web analytics
≡ Menu

Is Romney to lead conservatives to self-extinction?

“I know that Romney’s bad.  But first we get Obama out.  Then we’ll hold Romney’s feet to the fire.”  That’s one of the most common things I hear from self-blinkered GOP partisans hacking for the artificially engineered Romney nomination.  They angrily pretend that rank and file conservatives have no choice but to obey the “eyes wide shut” command emanating from the GOP’s elitist faction Party bosses.

There’s a suspiciously peremptory tone to their pretense these days.  As an old Star Trek fan I hear the chilly, disembodied voice of the Borg collective.  “You will be given no other choice.  We will add your no longer electorally distinctive ballot to our total. Resistance is futile.” Truth to tell, however, if you are authentically conservative, supporting Romney is also futile; futile and self-destructive.

A leftist pretender like Romney wins office by successfully gulling a conservative constituency that would otherwise oppose the things he really means to achieve.  He uses their support to build up the lie that he’s one of them.  Once in office he works with the leftists (in his own party and the opposition) to come up with predominantly leftist plans and proposals that implement his true goals.  The false perception that he’s “conservative” allows his supporters in the “conservative” party to hold any critics in its ranks in check .  “We have to trust him,” they say.  “We have to give him the benefit of the doubt,” they plead. “He’ll implement this with respect for our views,” they promise. And on and on.

Thanks to this strategy for governing, the duped conservatives can’t hold his feet to the fire because he has no need to bed down in their camp once elected.  He can set to work building a coalition that combines the left-wing tail of his own party with the left-wing body of the opposing party so as to pave the way to re-election, with or without the conservative dupes who obligingly handed him the opportunity to make them obsolete.

Thus leftist results, wearing a conservative gloss, move the government toward greater consolidation of socialist politics.  In the process the term “conservative” gets progressively (pun intended) redefined to encompass more and more of the features of socialism.  What is more important, those who articulate and insist upon approaches that actually correspond to conservative principles and institutional goals (like respecting unalienable rights, preserving the natural family, encouraging morally responsible individual entrepreneurship  and competitive free enterprise) are put in the false position of being unrealistic “purists” and rigid opponents of “the possible.”

The GOP’s nomination of Mitt Romney actually marks the culmination of more than twenty years of this stupidly self-destructive brand of “conservative” pragmatism.  Whatever patter Romney uses to deceive, the actual results of his career stand well to the left of what Republicans claimed they adamantly opposed in Bill Clinton.  In terms of politics, Romney represents the successful “transvaluation of values” (as the Nazi’s must Friedrich Nietzsche called it. That’s the political equivalent of a sex-change operation.)

The result is, and will be, to condemn real conservatives (those loyal to America’s founding principles and institutions, such as the US Constitution) to a Hobson’s choice-accept the new and ever leftward  redefinitions of conservatism, or else accept banishment to the outer limits of political irrelevance.  The first requires the sacrifice of conscience, common sense and intellectual integrity.  The second means life in a wilderness of lies, living on the remembrance of self-evident truth that is the “locusts and honey” of America’s true believers.

Faced with this choice, many GOP “conservatives” of my acquaintance have in one way or another jumped on the bandwagon of self-extinction.  Thank God, I am now no slave to their partisan machine.  I don’t feel their compulsion to suspend disbelief in order to pretend that a deed proven socialist and implementer of the leftist deconstruction of America’s moral identity can ever, in any sense, be “my candidate” for President.

No more do I feel any kind of racial compulsion to support a deeply rooted communist like Obama just because his skin is a lighter shade of brown.

I find that the inevitable wrestles of youth, and the ongoing tussles of adulthood, have confirmed the moral sense that flowed through the earliest roots of my moral identity.  That moral sense affirms that my goodwill is not bound to correspond to any material attribute or passion, but only to the insistent inclination that draws the mind and heart toward truth, the way a compass needle seeks the northern pole.

