On faith, politics, and American history

Rick Sincere and Jim Bowden are having one of those arguments that would demand any good Irish-descended contrarian (say, like me) try to cut in.  In this case, the two bloggers are discussing what role a candidate’s faith can and should play in politics (Jim’s arguments are in the comments on Rick’s post).  It’s already an argument approaching rarefied air, but I think it’s missing an important perspective - mine (yeah, I know, I would say that).

Having grown up in the Northeast (the history of which is far richer than most people realize), I can attest to the very unique way America handles this subject.  In most of the world, religion has been fighting a long and losing battle against the Enlightenment of the 18th Century.  Even in areas where the Enlightenment didn’t quite take hold, the conflict continues to rage.

In this country, by contrast, faith (particularly Christian faith) responded to the Enlightenment and adapted itself to a nation infused with it.  The best evidence that faith is best served by a republican form of government is this American historical anomaly (known as the Second Great Awakening).  The first government in the history of the world that refused to give people meaning to their lives forced them to find it elsewhere.

Furthermore (and this is where Rick and I part company), given that faith had come to terms with the American system here, it naturally had a right (and, in fact, a duty) to be politically active.  It was the faithful men of the northeast (and their cousins in the Ohio Western Reserve) that preserved, protected, and promulgated abolitionism as a political ideal in antebellum America.  These men of were also practically alone in extending that to demand what we now call civil rights for African-Americans and equal rights for women.

That said, this dramatic and unique shift in faith’s view of itself and its role did not happen until after Jefferson had died and Lincoln had reached maturity.  Thus neither biography can do it justice (although I do know Jefferson called himself Christian during one of this campaigns for the Presidency - I believe it was in 1796).  Better to look at those who - even as adults - witnessed its beginnings first-hand in the Northeast (William Henry Seward, Thurlow Weed, Salmon Chase, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, the Beecher family, etc.).  I do not think I need to go into much detail on the role of faith in the modern civil-rights movement.

As for the present day, while faith is hardly the disqualifier that Rick fears (or Cal Thomas apparently hopes) it is, I do think it can have some relevance.  Lest anyone forget, the “religious right” began as a force in America to resist government encroachment.  Prior to the 1970s, every  religious involvement in politics favored government’s expansion (which is likely the real reason Rick worries about it).  Even the Roman Catholic Church’s deep 19th Century political activism was in favor of royalism and against “red republicanism.”  The predominance of Catholics in the more anti-government Democratic Party was far more the result of American ethnic politics than anything else (in fact, this is best shown by the second Catholic immigration wave - the Italians in the early 20th century, whose rivarly with the Irish in the northeast made them the most prominent Republican voting block in New York and Boston) .

The conscious decision of social conservatives to join the limited government coalition in the pre-Reagan era was unprecedented in American history, and there is no similar political event anywhere else in the world.  So we have to ask ourselves why.

The reason is this: not only was the American culture moving in a direction social conservatives found intolerable, but it was largely government policy that was causing it.  The definition of human life, previously determined by the people through their legislatures, had been usurped by the judiciary in 1973.  Twelve years prior, “separation of church and state” - a phrase coined by non-Framer Thomas Jefferson and a campaign theme by Jacksonians hotly disputed by the Whig opposition - was suddenly written into the Constitution without a single legislator even voting on it.  It was these government-authored disruptions that led the “religious right” to be formed.  Over the past generation, some have been considered immobile, others actually reversed (the crowding out of faith in the public square, for example, was stopped cold by the Rehnquist Court, which may be its most important legacy); this is leading some people of faith to return to the communitarian impulses of old (thus the numerous anecdotes - behind which admittedly there is not data - of evangelicals moving away from the limited government coalition).

As for the role faith plays in politics today (and the importance we should give to the faith of candidates), it depends on the politician.  If a candidate cites faith as a primary role in his political thinking (as Obama has), then it must be scrutinized, whereas a candidate who relies less on his faith in politics (say, McCain) is held to a different standard.  I would also submit that Thomas’ larger point was to question Obama’s credibility and his alarming tendency to twist words to mean anything he likes them to mean - he (Thomas) just happened to find that this extended to Obama’s choice of faith.

