With due respect Nathan—and I said at the beginning of my previous post that I respected you—this isn’t personal; especially if it does not fit you.
I specifically provided examples of famous conservatives—conservatives– who are clearly not ‘ditto heads.’ They’ve earned the benefit of any doubt. Why couldn’t that list have included you? It very may well have included you—except that in your mind it didn’t.
I provided a list of particulars that explain why I am suspicious of conservatives. If these are not all historically factual you could have challenged or corrected them.
I’m sorry that you took it personal. (If referring to conservatives ‘ditto heads’ until/unless proven otherwise is a “racist comment;” then we are in a lot of trouble—given that someone else previously called for the genocide of black people as the only viable solution on this very site.) When you castigate liberal philosophy and motivations I’ll try to remember my own advice.
Re your May 8 comment at 3:12, Stephen – below:
Both of us could write books collecting all the idiotic, criminal, disingenuous, self-aggrandizing, horrible things that prominent people on either side of the political spectrum have said or done. We could also cast aspersions on their motivations and hypocrisy in espousing the ideals they claim to believe in. I try not to do that in discussions about what you believe, because I think it serves no purpose and proves nothing. Al Sharpton is a liberal Democrat, and so are you. Why would I reference his character or statements in order to discredit liberalism as a political philosophy, or to cast aspersions on the merits or motives of an idea that you articulate? Don’t you think that would be fallacious and lacking in intellectual integrity?
I would certainly encourage you to call me out if you catch me judging the merits of a philosophy or idea by the negative characters or suspect motivations of some who advance that philosophy or idea. I’m sure I don’t always live by my principles, but I hold very strongly to the belief that an idea or behavior should be judged on its origins, merits and effects – not on the sentiments and perceived motivations of the individuals who subscribe to the idea or engage in the behavior.
I can’t read minds. And neither can you. Hence, I have zero patience with your judging my conservative values and mindset pretty much exclusively by what you judge to be the motivations and sentiments of other self-described conservatives who may hold similar views.
BTW, my use of the word “racism” to describe your broadside against conservatives as “ditto heads” when it comes to race was, as you note, a malapropism. You did not make a racist statement – just a bigoted generalization.
I can’t invalidate the reasons you presume conservatives to be self-serving bigots, any more than I can invalidate the reasons for Elaine Nelson’s and Larry Bugs-Boshell’s perceptions of Adventists as narrow-minded, judgmental rubes. Your experience and perceptions are your own. I do not share that experience or those perceptions. It’s not that your facts are inaccurate, any more than Elaine’s or Larry’s facts are inaccurate. It’s just that you selectively choose facts which support your narrative, and conveniently ignore those which refute it.
That’s why I prefer to deal in specific and particular issues – like the relationships between values, behaviors, well-being, and prosperity – while you would rather take them off the table by attacking the motives of those who espouse conservative political values and behaviors.
Nathan,
If I should stipulate that you are well-intentioned before engaging you about this, let me hereby do so my man.
Now, let’s forget about you shall we? And let’s likewise also forget about me. Of course that’s probably not likely to happen, since I’m the one writing this; but we’ll do the best we can.
Do you realize how often I’ve engaged in conversations about race on these boards and elsewhere wherein Al Sharpton is invoked? Or how often President Obama’s name comes up out of nowhere on these boards? Previously, Jesse Jackson’s name and image have been utilized as polemical leverage as well. I’ve been determined never to take the bait by defending Sharpton or Jackson in any way or under any circumstances; because I realize that their names and images are invoked as a polemical escape hatch. I haven’t defended Obama on these boards; but since it is obvious that I support some of his policies and have voted for him, most wouldn’t believe that.
You would rather that we clinically focus on the results of the policies of The New Deal, The Square Deal, The New Frontier, and of The Great Society; which I am quite willing to do. I believe that the standards of living, and the working conditions, and the educational and placement opportunities that poor and working class Americans now have as compared to the years preceding these approaches are better. This most definitely includes Nixon’ Affirmative Action.
You, among others, perhaps (or generally) disagree. After all, poverty and societal disintegration, and social pathologies are all still with us; and in many instances even much worse.
You would also us look at how values and lifestyles effect prospects for prosperity. I’m not trying to take this off the table but rather adding some context.
Some even debate whether racial desegregation in our society has—or to what extent it has—contributed to the deterioration of institutions and entrepreneurship within the black community; and blame this as much as, or more than, you would blame welfare programs (in the most ironic unintended consequences argument).
So it’s not that I am unwilling to discuss things that you want to discuss; but minimally you must understand my perspective (what I believe and why I believe) if you’re going to engage me. It seems that you might rather not do that; which is clearly your prerogative.
Perhaps understandably, the fact that I bristled and responded to you having positioned today’s “Democrat” party as the party of slavery, etc. made you think that I was putting you in the same boat with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity; all of whom do this quite regularly (or it was the ‘ditto head’ reference). Of course they also, or at least one of them regularly chases this disingenuousness with the FACT that Republicans helped pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (or that Republican Lincoln freed the slaves). Perhaps I should have made a distinction (or that distinction) between…
you and them. And I confess to thinking of them in the same way that many conservatives think of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
That said, I don’t think any of my stated reasons for being suspicious of conservatism (maybe the –ism is a better to say than the –ives) are unreasonable; and don’t think it is unreasonable to ask for some historical or current evidence why conservatism isn’t how I perceive it.
Steven and Nathan. i have followed your on going debate of the conservative/liberal values as they view the plight of the black social structure in the USA. Actually i would list the problem as being the cultural differential that has existed since day one, between the North and the South. Having been a witness to almost 90 years of this nations history, i will share my observation of the issue. Born in St Louis, Mo.and living in Southern states for my first 12 years, there was a definite recognized friction between the North & South. The North had a strong sense of superiority over the “Southern Rednecks” that still exists today, by all the states not of the South (the same is true also between the Nord Deutch/Sud Duetch in Germany). Of course
the Southern states have a burr under their saddle and great resentment. While the Southern states had the majority of black slaves from Africa, although our countries first leaders all were slave owners, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote our US Constitution, they all, Conservative & Liberal accepted the black slaves as inferior to the white race, and assumed the Constitution did not include the slaves. Even the slaves had their caste system, dependent on their job roles, House slaves or Field slaves; and later the educated and upward mobile blacks versus the blacks of lesser education and opportunity. Until WWII, the blacks by great majority, remained in the Southern states, where the “Jim Crowe” laws, of total segregation, and whites belief that blacks were a sub race and of inferior quality. This continued politically until the mid 1960’s when the Federal Law insisted on segregation
of schools and the public sector. i shall not here describe the indignities and terrible atrocities blacks have suffered in the USA, for over 300 years, as most are aware of them. Changing the political did not change the hearts of many racists, and racism by both whites and blacks continues on, perhaps never to be ended. Under segregation in the 20th century, opportunity for public education for blacks, became available while facilities & activity were substandard, until integration began in the 1960’s, however blacks living in ghetto locations still suffered, because integration was still stymied by attendance in the local substandard schools. Eventually “busing” became available, gaining blacks into integrated schools, that today still have problems as even in Northern states, the ghettos continue.
change “when the Federal law insisted on integration”.
Both the Democrat and Republican party’s have, over the years, given lip service to how much they have created opportunities for blacks; but they are only sincere in talk. Yes, there are strong factions in both parties that could care less how the general public shares in the largess of the “American Dream”. The white population today wonder why the blacks are still unable as a cultural entity, to, as a race, unable to gain community stature and better employment, and success, as have most Asian cultural groups of size in the USA? Also why up to 80% of prison cells are filled with blacks? Why do the blacks congregate in large groups and riot, and burn down and loot businesses in the areas they live? And why they resort to violence against other blacks? It’s odd they haven’t assimilated into the the general American Scene and Dream. The blacks are not racially inferior, but as a people, culturally are different. Blacks dominate in Sports, Music, Entertainment and have leaders in every professional theme. The change, in order to assimilate, and rise to success across the board, has to come from within, a gut hunger to individual success. That the current whites are not responsible for the past sins of there forefathers; that compensation for the past isn’t going to happen by current generations. That opportunity is available for the average soul. The government handouts will never satisfy their gut hunger for redress. And that’s all politicians want is their vote. The change if forthcoming, must begin with the youth. The indelible crime of whites is imprinted in the brain, and seemingly permanent. Yes, there are many more impoverished whites, than blacks, seeking the plantation dole, impoverished in spirit, not pride. And today the top 10% of Americans take off the top 90% (percent) of all money,incomes, investments, golden parachutes, bonus’s and graft crimes. The elderly today are being denied any earnings on their nest egg retirement, because of “controlled” interest rates, and manipulation of every enterprise. The top US politicians have led America and the AMERICAN DREAM into a sad
despicable morass of corruption, and is slowly choking the last dollar out of the middle class. If America is to rise up and reclaim the values of integrity, opportunity, family and faith, it must clean house of the corruption in high places, and a new commitment by its citizens of love thy brother.
Appreciate your perspective, Earl. Not sure where you got your statistics from though. Last I checked, the top 10% of income earners paid 68% of all federal income taxes, even though they earned 45% of all income. Suggesting that the top 10% “TAKE” is misleading. Overwhelmingly, the top 10% EARN and invest. How they are paid, why they make so much, and how that adversely affects the economic well-being of the less advantaged, are probably questions for economists and employers.
What distresses me, however, is that you implicitly measure the decline in American character by economic metrics. Much as I value integrity, opportunity, family and honesty, Jesus did little to nothing to address those problems, which were undoubtedly at least as pervasive in His time. His passion was to reveal the Kingdom. and remove impediments to Kingdom living. Remarkably, He doesn’t seem to have viewed corruption in high places, oppression by Rome, or political inequality as obstacles to Kingdom living.
Corruption in high places has always, and will always, be with us. That’s no reason to be complacent about it. But I don’t think the values and integrity of Americans are being held hostage to high crimes and misdemeanors by the privileged class. Each citizen is morally responsible for himself and his actions, regardless of what others do.
Well I read with some amusement the dialog between Nathan and Stephen over my alleged “smearing” of conservatives. And I noticed that someone who used to “love” my comments now has second thoughts after my parody of the classic “conservative” explanation for how Obama (and by extension any Democrat) could win an election.
I have heard this whining from conservatives ever since McCain lost of Obama. For me it was the nomination of Palin that sealed the deal, not race or guilt. But of course if Gore had won over Bush then the whining would have been about the climate change scare or something else.
I also notice that Republicans (some of whom are my close relatives and friends) take immediate credit when something good happens, and immediately blame anything bad on Democrats past or present. They keep thinking they wear the cloak of Reagan’s “teflon”.
Meanwhile the true liberals are rallying today just a few miles north of here to protest Obama coming to Nike to sell-out American jobs to the Far East. How ironic that Nike was one of the first big names to outsource the manufacture of apparel to lower-cost regions. And how ironic that Nike parks most of its profits offshore via brand licensing subsidiaries in low-tax venues.
So I guess if Obama was once the poster child for liberals he has now become a poster child for all the ills of Big Business that they hate. Put that in your racial pipe and smoke it.
Basically the Democrats and the Republicans use similar fear-mongering and hate-mongering tactics to rally the faithful. The main difference being who are the villains.
PS for former “lovers” of my comments – You might enjoy the parody of liberal apologies for gay marriage advocates “smearing” religious conservatives, that I have written to my liberal friends.
I guess I must just be smearing stuff all over 8-).
The US of A is the world’s second largest (by population) true democracy. India is by far the largest.
Having spent quality time in India, there is one major difference in their pay-to-play political system vs ours. The Indians are more efficient. They wait until AFTER the elections and then bribe the winners. Bribery being illegal in the US of A, those with money in their pockets lay their bets (and in many cases hedge their bets) BEFORE the elections. Basically the money spent on the losers is wasted.
And just in case you might be wondering, the beggars in India do tend to vote. And the major parties do expend energy on get-out-the-vote campaigns. And there are those who are clamoring for a national ID system to reduce electoral and welfare fraud.
Unequivocally, Jim, I appreciate your comments. You are usually brilliant. As you know, despite your perfervid effort to dodge what I actually said and meant, I took issue, not with your smearing of conservatives (I confess that I am a serial offender when it comes to denigrating/belittling views which I find to be offensive or poorly thought out), but with the aura of piety and self-righteousness with which I felt you did it.
BTW, where might I find your parody?
You can contact me via LinkedIn to exchange email addresses (www.linkedin.com/in/stanatek). If you study the photo on that web page you might recognize one of your former schoolmates from Union College (she is the good-looking one).
Re piety or lack thereof, I try to distinguish between attacking ideas and attacking individuals. Perhaps I lack the wisdom of Solomon in rightly drawing this fine line. I would however note that Jesus uttered some scathing rebukes against the religious leaders of His time and place, without naming any names. And Paul went so far as to suggest that certain Judaizers should consider castration, sarcastically remarking that if cutting a little flesh was such a good idea then cutting more might be even better.
Since you objected to what I wrote, I have re-read it twice more and I do not see where I attacked individuals as opposed to a line of “reasoning” that I have seen and heard numerous times.
On the other hand, where I objected to comments as being less than Christ-like, I was objecting to very derogatory things that someone had written about an individual named person. That I will maintain is un-civil and un-Christian discourse.
Thanks Jim –
I realize you were primarily responding to a vile comment with no intellectual content, and I in fact asked that it be taken down as out of keeping with AT standards. I just react against the notion that Jesus was gentle and meek in His discourse. And you seem to recognize that. After all, look at the names He called the religious leaders of His day.
I believe in robust, but civil, discourse. I’m loathe to judge what is Christian or un-Christian in the manner or style of another’s comments. But AToday has comment guidelines. If Jesus called someone the modern day equivalent of a white-washed sepulcher, it would by definition be Christian. But it still should be deleted from this website if it violates the Comments guidelines.