In short, we tend to remember Christianity’s role in Prohibition, “blue laws,” and prayer in schools far more than its role in ending slavery, bringing equality to the African-Americans, and the continuing battle to protect the most defenseless among us (pre-born children).  Those who fear repeats of the former should remind themselves of the latter and temper their criticisms; likewise, those who focus on the latter need to consider the former in offering their defenses.  Finally, both sides must remember that it is America’s uniqueness that makes this argument even possible.

Dobson group endorses Bob Marshall for Senate

When I talked about Bob Marshall being able to bring out the base in a way Gilmore just can’t do, this is what I meant (Bloggers 4 Bob, emphasis added):

FRC Action, the legislative advocacy arm of the Family Research Council founded by Dr. James Dobson in 1983 to promote marriage and family and the sanctity of human life in national policy, on Tuesday endorsed Del. Bob Marshall for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate.

“Delegate Marshall is the conservative candidate in this race,” Connie Mackey, FRC Action’s senior vice president said in a statement released from its headquarters in Washington, D.C.  “There is a clear and significant difference between Bob Marshall’s claim to the pro-life mantle and Jim Gilmore’s.

“During his more than 17 years in the Virginia House of Delegates, Bob Marshall has exemplified what it is to be a statesman.  It is a great honor for FRC Action to endorse Bob Marshall for the U.S. Senate.”

. . .

“[Marshall] drafted and led the way for Virginia’s partial-birth abortion ban bill,” Mackey said in her statement. 

. . .

Gilmore, on the other hand, “has insisted that abortion remain legal for up to the first eight weeks of pregnancy,” Mackey said.  “Under Gilmore’s policy, it would be legal for approximately 700,000 unborn children to be killed each year.”

For pro-life voters, that’s a difference wide enough for a truck - or in this case, a van full of voters.  Mark Warner’s two previous statewide campaigns (a closer-than-anyone-expected second for U.S. Senate in 1996 and his gubernatorial victory in 2001) depended upon a divided and demoralized Republican base.  The best way to prevent that from happening again is clear: nominate Bob Marshall.

The Virginia Democrats get it wrong - again

I share J.R.’s amusement at the Democrats’ “concern” for Republican unity this year (Bearing Drift).  Indeed, the DPV presser cited by J.R. is exactly what he calls it - ”pretty good fiction.”

One particular part of the fiction, however, is so bad that I have to correct it:

In particular, news reports say Marshall’s campaign is telling Virginians, including Gilmore, that they aren’t “conservative enough” if they don’t oppose abortion even in the cases of rape and incest.

Now, I have no idea what “news reports” the DPV is reading, but just to be clear, the problem with Gilmore and pre-born children is that he would allow them to die - all of them, regardless of how they were conceived - during the first eight weeks.

In other words, the Dems (or those “news reports”) were off by more than half a million children.

Nice job, schmuckos.

Planned Parenthood staffer: “Excited” about killing minority children

At first, I was content to just link to Leslie Carbone’s fascinating post about the deeply troubling reaction of a Planned Parentood staffer to a would-be donor determined to send his money to aborting pre-born African American children.  It’s bad enough as it is.

Then it hit me - my tax dollars (and yours) are paying for this, courtesy of Bill Howell.

Nice job, schmucko.

Does Bill Howell WANT to be Minority Leader (Part 2)?

Remember the battle in the Senate to take Planned Parenthood funding out of the budget (Shaun Kenney), thus ensuring neither chamber supported abortion funding?  Well, the Senate Democrats demanded the House Republicans ignore the will of both chambers and put the funding back in.

And the House  . . . caved (Family Foundation):

With the General Assembly set to approve a budget negotiated by House and Senate conferees, officials from two of the Commonwealth’s leading statewide pro-life organizations expressed profound regret over the failure of negotiators to provide conscience protections to the vast number of Virginia taxpayers who strongly oppose paying for life-ending practices.