You are correct, Stephen, about what I would like to focus on – issues. And it might surprise you that I agree with you about the poor being much better off economically, as are all Americans, since our federal government became a welfare state in the ’60’s. That improvement, however, is, I believe, more properly attributable to technology than giveaway programs. My concern isn’t so much with the failure of trillions of dollars in anti-poverty programs to make a dent in official poverty statistics. Rather, it is in how the growth of those programs has correlated with destruction of families, out-of-wedlock births, joblessness, crime rates, etc., among the intended beneficiaries of the programs. And how those with a vested interest in perpetuating and growing the welfare state not only refuse to consider that maybe Pat Moynihan was right, but they insist that they (liberals) are the only ones with the compassion and intelligence to solve, with more plunder of my earnings, the failures and adverse side effects of the dysfunctional communities they have created and over which they now preside.
BTW, I did not position today’s Democratic Party as the party of slavery. I said it was the party of slavery before reinventing itself. Do you disagree? And surely you will agree that Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, and others on the far left are not thrown in your face any more often than you bring up Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to tar and feather your opponents. More importantly, at no time have I suggested that the hypocrisy or dubious character of prominent leftists who share your liberal views should in any way discredit the opinions or political affiliation you happen to share with them. Can you say the same with regard to your attacks on prominent conservatives?
Insofar as your perspective deals with ideas on their merits, I am all ears. But to the extent that you feel I need to understand why you speculate as you do about what motivates those who support the values and policies I believe in, you will get no sympathy. I really have little interest, when discussing an idea, in understanding why someone who disagrees with me feels as he does about the issue, or why he doesn’t like my opinion. I feel no need to disprove your conjecture about what motivates conservatives. In fact, when I see you trying to respond to my contentions with the argument that they are in essence motivated by “hate thoughts” or greed, instead of actually offering reasoned opposition on the merits, it tends to reinforce my sense that I am winning the argument.
Nathan,
I do wonder whether you might view things a wee bit differently, should your hard-won earnings be “plundered” by other circumstances, perhaps beyond your control (though that can be in the eyes of the beholder)?
Time and chance do overtake every person (yes that is actually in the Bible). We all begin life as “takers” rather than as “givers”. And most of us as we age will once again find ourselves as “takers” in our later years. That is the cycle of life. And at every moment in your life you are only once unfortunate accident or other medical incident away from losing your ability to gain wealth by your own labors.
“It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (cf Jesus Christ)
“It is always easier to spend someone else’s money.” (cf the son of a stock-broker)
PS – My own Republican forebears taught me that the welfare state began with FDR, not with LBJ.
PPS – The first US President to propose a national health care funding system was that notorious RINO Theodore Roosevelt.
Let me get this straight my friend, when engaging in a colloquy or debate with a liberal about liberalism you do not think it is important that the liberal understands why you believe that liberalism represents whatever you believe it to represent. Or does that just work one way? (Do you see how silly that sounds when it is reversed, or don’t you?) If you actually believe that is not important that others understand why you believe what you believe about liberalism (the left), why do ever tell us about “the Left;” much less having done so frequently?
As you must know, I haven’t attacked your arguments or “[responded] to [your] contentions with the argument that they are in essence motivated by “hate thoughts” or greed;” but assessed conservatism on bases of history, and on what conservatives have historically done.
My theory of conservatism is based on historical, documentable, and thus far undisputed facts. You may not appreciate or agree that those facts are related to my conclusions; but is it too much to ask you for evidence of any kind that the conclusions I’ve drawn are incorrect (or that the facts should be otherwise interpreted)??
Why don’t you either explain why only conservatives opposed child labor, workplace safety, minimum wage, early childhood education, Social Security, and public heath insurance (Medicare and Medicaid) legislation; or dispute that they have opposed such; or explain why opposition to such legislation does not necessarily make my assessment true. (I understand that conservatives have argued/complained that such regulations limit freedom, and that such programs “plunder” their earnings, and/or have backfired—not that it’s important to understand why.)
Those historical realities represent “issues” my friend. Again, I’m willing to discuss the issues you raise in the proposition of your argument and/or in defense of my position. Your unwillingness to discuss the issues I raise in the proposition of my argument and/or in (your) defense of your position signals an indication of your argument’s vulnerabilities.
As to invoking names (Sharpton, et al), you’re mistaken; and this can be proven. I could go back and find you many instances in which, in debating racial incidents and issues on this particular site, Sharpton’s name has been brought up gratuitously. (Not so much by you as others.) I can find many instances in which you have mentioned Obama out of nowhere. I now mention Limbaugh, et al because I read their talking points being repeated; and because it beats taking ‘Sharpton’ bait.
Jim Hamstra has made some good points. The beneficial values we share have been instilled (to the extent they have) by precept and by example, via our parents. We have had no control as to whom we were born; no control whatsoever. (There are tons of other things over which we’ve had little to no control.) I contend that conservatism is not at all sensitive to that simple undeniable reality.
You’re correct, Stephen. I generally cannot divine the motivations behind the position that a particular liberal takes. Nor do I think it is important to an evaluation of the merits of the position. I’m sure there are many different reasons why different liberals may promote or oppose a given policy. I don’t think it is of any importance at all for you to understand why I think left wing liberalism generally is intellectually bankrupt. What is important is the pros and cons of specific policies.
We can’t possibly unpack the grab bag of sentimentally compelling issues which conservatives and libertarians have opposed as promoting dependence and government overreach. I find it fascinating that you seem to think they are self-evidently wise and good policies because they feel good and are well-intentioned.
I guess I’m just too nuanced, Stephen. I can’t reduce the world or good and evil to political slogans and 20 second sound bites. If you want to discuss the minimum wage, I’d be glad to do so. If you want to discuss social security reform or health care reform, fine. But those will each be pretty long, nuanced discussions. You may be surprised to learn that I don’t think poor people should just get sick and die if they can’t afford medical care and don’t want to adopt healthy lifestyles.
I don’t think either of us will change each other’s, or anyone else’s views. So go on thinking your views are unequivocally supported by undisputed facts and irrefutable historical evidence. Sorry, I just don’t consider anecdotal evidence regarding particular conservatives to be evidence of the values or motivations of other conservatives or of conservative views in general. Your evidence may be undisputed, but when assayed and weighed, it really isn’t worthy of consideration.
Yours are time-honored tactics (prove that I, and others who share my positions, am not the willfully blind moral cretins that you, and those who share your perspectives, believe me to be), but surely you don’t think I am so dumb as to be engaged by undisputed evidence such as David Duke voting Republican.
Perhaps at this point you are doing some version of Roberto (No mas!) Duran. You previously said this conversation is over. I suppose you meant what you said.
As you know, the point of the laundry list (of things conservatism has opposed) is that the nation is better off—that the American people are better off—with child labor laws, workplace safety, minimum wage, early childhood education, Social Security, and public heath insurance (Medicare and Medicaid) legislation; with Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation, and with legislation benefiting the Americans with Disabilities (signed by George H.W. Bush, incidentally) than it was without these various measures; and that exclusively conservative opposition to these and other measures reveals something about conservatism. It does not reveal and/or isn’t probative that conservatism wants people sick and poor; but that the priority is something else.
We disagree about what it does reveal. But you’ve been presented with much, much more than David Duke and Rush Limbaugh. That list of measures, all of which opposed by conservatism, is more than anecdotal.
You rightly oppose corporate welfare and identify how “politicians on both sides use their political power to protect and advance the interests of corporate donors in exchange for the corporation doing favors for the politician.” So, just as Robert Dole co-sponsored SNAP and George H.W. Bush signed the ADA, you as a conservative, perhaps see the light on moneyed interests corrupting the system. But conservatism supports the Citizens United approach which is more evidence supporting my theory. Anecdotal and isolated incidents of iconoclastic approaches—as welcome as they may always be—do not negate or disprove the proposition.
“Conversation over,” Stephen, referred to your attempt to define conservatism by “hall of shamers.”
Actually, discussing the principles and policies that flow from conservative political thought is a very legitimate focus. It’s just that this really is not the forum for a purely political discussion of the merits of specific legislative and regulatory programs. You seem to have a much easier time than I of pronouncing things good or bad. Most of the initiatives you identify have some very good aspects that are within the Constitutional purview of the Federal government, and most of them have some very bad features that create and pander to politically privileged identity groups. Space does not permit us to parse the specifics of those programs. Minimum wages are just about always at best a zero sum game, and at worst, inflationary employment suppressants, hurting most their ostensible beneficiaries.
As to the notion that the moneyed interests corrupt the system, that is only a half-truth. Systems are necessary because all humans are corrupt – not just moneyed interests. All who are impacted by any system – wealthy or poor – will do everything they can to maximize the benefit they derive from the system and minimize its adverse impact on them. Those who implement and administer the system – usually those with economic and political power – cannot be trusted not to corrupt the system, and thus systems should be designed to minimize conflicts of interest and centralization of power, something that Beltway politicians – especially on the Left – fight tooth and nail.
Herein lies a fundamental characteristic of conservatism. Conservatives take a very dim view of human nature. Left leaning liberals have an unconstrained view of human nature (c.f., Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions”). They tend to think that intellectuals and powerbrokers of the “masses” are morally superior and can be trusted with broad political power to know and implement what is good for society. They believe that human nature and character are primarily the products of environmental factors, and can and be purified/perfected through education, laws and systems overseen by those intellectuals and power brokers.
The Left seldom recognizes that those who are given political power seek wealth, and those who have wealth seek political influence and power. It would be interesting to see a system where those who seek and hold political power could never derive economic benefit from their offices, and those who have wealth could not use their wealth to influence the decisions of politicians.
Nathan,
This is what you’re apparently missing: whenever you make critical generalizations about “the Left” it is very similar to me critically observing conservatives or conservatism. The difference is that you don’t like it when I point to specific historical examples, or specific contemporary occurrences, that have gotten me thinking of conservatism as I do; whereas you make assumptive generalizations like “Left leaning liberals [are there any other kind?] have an unconstrained view of human nature… [And] tend to think that intellectuals and powerbrokers of the “masses” are morally superior and can be trusted with broad political power…” etc, etc. You go on to assume what it is that liberals “believe” and what it is they “seldom recognize” etc. but don’t offer the kinds of specific examples of things historical or contemporary that have you thinking as you do. (Other than offering an opinion that the reason the standards of living and opportunities for escape from deprivation are better now than they were before FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ is due to technological advances.) And when I ask for historical evidence—or any evidence— that my thoughts concerning—and my suspicions regarding—conservatism are erroneous; or when I point to individual self-proclaimed conservatives as examples of that about which I speak, you rhetorically cry “foul, no fair.”
It is somehow simultaneously ‘OK’ for you to make unflattering, sweeping generalizations about “the Left,” but yet it’s not OK for me to “position” conservatism as an “epithet.”
With due respect, I reject that approach. If it is fair to criticize “the Left,” then it’s fair to criticize conservatism—and it is also fair for me to ask you for some historical or contemporary evidence of why I am wrong about what I think American conservatism represents (or why I shouldn’t be suspicious of their motivations on a variety of issues).
I’ve identified by name a number of northern conservatives of whom I am not suspicious and who by word and/or deed have earned the benefit of any doubt. So I have by no means painted with a broad brush. Neither have I associated you with the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Levin; just as you have not associated me with Sharpton.
I am however intrigued—actually baffled—by your belief that liberalism trusts human nature. It seems to me if liberalism trusted human nature it wouldn’t want ‘big’ government; it would take a laissez faire approach.
`In my view, it’s appropriate and important that we discuss this in this forum. Much of the divide we have in Adventism in America has long been political. While it would be inappropriate and unwise to discuss this in any church-related or religious setting, this forum is not either. We discuss things that are of interest and/or relevance to Adventists; and now that one is running for President, this is.
When the “welfare state” is mentioned it nearly always means the poor who are living in poverty, receive food stamps, etc. But what about “corporate welfare” the huge tax breaks and incentives allowed the Wall Street tycoons who rob from the poorly advised on shady loans and then foreclose on them and reap huge profits from their illegal machinations and tax breaks; then reward the executives huge bonuses (all non-taxable as part of business expenses? They are fined but how many have ever walked the “perp walk” for such thievery while the guy who steals cigarettes is incarcerated if not beaten to death?
You are absolutely correct, Elaine. I am no fan of what is called corporate welfare. I loathe the reality that politicians on both sides use their political power to protect and advance the interests of corporate donors in exchange for the corporation doing favors for the politician.
Elaine and Nathan, yes the Republican and Democrat Representatives and Senators entertain
Lobbyists (influence peddlers) in our nations Capital’s private offices, and or the working staff bureaucrats, spell out the “special terms”
for favors granted. That’s why so many retired politicos become Lobbyists to their former cohorts in privileged and unprosecuteable crimes. The corruption, which you agree is ever with us is
millions and billions of dollars of benefits to the corrupt club, who smile and curry favor with their considered stupid constituents.
If this poll is correct, then whether or not White Evangelicals like Ben Carson due to his race or to his religion, may be less important now than in the past.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-religion-20150512-story.html
Stephen, I used the adjective “left leaning” to distinguish the liberalism I was describing from classical liberalism. And I don’t believe that my description of liberalism was particularly pejorative or moralistic. Do you disagree with my observations about contemporary liberalism in the penultimate paragraph of my last post?
I didn’t say, and I don’t believe, that liberals are particularly trusting of human nature – certainly not if it does not conform to liberal sentiments. Liberals strike me as elitists. They see human nature and character as a blank slate, primarily shaped and determined by forces of environment and nature. And they believe in the power of education, rules, regulations and wise leaders (philosopher kings, if you will) to guide, govern, and perfect that nature/character.
Conservatives distrust the human nature of the educated elite just as much as the human nature of the unwashed masses. And therefore they believe in limited government authority and decentralization of power.
If you want historical facts and personalities, read Daniel Flynn’s “A Conservative History of the American Left,” or Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fasicism.” No matter how many Noam Chomskys, Howard Zinns, Saul Alinsky’s or Margaret Sangers I expose, and no matter how clearly I identify the anti-Constitutional, anti-American sentiments deeply woven throughout the history of the American Left, expressed by current leaders of the Democratic Party, you will be able to find examples that do not fit my mold. So I have preferred to point out what I see as a pattern of thinking or methodology that is common to the Left, a pattern of thinking that I believe is not irrelevant to the conclusions often reached. Do you think my description is unflattering or unfair? If so, how?