“Words cannot express the disappointment of pro-family Virginians at the decision of the Virginia General Assembly to continue forcing taxpayers of Virginia to fund the destruction of human life and the most extreme pro-abortion organization in Virginia. The General Assembly had multiple options, including banning funding of Planned Parenthood, embryonic stem cell research or state funded abortions. It is simply astonishing that they were unable to get any of the three amendments added to the budget.

“It is outrageously unacceptable to force Virginia taxpayers to fund abortions, life-destructive research, and the abortion industry’s largest provider. Large numbers of constituents have expressed their concerns of conscience to budget negotiators for several years now, but these concerns never seem to come close to making the top of the priority list.”

Last month, the House of Delegates approved budget provisions prohibiting state funding of abortions and research that requires either a human embryo to be destroyed or a baby to be aborted. Although the Senate’s version of the budget did not include these items, the full Senate voted on February 27 to remove more than $200,000 in state funds that had been designated for Planned Parenthood of Virginia, the state affiliate of the nation’s largest abortion provider.

Although all three of these provisions were considered by the budget conferees, none of them were included in their final report.

According to data from the Virginia Department of Health and the Department of Medical Assistance Services, state taxpayers have subsidized 322 abortions - almost one every two days - over the last two fiscal years.

House Speaker Bill Howell’s version of “leadership” has already cost the Republicans 2/3 of the House majority they had in 2002, largely by ignoring economic conservatives time and time again.  This, however, is the first time I can remember that he (through his conferees) stiff-armed the social conservatives like this.

I get the feeling there are a lot of Delegates who are regretting not standing with Bob Marshall when he tried to send a wake-up call to the House leadership.

If Gilmore’s people are going to go after Marshall, they might want to get their facts right

So I’m checking my email before I begin my class, and I see the Jim Gilmore is not happy with some of the things Bob Marshall has said about him (and some of his prominent supporters).  So I figure it will make a nice post, but I have a class to teach.

So of course, by the time I come home, put the little guy to bed, run some errands, and finally get to my computer, it’s all over cyberspace.  The Washington Post has Marshall’s initial comments, Proud Republican at Virginia Virtucon reprints Gilmore’s press-release response (which garners its own response from fellow VV commentator Major Kong), and various sites chime in (BVBL wins top prize for post title - “Gilmore Runs to Momma”).

Weirdly enough, Spank That Donkey is quiet (as of 11:20 PM).  That can’t be good; when you most prolific, passionate, and humorous supporter on the blogosphere is sitting one out, you’re in deep trouble.  Then again, thanks to my schedule, the Gilmore people could have said the same thing!

Anyhow, amidst all the whirl and the rush, a couple of things have been lost - namely some facts that Gilmore’s people just got wrong.

Let’s start with the first set of errors: “To say that Jim Gilmore or the many prominent Republican leaders who support him have a “death wish” or are not pro-life is, at best, ill informed . . . “

For starters, Marshall’s exact words were as follows: “These guys have a political death wish for the party.”  Note the full term: political death wish.  Marshall wasn’t equating Gilmore backers to suicide bombers, rather he was questioning their political judgement.  Were his words strong?  Sure they were, but does Dick Leggitt (Gilmore’s campaign manager and the actual person quoted here) really think Mark Warner’s people will be nice?  As our presidential nominee is famous for saying, “Politics ain’t beanbag.”

As for “not pro-life,” Marshall only tagged that label on one person - Jim Gilmore.  Marshall had good reason for doing so; Jim Gilmore is not pro-life.

Lest we forget, Gilmore has an eight-week “choice” window, one large enough to kill over 600,000 to 700,000 children (or 50-60% of the estimated 1.2 million abortions performed in America every year; Marshall uses the higher number).

In fact, Marshall make the point clear in the part of his statement Leggitt doesn’t mention: “You’ve got basically the entire Republican establishment endorsing a candidate, Jim Gilmore, who wants to keep 60 percent of all abortions now being done legal (emphasis added)”.  Leggitt can’t get around that, so he’s left asking Marshall to “either come in out of the sun or put on a hat” - a snarky line that is far worse than aything Marshall used towards anyone in the Gilmore camp.