I think my critiques of the Left are fair, though certainly not impartial. Your critiques of conservatism, as articulated on this thread, are not fair in the least, because they invalidate conservatism as a moral option. You identify Republicans you respect as somehow “good” conservatives, when the reality is that most of them had lots of conservative positions and a few liberal positions. What you like about them was their openness to liberal positions. In other words, you really didn’t care for them as conservatives except insofar as they were willing to abandon conservative principles. If I said Joe Lieberman or Scoop Jackson were “good” liberals, you would immediately recognize that I am not affirming them as liberals, but as conservatives when it comes to national defense and American exceptionalism. So you seek, Stephen, you really aren’t very convincing when you try to demonstrate your fairness toward conservativism in general by pointing to Republican politicians whom you respect for their ability to abandon conservative principles.
I had no issue Nathan with your “left leaning” description or distinction of liberals—other than considering it to be redundant. That said; I do appreciate the clarification.
However I find your depictions of liberalism to be bereft of any specific examples. Oh sure, as when I mention Rush Limbaugh, Strom Thurmond, David Duke, et al, you can identify a veritable rogues gallery of people you consider to be liberals. But what I would simply like to see Nathan are historical and contemporary events and issues in which conservative principles in action contradict my theory of what conservatism is about; and historical and contemporary events and issues which confirm your depictions and assumptions of what liberalism is really about.
(I’m convinced—based on historical and contemporary issues and events—that conservatism insofar as it has been practiced in American politics, is about preserving the advantages of (both) the privileged and advantaged; and preserving the institutions that undergird or support those advantages; more than it is about anything else.)
We can keep personalities out of it. We can stick to issues and events. But please don’t recommend that I read some agenda-driven, self-serving conservative stuff; and I won’t advise you to read any liberal stuff—other than my views, of course.
At this point I am very happy that I have never read anything by any of the individuals you have named. I am really only interested in history; so it saves me the trouble of defending anything other than documented historical facts.
Which brings us back to what is “unflattering or unfair” about your depictions of liberalism. Until and unless you can present some examples of conservatism that do not fit the mold that I have identified—as you correctly acknowledged that I would be able to do with “anti-Constitutional, anti-American sentiments deeply woven throughout the history of the American Left, expressed by current leaders of the Democratic Party” that you’d find—I will of course consider your depictions of liberalism to be inaccurate and unfair.
I would also be more than interested to see you come up with specific examples of when the northern conservatives I’ve identified, like Gerald Ford, Robert Dole, Jack Kemp, Richard Lugar, Robert Bennett, and even Eisenhower, or border state conservatives like Howard Baker “were willing to abandon conservative principles.” (And for the record Nathan, I did not refer to them as “good” conservatives.) I don’t think that Scoop Jackson or Lyndon Johnson or Hubert Humphrey were closet conservatives just because they were somewhat more ‘hawkish’ than most liberals tend to be. Many liberals may consider Jimmy Carter and George McGovern more pious/religious than they are.
You appear to have a low tolerance for anything but doctrinaire, ‘party line’ conservatism; and may be projecting this onto me.
I’m sorry, Stephen – the Procrustean bed you create for conservatism is so patently preposterous, as are the infamous outlier “conservative” personalities you use to construct that bed, that pointing out facts you are ignoring would be quite a futilitarian exercise. If I have to tell you why your definition is ridiculous and demogogic, telling you won’t do any good.
I know you did not refer to “Northern” conservatives as “good.” That’s not why I put quotes around the word. The inference was only implied in what I recall you saying – that you respect them. In the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, there were few extremists in American politics. And those few lost big time in national elections. The extremists were still, at that time, largely confined to academia, journalism, and, beginning in the 60’s, the Federal judiciary.
I don’t think you can really compare conservatives of one era with conservatives of another era. So I’m not sure why you brought up Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, or even Bob Dole. I see each politican you identified differently. I tend to dislike and distrust “establishment” Republicans like Bennett, Lugar and John Boehner – and George W. Bush. To the extent they are disliked by conservatives, it is because of specific policy stances they have taken which suggest they are not constitutionally conservative.
Conservatives felt very much betrayed by the decision of Bennett and Lugar to favor amnesty for illegal immigrants. On gun control and the Iraq surge, Lugar was very liberal. However, I’m not going to chase after every red herring you identify. For one thing, it’s too easy. But in general, I don’t see why you would exclude Bennett and Lugar from your denigration of conservativism. They always struck me more as good ole’ boy country club Republicans than as conservatives.
You see me as having a low tolerance for anything but doctrinaire, “party line” conservatism (no need to define). I see you as irretrievably immersed in metanarratives which make it impossible for you to see conservative political values as anything other than tools to blame the victim, and to perpetuate institutionalized racial and economic oppression in the name of liberty, personal responsibility, and private property rights. Would there be any point to having a discussion with a Muslim ideologue who insists on defining and judging Christianity by the crusades or by the Catholic Church’s handling of the priest abuse scandals? Of course not! If you understand those analogies, then perhaps you will understand why I think it is pointless to attempt a dialogue with you about the meaning of conservatism.
But if you had been talking to a Muslim who was looking at the Crusades as his template for Christianity (sort of how Coulter thinks/implies that the Democrats of 2015 were the slavery and segregation party); wouldn’t you attempt to dispel his misperception by bringing him up to speed on what Christianity has done since then? Just tell me what political conservative principles in action have done to disprove my perception of what it is all about. Simply calling something “patently preposterous” or “ridiculous” doesn’t make it so unless you are capable of demonstrating that it is preposterous. With respect you are bailing because you know that unflattering though it may be, neither is it “patently preposterous” or “ridiculous.”
Here’s the thing Nathan, it’s about facts. The infamous outlier ‘conservative’ personalities I’ve mentioned started with Strom Thurmond, among other elected officials. David Duke is admittedly an outlier; but Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al are ‘conservatives,’ and are collectively very influential. That isn’t spin, Nathan. Unfortunately it’s factual.
I had asked you to simply provide a few historical examples of conservative principles in action that would belie my theory—as I have sought to provide you events, issues and policies; not just rhetoric.
It’s about facts not impressions of things. In the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s there were plenty of extremists in American politics; and they won more than they lost. The fact is that most of them were conservative demagogues in the Deep South. Strom Thurmond, Richard Russell, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and Jesse Helms were regular winners. It is true that they lost “big time” in national elections; but not statewide. Strom Thurmond who had been the South Carolina governor, went on to become the oldest and the longest serving U.S. Senator, and was at one time the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Richard Russell was the governor of Georgia and went on to serve 38 years in the Senate and was the most senior member of the Senate when he died. He was the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and had previously been the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Jesse Helms served as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and had previously been the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Wallace and Maddox easily won their governorships. The point is that extremists (and racists) had held very powerful positions quite regularly—and I could’ve gone on and on.