Oh, and there’s one more thing Leggitt got wrong - this nonsense: “Del. Marshall should . . . take a moment to remember the  alternative is electing Mark Warner to the U.S. Senate.”  No, Dick, the alternative is electing Bob Marshall to the U.S. Senate.

One more thing: Gilmore’s little missive mentioned abortion, national security, his campaign history, and a quick mention of other things - except the transportation debate in Richmond.  This fits a depressing pattern.

John McCain for President (UPDATED)

Eight years ago, after the candidate of my choice (Steve Forbes) was knocked out of the Republican presidential race, I found myself supporting John McCain.  It was a surprise to nearly all who knew me - and in truth, to myself as well.  I came to support McCain then because I considered him the best among the candidates who remained.

That I came to that conclusion was a surprise then; that I have come to the same conclusion eight years later is a complete shock.  Granted the circumstances were the same - my preferred candidate (in this case, Duncan Hunter) was knocked out of the race, forcing me to choose again.

Still, I think an explanation is warranted as to why I am the only OBDA member besides SST’s Old Zach to support the Senator from Arizona.

As I have traveled the road from Fairfax County political activist to Spotsylvania blogger, America has gone from a deceptive “peace” to a war for her survival against an array of enemies from the Middle East and Central Asia (Wahhabists, Ba’athists, and Khomeinists - hence my term for this war: the Wahhabist-Ba’athist-Khomeinist War, or WBK War for short).  Now, of the five candidates, only four (McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee) and seem to recognize the danger we face; only three (McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee) seem determined to fight the enemy wherever it can be found; only two (McCain and Giuliani) are adequately aware of the ways of the world to put that determination to good use.

Only one has the experience, determination, foresight, and vision to win this war as soon as possible, and he is John McCain.  Now, the lack of foreign policy experience is not Giuliani’s fault, and I certainly believe Rudy could make up for it quickly, but McCain’s advantage cannot be denied.

On domestic matters, the picture is admittedly more cloudy.  However, I would humbly submit that John McCain - yes, John McCain - is the closest we will get to a genuine right-wing alternative.  His deviations from the norm - campaign finance “reform”, “global warming”, and the early opposition to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 - are far less problematic than they appear at first.  For starters, has any candidate pledged to repeal the now infamous McCain-Feingold?  Would anyone besides Dr. Paul even consider doing such a thing?  As for the Bush tax cuts, while McCain opposed them at first, he did vote to make them permanent in 2006.  That may seem contradictory to some, but in reality, McCain - whatever his problems with the Bush tax cuts (and I disagreed with him on them then) - has always opposed an economic tax increase (he did support a heavy - and in my view unwise - tax on tobacco in 1998).  He also recognizes that sunsetting the 2001 and 2003 tax reductions would be a mammoth tax increase that must be avoided at all cost.  Just as important, McCain is the one candidate (outside of Dr. Paul) who has repeatedly emphasized the need to reduce government spending to cure our economic ills (in particular contrast to Huckabee).  He also presents a far more national economic outlook than the local pandering to which both Romney and Giuliani have succumbed.  As for “global warming,” I’ll admit McCain’s position troubles me, but he has also insisted that any action against “climate change” would have to include Communist China - which, as I have found from following politics outside the United States, is an effective poison-pill for any successor of the Kyoto fiasco.  Besides, while no one has gone as far as McCain on this issue, nearly all (i.e., all except Paul) have swallowed the “global warming” nonsense.

The fact is, each candidate has problems on domestic issues - even Dr. Paul is not perfect.  However, on the gamut of issues (defense of pre-born life, free trade, taxes and spending, gun rights, etc.), McCain has the best spectrum of positions and policies besides Dr. Paul, who has disqualified himself by his refusal to accept the nature of the war we are fighting.

I will make one comment on ”electability.”  I generally don’t concern myself with this, in part because it is an amorphous notion that is far more difficultly defined than most are willing to admit (see my numerous comments on Virginia’s upcoming U.S. Senate race).  That said, it has been clear in several polls that McCain - and only McCain - is competitive with Barack Obama; and he alone routinely beats Senator Clinton in the polls.  I only mention this because I genuinely believe (and have repeatedly stated) that the Democrats, should they take power, will withdraw not only from Iraq, but also from Afghanistan.  As such, this election is far more important than many realize.