To sense how others perceive things, try to imagine if Louis Farrakhan was the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Or imagine Farrakhan being recognized and honored for his years of service and his long life by the Senate Leader of his party (and saying what Trent Lott had said about Thurmond, whenever that was). Imagine the President making campaign appearances with Farrakhan, or Huey Newton, or Bobby Seale.
Your perception of reality is frequently an ‘impression’ that is at odds with facts—as on this thread you characterized the base of the liberal party as “dependent;” —but that doesn’t represent demagoguery, right?—without evidence that dependent people vote in sufficient numbers to comprise any political base. I mentioned some northern conservatives—who you view as less than bona fide—because they were contemporaries of these other individuals; and/or because there was contrast between them.
Unfortunately you are probably right in saying that you can’t “really compare conservatives of one era with conservatives of another era;” because Eisenhower, Nixon, Henry Cabot Lodge, Ford, Dole, Kemp, Baker, and even Reagan wouldn’t be considered sufficiently conservative for the radio propaganda machinery of the 21st century. Reagan quadrupled the national debt, while compiling more debt than did all of his predecessors combined—and ridiculed the notion of not raising the debt ceiling. Goldwater was not as conservative as many of his colleagues when he left office. Those other guys all likewise “abandoned conservative principles,” or at least that is your impression. Not even George W. Bush was legitimate. So clearly George H.W. Bush wasn’t either. “Country club” and “establishment” conservatives are now synonyms for RINO in this era of purging. At this point, even a President who is pushing for another international trade agreement and under whose administration the Dow has doubled is considered a Marxist socialist, if not communist.
It would’ve been enlightening to discover who you consider to be a legitimately/sufficiently conservative; and to explore what policies and approaches they would or have supported or prescribed. But you’d rather not discuss specifics now. You’re right; neither conservatism nor extremism is what it once was. It’s almost scary.
Are not Leftist Liberals simply Fabian Socialists?
I see no significant difference, Darrel. Perhaps Stephen can enlighten us. In fact, I really don’t see any substantial difference between the political positions and tactics of the Democratic Party and historical Fabianism – though I believe, like most Progressives, the Democrats have abandoned their early 20th Century infatuation with social eugenics, replacing it with a more focused emphasis on ideological eugenics.
Stephen, I neither dispute nor defend the “Southern Strategy” of Republicans. But today the Party has zero tolerance for ill-considered racist or sexist comments. Look at how the Republicans vilified and abandoned Todd Akin. Did they defend Trent Lott? Do they speak reverentially of Strom Thurmond? Does David Duke have a credibility in the Party that begins to approach the credibility of Al Sharpton among Dems? Can you imagine David Duke being invited to the White house over 60 times by a Republican president?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz can articulate, as the position of the Democratic Party, that late term abortions are a matter solely between a woman and her doctor, and suffer no political consequences. Biden and Reid can offer jaw-droppingly condescending racist remarks about then Senator Obama, and it impacts them not at all. Ted Kennedy, a wretched moral specimen of humanity, is cannonized by his Party. And Clinton, a disbarred, philandering, sexual harrasser, can dismiss Obama with racial condescension, and remain wildly popular among liberals. Why? Because if it’s not reported in the NYT, covered by network news, lampooned by Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, or SNL, it didn’t happen. And if offensive, reprehensible conduct and speech is engaged in by someone who supports the right causes and ideas, all is forgiven.
You apparently believe, Stephen, that the Southern shift in political alignment from Democrat to Republican can only be explained by racism. So tell me – In the past 20 to 30 years, how could a southern Democrat thrive as a Democrat if he/she believed in the following: Limited, decentralized government; Free markets; local control over education; right to work laws; strong military; lower corporate tax rates; Right to Life; American exceptionalism? Southern Democrats used to believe in most, if not all, of these things. But they were completely marginalized by a Party moving Left at breakneck speed.
Just as they have encroached on states’ rights, Democrats now seek to surrender national autonomy to world organizations like the World Bank and the U.N. In their utopian imaginations, boundaries, whether they be religious, political, national, or philosophical are a source of inequality, tribalism, warfare, strife, and poverty. Only as enlightened rulers are given totalistic control over knowledge, information, wealth and power can humanity fulfill its destiny and the ideals of the French Revolution. That, IMHO, is the reason for the tectonic shift in political alignment, creating new, mostly economic fault…
I should add, Stephen, that Reagan’s tripling or quadrupling of a relatively small debt, which could be retired with reasonably foreseeable increased revenues from a robust economy, was quite different from what happened when the the Dems took control in 2007, and piled up massive debt while strangling the economy with high taxes, huge growth in the federal government, and burdensome, unpredictable regulations. It is inconceivable that the present debt will ever be paid off, and whether we will even be able to continue making interest payments on the debt when inflation hits is questionable.
My tastes in radio talk show hosts run toward Dennis Prager and Michael Medved. I think Medved is the best in the business. But I certainly enjoy the barbs, wit, and insight of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter as well. Few cut to the heart of liberal tergiversations and hypocrisy quite as well. Tell me, apart from what you understandably find to be their arrogant, abrasive style, what conservative political positions do Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity hold which yesterday’s Northern conservatives, whom you respect, would disagree with? I ask this question, because I think the reality of how mainstream Republican today’s political right wing would have been a few decades ago underscores how far left the Democratic Party has moved, as it has become increasingly dependent for its success on identity group politics, non-productive takers, anti-democratic governance tactics, and the uber-wealthy.
OK, where do I start my friend? Perhaps it’s good to continue with facts. Reagan’s tripling/quadrupling of the debt was unprecedented. He ran up more debt than all previous presidencies had accumulated in the aggregate. It wasn’t a relatively small debt Nathan. It was humungous relative to prevailing standards or should I say to previous presidencies.
No one could possibly have anticipated or “reasonably [foreseen]” that such unprecedented national debt would be retired—and it hasn’t been. National debt is different than fiscal deficit. The budget deficit was erased in 2000-01 (until it ‘wasn’t’/’reappeared’ shortly thereafter—something we’ll say you perhaps just happened to ‘overlook’); but huge unprecedented debt wasn’t and couldn’t be “reasonably [foreseen]” to have been manageable; which is precisely why Reagan’s successor broke his ill-conceived “no new taxes” convention pledge…and precisely why four years earlier Reagan’s (1984) Democratic opponent unwisely though accurately predicted that Reagan would have to then raise taxes and admitted that he would as well. Mondale’s candidness and Bush’s puffery proved fatal to their respective political careers of course; but both acceptance speech blunders were made possible by the “voodoo economics” of Reaganomics. Reagan’s own Office of Budget and Management Director David Stockman told the undeniable contemporaneous truth in the December, 1981 Atlantic Monthly interview with William Greider entitled “The Education of David Stockman” and later in his own tell-all book ‘The Triumph of Politics.’
I’ve recounted this—but you knew it; yet you chose rather to revise history. Of course it’s obvious that the national debt is hopelessly out of control now; but Reagan’s debt was accumulated in peacetime. The point is that though a conservative, Reagan was no deficit/fiscal hawk; and he lambasted the notion of not raising the debt ceiling; and signed immigration ‘amnesty’ legislation. So he “abandoned conservative principles” when ‘necessary;’ or when he chose to do so. Such actions and positions aren’t tolerated today.
The fact that you tried spinning this signals something about your feelings toward him which (understandably) tends to cloud historic reality. Goldwater’s attitude toward the religious right (“The religious right scares the hell out of me; they have no place in politics.”) would not go over to well now. He also thought the ban of gays from the U.S. military wasn’t very smart. In 1963 he presciently predicted “Actually I think as history is written, that you’ll probably find that the conservatives of my ilk being called liberals…” The point being that something has changed. What ‘conservatism’ has become would clearly make Reagan and Goldwater outcasts with today’s GOP. Times change but principles do not change. I’m therefore suggesting that you have some explaining to do if you think that Coulter/Hannity/Limbaugh’s ilk would have been considered mainstream at any time.
Of course the larger point is that conservatism, as perhaps (perhaps?) distinguished from libertarianism, has always been about the preservation of the advantages and privileges of the advantaged and the privileged; while preserving the institutions that undergird those (institutional) advantages and privileges. And instead of arbitrarily labeling this as “patently preposterous,” you have opportunity to provide historical and contemporary evidence to the contrary.
Earl and Ervin make some good points relative to things such as economic disparity. You would rather see the tax burden spread out more evenly than the wealth. We could engage in discussions revealing that in terms of real financial wealth in the U.S. (total net worth not including the tenuous value of one’s home), as of 2010 the bottom 80% of people owned about 4.7% of American financial assets. This lends some perspective to why the larger income earners pay so much more in income taxes than smaller earners do. One wonders how sustainable this model is, but that is not my primary point. The point is that conservatism would have the bottom 80% paying a LARGER SHARE of income taxes than they do; AND simultaneously (and steadfastly) RESISTS efforts to have the top 1% of earners (whose mean household income was $1.318 million in 2010) pay a larger SHARE of the total income taxes paid than they now do. Granted the top wage earners are not always (necessarily) the top financial wealth holders; but obviously there is some significant overlap.
But as to race and the political realignment we’ve witnessed in the Deep South; I’m not denying a cultural conservatism component. But liberals didn’t purge Southern Democrats like Al Gore, Sr. or Russell Long, Jr., or John Breaux, or the Pryors in Arkansas, or Wendell Ford, or Richard Shelby out of the party in primary elections. They either lost because they didn’t become conservative Republicans, or retired because they wouldn’t become, or survive because they became, Republicans. The larger point being that race was the catalyst or the impetus for the realignment, as has been documented here previously.
I’m not familiar with the Democratic Party’s flirtation with eugenics in the early 20th century; so I’ll add that to things you might consider documenting to some extent. But since you’ve acknowledged that they have reinvented themselves since then, perhaps you won’t.
I am however very familiar with Limbaugh et al and find it somewhat disappointing that you enjoy anything about that shtick. I find him to be racially offensive and consider him and his ilk to be purposeful, determined, and intentional race baiters. I’ve listened to them regularly for decades. This is partially why I know conservatism better than he claims to know liberals/liberalism.
I could continue, especially about the media, but let me say that as a conservative SDA I’m not a utopian by any stretch; but really Nathan, do you doubt that “boundaries, whether they be religious, political, national, or philosophical are a source of inequality, tribalism, warfare, strife, and poverty”? We certainly know that we will always have such divisions; but do you seriously question whether such divisions “are a source of inequality, tribalism, warfare, strife, and poverty”?
Here we agree, Stephen. I do not question the negative effects of the boundaries and divisions we’ve identified. Where we disagree is in what to do about them. I believe that the cures prescribed by the Left ignore human nature and the historical reality of what happens when political power is concentrated to ostensibly eliminate injustice, inequality, and conflict. Those cures have a deeply corrosive effect on the pre-legal moral convictions and sentiments that are necessary to guard against anarchy and protect from despotism.
You want to get out microscope and tweezers to look at details that support your arguments. I see that undertaking as a waste of time because either of us can marshall an infinite amount of evidence to confirm our biases and prejudices. You seem to have the truly bizarre notion that if conservatives, whom I respect and admire, have adopted or acquiesced in policies which I may think are currently a bad idea, then you have somehow discredited my conservative principles. And if you can point out racists or former racists who are or were conservative, then the burden is on me to reconcile what strikes you as paradoxical. Don’t you see how nutty that is?
My preference is to look at the bigger picture from 12,000 or 30,000 feet, and point out the reality of miserably failed cities, states, and nations that have resulted from Leftist policies and politicized repudiation of traditional values. And so, we really don’t communicate. We just throw talking points at one another.
You place great emphasis on motive and intent. I distrust professed motives and prefer to look at effects. The most effective argument against private property rights, free markets, and the rule of law seems to be that they produce inequality. And that I will grant. But historically, those inequalities have correlated with the highest standards of living in human history for those at the bottom end of the inequality.
Furthermore, the inequality paradigm completely ignores economic mobility. Historically, forty percent of those in the bottom income quintile move into a higher quintile within ten years. And a large number of those (I’m not sure of the percentage) of those in the top quintile will be in a lower quintile 10 years later. I prefer unequal, variable prosperity to equal, non-variable poverty.
Stephen, you seem to see the political and social issues that are tearing at the country as largely the product of institutional and structural defects – largely economic. I see those issues as primarily the product of pre-legal value and moral defects – largely due to breakdown of the subsidiary institutions which are really the only vehicles by which such values and morals can be imparted.
Oh, I believe we are communicating fine. In fact, I agree that you look at things from a generalized overhead view, and I prefer to examine the scene in as much detail as is possible. Instead of talking point generalizations from a big picture I would rather look granularly into what and why things have occurred. From above one can perhaps generally perceive what happened, but from ground level one is likely to determine why and how it happened (unless we’re merely talking about the weather).
So yes, I do want you to “marshal [some] of evidence to” to at least disprove my bias and “confirm” yours.
As you well know, characterizing a differing perspective as a straw man and then calling it “nutty” is not an argument. You have had plenty of opportunities to cite how in American policy, politics and history, past and present, conservative principals in action disprove/dispel the notion that conservatism is first and foremost concerned with preserving the advantages and privileges of those who are advantaged; and the institutions undergirding those advantages. In time you will have more opportunities.
(And what was that “…if conservatives, whom I respect and admire, have adopted or acquiesced in policies which I may think are currently a bad idea” line about? Are you telling me that you believed Reagan’s “[abandonment] of conservative principals” was merely an adoption or acquiescence to policies that have now proved to be a bad; and is somehow different than when other conservatives have “abandoned conservative principals” to you? Are you suggesting that you, or any one else for that matter, thought that running up unprecedented levels of national debt was a good idea at the time?)
Apple pie is not a policy Nathan. Traditional values are not a policy either. What values are generally inherent in tradition? Good values are reflected or manifested in how well human beings are treated and how valuable they are regarded. Intentions that reflect those/human values matter.
You don’t like to talk about political history and societal behavior but yet somehow claim to prefer a big picture approach. It is societal history and behavior that we are reaping. Slavery and its aftermath are the results of racism and greed. Until we come to grips with racism and greed, and acknowledge/admit they those two evils have done immeasurable harm with lingering results, and are continuing to corrode our society, we won’t change much of anything Nathan—they’ll just continue to corrode our society.