This also returns us to the WBK War - and the main reason I have once again come to support McCain.  Again, of the five candidates remaining, only John McCain has the experience, determination, foresight, and vision to win this war in the least amount of time, blood, and treasure.

Would I have preferred a better candidate?  Don’t forget; I had a better candidate in Duncan Hunter; were he still in the race, he would still have my support.  He is not, and for me, among the group that’s left, I choose to support McCain.

UPDATE: Of course, there is also the issue of illegal immigration, in which all four candidates not named Paul held similar positions.  I leave it to others to affirm the validity of the sea-changes of the other three; I find them extremely suspect.  Besides, if George W. Bush couldn’t get “immigration reform” through a Republican or a Democratic Congress, I sincerely doubt McCain will.

Why the Presidential nominee will need Bob Marshall as our Senate nominee

Earlier tonight (OK, last night, as we’re now past midnight here), I detailed my troubles (and what I believe are the troubles of most Republicans) with the current crop of presidential candidates.  I ended that post as such:

In short, the typical Republican voter will need something extra to be encouraged to vote - and volunteer - for the Republican ticket.  I’ll explain why I think that, and how it impacts Virginia, in later posts.

Well, it’s only going to be one post, but here’s why I think “something extra” is required - and by “something extra,” I mean a better candidate down-ballot: asking Republicans to play defense with their vote doesn’t work.

We tend to forget this lesson, and are thus doomed to relearn it, repeatedly.  Remember 1996, when we were told legions of anti-Clinton voters would put Bob Dole in the White House?  Dole won 41% of the vote.  Two years later, we heard the same nonsense about voters angry at the Lewinksy scandal.  It turned out Republicans were angrier about the party’s weakness on spending issues, and Clinton became the first Democratic president not to lose seats in a mid-term election since 1934.  In 2000, the same logic got the GOP 48% of the vote and a cliff-hanger of an election.  Only when Republicans could vote for something (as in 2002 and 2004) did the party regain its footing (only to lose it again by going back on defense in 2005). 

We saw the same thing here in Virginia.  In 2005, we were all supposed to fall in line behind Jerry Kilgore to stop Tim Kaine.  Kaine beat Kilgore by 6 points.  Two years later, the sam defensive mentality led to the transportation tax hike of 2007 and the loss of our State Senate majority,

Today, every single Republican candidate (save Paul, whose prospects for victory are minuscule) are hoping to use the anti-Clinton wave to win the White House.  The fact that no such wave existed in 1996, 1998, or even 2000 has not deterred them.

The fact remains, however, that Republicans only win when their voters are motivated to vote for their candidates, not merely against their opponents.

This is where our Senate race comes in.

Virginia will be a competitive state this year.  The Democrats will be energized by their nominee (either the first women or the first African-American to be nominated by a major party for president).  We will need similar energy on our side.

Only one candidate can produce that energy: Bob Marshall.

For anti-tax, limited government voters, Bob Marshall offers a 16-year record of fighting tax increases and government spending, to the point of currently suing to eliminate the unconstitutional regional taxes in HB3202.  Jim Gilmore presents an incomplete record on car-tax reduction, a spending increase that was higher in percentage termsthan Mark Warner’s, and absolute silence on HB3202.  If this were 1998, Gilmore may still have been able to motivate and inspire limited government Republicans to walk through walls for him.  However, it is 2008, and the only candidate who can do that is Marshall.

For pro-life voters, Marshall is the ideal.  He is unabashedly pro-life, without exception.  Gilmore, by contrast, has an eight-week “choice” window.  Pro-life voters may support Gilmore in November, but they won’t move heaven and earth to get him elected; only Marshall can inspire them to do that.