Is there in your political ideology/philosophy, an intent/willingness to accommodate and leverage the negative aspects of human nature to society’s advantage; or an intent/willingness to assume that people will conduct themselves as your traditional value system would have you conduct yourself? Is this what this “pre-legal” is about?
I don’t trust human nature at all. I believe that evil yields unpleasant consequences; and is why such conversations are important.
Because I am admittedly willing to accommodate and leverage greed to our society’s advantage; I prefer a system, which is fairly well regulated, of private ownership and free markets. But things should be well regulated because human nature is “deceitful…and desperately wicked.” I also obviously prefer a system of government which allows for freedom of conscience, and assembly, and expression (speech, press, etc.); something I’m sure you had already known.
It’s unclear to me—always has been—whether you trust human nature or not.
Lest some might think that I’m letting today’s southern conservatives off the proverbial hook, can you explain Nathan why Steve Scalise still has a place in congressional leadership?
I carry no brief for Sharpton, but the National Action Network is one thing and the Ku Klux Klan is another; and trying to imply some analogous similarity is not only laughable, it seems desperate.
Nate suggests that the “Democratic Party has moved, as it has become increasingly dependent for its success on identity group politics, non-productive takers, anti-democratic governance tactics, and the uber-wealthy.”
Perhaps he mistyped that sentence. Perhaps he actually intended to type that the “Republican Party has moved [to the far right], as it has become increasingly dependent for its success on identity group politics [such as anti-abortion groups], non-productive takers [like large corporations that ship US jobs to China and elsewhere], anti-democratic governance tactics [like attempting to restrict voting], and the uber-wealthy [otherwise known as the 2%].
Well Stephen, you say: “conservatism, as perhaps (perhaps?) distinguished from libertarianism, has always been about the preservation of the advantages and privileges of the advantaged and the privileged; while preserving the institutions that undergird those (institutional) advantages and privileges.”
I would counter using the history of the end of slavery in England and America, when conservatives were told by liberals that their attempts at reform would cause “econocide.”
I have recently heard that someone once said “time is the enemy of history,” but it’s definitely the friend of revisionism.
I don’t know about England so much, but in America the northern abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and John Greenleaf Whittier were perceived as radicals and not conservatives. Garrison was adversarial with the founder of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson; a conservative. These were radical social reformers in the North. Harriet Beecher Stowe and her husband, and those who supported and conducted the Underground Railroad were not of the same political cloth as the confederates of the South.
I’ve mentioned a number of prominent conservatives who Nathan said I respected because they’d abandoned conservative principles (or something like that; exactly which ones I have no idea). There have always been conservatives of goodwill. John Wilberforce in England was conservative.
Undoubtedly for some, their perceptions of Christianity led them to believe slavery was wrong. I’m not discounting the pricking of consciences and/or that some of these consciences were those of people who were generally conservative. This is a good reason why certain individual conservatives should be isolated from conservatism; and why painting with a broad brush is often a tricky and imprecise enterprise. There are certain aspects of American culture in which African Americans are very conservative; more so in fact than are others. But would you generally consider them/us conservatives? (I think that you get the picture.)
One of the many things upon which Nathan and I disagree is that he thinks that individual conservatives make conservatism look bad. I think conservatism makes individual conservatives look bad—and we’re both probably right:)
Actually Stephen, as regards your last paragraph, we don’t disagree at all. The same could be said of liberals and liberalism, or any other ideology or belief system. I have no idea who Steve Scalise is, and don’t see how his role in Congress has anything to do with my conservative convictions. I don’t think you really want to go down the road of asking how politicans that belong to the Party we tend to vote for got where they did. After all, in a system where power is generally confined to two parties, the logical fallacy of judging an idea or value by the character or behavior of others who share that idea or value, is particularly pernicious.
How do you know, Stephen, that advantages and privileges are not simply the beneficial byproduct of conservatism, rather than its nefarious intent? After all, if you define as conservative any belief system or behavior that produces advantages and privileges for its adherents, then every faculty senate, every union, every mob, and every politician is conservative. In general, humans act in their perceived self-interest, and they rationalize their values based on that perception. It is hardly self-evident that personal responsibility, industriousness, self-restraint, self-reliance, responsibility for one’s family, etc., produce greater advantages and privileges than alternatives which undermine those values. Is it just possible that conservatives have adopted their values based upon historical evidence that lead them to believe that they work better than the alternatives to produce advantages and privileges for those who subscribe to them? And hasn’t the experience of most legal immigrant populations tended to confirm that?
It seems to me, Stephen, that you want to judge every belief system but your own by its failure to live up to or produce some ideal we all share rather than by the practical reality of how it measures up today with the alternatives. Thus, you never attempt to actually defend liberal policies and their effects. You simply think you can prove the moral bankruptcy of conservatism by attacking the characters of a few of its professed adherents. And that’s just fallacious reasoning, willfully blind to the realities of human nature and the effects of alternative belief systems.
BTW, Stephen, I do understand that Black Americans, along with the majority of other Americans, generally subscribe to conservative values in their personal, business, and family lives. Why even in the uber-liberal world of academia, it seldom occurs to educators that advantages (good grades and promotions) should not be based on academic achievement. Why the conservative values that usually characterize the personal lives of liberals are repudiated in the voting booth is a puzzle to me.
You are actually pretty conservative, Stephen, if you really believe in private property rights and freedom of religious association and expression in the public square. Whether you actually believe in those things as natural rights – not to be confused with governmentally conferred rights – I do not know. After all, Obama once said it was irresponsible and unpatriotic for Bush, over his eight years in office, to have approved some 4 trillion dollars in increases to the national debt.
No, I don’t trust human nature in individuals, or in regulators or politicians. That’s why I am strongly opposed to command and control economies and rule by an unaccountable executive who feels that Congress and the judiciary are enemies of the people if they do not bend to his vision and will. Unfolding before my very eyes is the evolution of hate crimes into hate speech, into repressive intolerant speech codes on college campuses that sanction violence against conservative speakers. These are the former bastions of liberal tolerance. Don’t you see, Stephen, what is happening to freedom of expression and conservative values among the elites in this country? It is a small step from where you and your fellow liberals stand to judging conservativism and its religious manifestations as violent, deviant pathology, having no place in a civilized society.
I don’t think humans are born with built-in good values, nor do I believe that laws and regulations make people good. When I speak of pre-legal moral norms I am talking about non-statutory manners and habits of civilized, decent people that fertilize the soil of good will, charity, personal responsibility, self-discipline, and respect for authority. These values can only be imparted through family, church, and local communities. Those subsidiary institutions, as Tocqueville so insightfully recognized, are the only real buffers against anarchy on the one hand and despotism on the other. It is these values and these intermediary institutions standing between radical individualism and radical socialism that our founders recognized were bedrock necessities for liberal democracy to function. We have moved from a palpable breakdown in these institutions starting around fifty years ago to an all out assault on these institutions by elitists of the secular Left.