For national security voters, the difference is glaring.  Jim Gilmore still hasn’t disavowed his June 2007 op-ed when he came out against the surge.  Marshall has done no such thing.  The folks at National Review have already noticed this from Gilmore, and have refused to support him as a result.  Again, Gilmore will have far more trouble with the “base” on this than Marshall.

Conventional wisdom holds that the Republican perceived as more “moderate” has the better shot at winning the election.  I greatly dispute this in every election  However, in this election, the CW loses all validity.  Nothing we do can keep the Democrats at home on election day, but we can keep angry right-wingers at home by nominating the wrong candidate.  Those who think Mark Warner or Hillary Clinton will “scare” them into voting must not forget that such tactics did not work against Bill Clinton or Tim Kaine.

The Republicans need to vote for a candidate, rather than against the Democrat.  If they don’t have that at the presidential level, it is imperative that they have it at the Senatorial level.  Marshall’s nomination will not only make the Senate seat more winnable, it may be the only way we can assure t Virginia’s electoral votes go to the Republican ticket.

Cross-posted to Bloggers 4 Bob Marshall

Republican National Coalition for Life Endorses Bob Marshall

The RNCL describes itself thusly: “Republican National Coalition for Life PAC supports Republican candidates who are pro-life without discrimination and who will work to translate Republican pro-life platform principles into public policy and law.”

Who fit the bill for this dedicated pro-life group?  Why, none other than Bob Marshall.

Cross-posted to Bloggers 4 Bob Marshall

If Jim Gilmore really were pro-life, he wouldn’t be on the Board of a leading abortifacent producer

There’s been a lot of discussion (in the blogosphere, anyway), about Jim Gilmore’s record on abortion - particularly whether or not pro-lifers should support him for the nomination or would support him in the general election.  Naturally, yours truly would rather they support Bob Marshall, whose record on life issues is impeccable.  However, quite a few Gilmore supporters are insisting that his record as Governor is sufficient to call him pro-life, despite his eight-week “choice” window (Richmond Times-Dispatch).

They might think differently once they know this: Jim Gilmore has served and is serving on the Board of Directors for one of the biggest abortifacent sellers in America - Barr Pharmaceuticals.

Barr is the manufacturer of Plan B, an “emergency contraception” pill that earned the firm tens of millions in revenue over the last two years (Washington Post), and is expected by at least one analysts to bring in over $120 million this year (CNN).

Now, Barr insists that Plan B is only for preventing pregnancy, but in their own explanation of the drug, the truth slips out:

It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B^® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb).

In other words, if conception did occur, the conceived child will not be able to develop - (s)he will be killed instead.  This is the exact definition of an abortifacent, a drug designed to ensure that any conceived child dies.

What does this have to do with Jim Gilmore?  How about this: Gilmore was elected to Barr’s Board of Directors in May 2002 (Forbes), and remains a director to this very day.  Even at the time Gilmore was elected to the board, Barr was marketing Plan B in Canada.  It started trying to get approval for over-the-counter sales in the U.S. in 2003 (the FDA caved in to them in 2006).  All the while, Gilmore continued to serve on the Board and earn up to $50,000 a year (SEC, note that Gilmore himself served on the Board’s Compensation Committee).

Now, just to be clear, I recognize that those who are “pro-choice” are completely unfazed by all of this.  Additionally, Gilmore, who himself allows for the aforementioned eight-week window, clearly doesn’t have a problem with this either.  However, for those of us who are pro-life, this is a very big deal.  You cannot serve on the board of a leading abortifacent provider and call yourself “pro-life,” period.

Meanwhile, Gilmore’s aid says the candidate “personally opposes abortions” (R T-D).  Then why we would he serve on the board of a company (and be paid to the tune of $50K a year) that makes them infinitely easier?

Gilmore should come clean on this; he should admit he’s “pro-choice,” but supports certain restrictions.  Above all else, he should stop calling himself pro-life, because he’s not.

There’s only one candidate who is pro-life and it’s Bob Marshall.  Marshall is the only one who can win over the Huckabee supporters, socially conservative Catholic independents, and all the other Virginians best described as “pro-life liberals.”  They will support Bob Marshall; they will not support Jim Gilmore.  It’s that simple.