On both sides of the sham election currently being staged, truth is the uninvited guest. The racial partisans say I should not tell the truth about Obama’s allegiance to the cult of death: his advocacy of child murder; his suppression of the family’s call to procreation; his abandonment of God’s precious gift of freedom in order to enslave humankind to the outcomes of “history”, however inconsiderate, vile and inhumane.

The GOP partisans say that I should not tell the truth about Mitt Romney’s worship of ambition and financial gain, which led him, too, to sacrifice conscience and unalienable right in order to feed the depraved appetites of those he thought necessary to his advancement.  I should not tell the truth about his deed conflicted stands; his careless health care packages tainted with the blood of murdered innocence; his socialist “bipartisan” schemes tainted by the sacrifice of conscientious liberty.

But ringing true in my ears is the word that drowns out all they say.  “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his own soul?” (Matthew 16:25) And before my eyes is the example of the one who said “For this was I born; and for this purpose I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth…” (John 18:37).  In my youth I was inspired by the painful history of my forbears to read and give much study to the effort to understand what it takes to found and safeguard human liberty.  And here, in what may be its gathering twilight, Christ’s word and his example epitomize the best fruit of that effort.

If tomorrow all the self-professed conservatives I have known and worked with in my life could break free from the mesmerizing light of false pragmatism and walk only by the light of that word and example, they would see their own strength.  Awakening from their redeemer bereft nightmare world of “lesser evils”, they would shun the tawdry compromise that now steals their strength away.   “But that would take a miracle,” you say.  So be it.

Share
{ 27 comments }
{ 27 comments… add one }
  • unclegeek1 August 26, 2012, 5:40 am

    Ok. So if not romney (who cannot build a ‘leftist coalition’ without creating a third party) who then? I am all ears and if the right candidate popped up, I would do so happily. So who then?

  • daniel August 23, 2012, 5:45 pm

    Fellow conservatives its either tom hoefling of the america party or virgil goode of the constitution party. Everyone else..is not conservative, or not conservative enough.

    • KenPrescott August 24, 2012, 4:02 pm

      EternalVigilance is the price of Freeperdom.

  • daniel August 23, 2012, 5:43 pm

    No true conservative will EVER find himself pulling ghe lever for romney. Thank you alan for stating the truth the sellouts refuse to hear: that a vote for romney is a vote for the white obama. God bless you good sir!

  • Matt Beaven August 22, 2012, 9:06 pm

    Americans are naturally optimistic. They refuse to believe that between their two options presented to them that they do not have a good choice so they are easily fooled.

  • Terry Rayburn August 22, 2012, 2:07 pm

    Semantics, Bill. One is the “lesser of two evils” precisely because there ARE relative “positives” in the candidate.

    • Bill August 22, 2012, 8:24 pm

      True Terry. I try to vote for a positive aspect and not vote for a negative aspect as for me voting for evil is still evil. I do on occasion vote for a third party as Alan has stated because I did not see a positive or chose not to see it and used my vote as a protest as if my voice was heard. I did this in Texas as it always went republican but now I live in Colorado where it goes the other way. I am still under the illusion that my vote has some effect. Thanks for your comments.

  • Wylie Wolf August 21, 2012, 1:08 pm

    Each one of us stands before the Throne alone. How do you wish to explain why you voted for the lesser of evil. 99% of the truth is still a lie. Take the plank out of your eye. As for me and my house we will serve the LORD. Love Him with mind, body, strenth and soul. Turn back to the only one who can give you freedom. The Truth will set you free. Persecution brings on a stronger faith. America will get what it deserves. In the long and short of it, national government has nothing to do with one’s freedom. If every American allowed the Truth to set them free and served the Lord Jesus Christ with their lives, Government would be the size of a Volkwagen bug. The debate is not with others it is with one’s self. As Christ moves in China as we speak, those in prison their for their faith have more joy and freedom that the poorest American. China will be out doing us in more than one way. God have Mercy. No matter how the election goes…I will continue to praise the LORD, for He is on the throne, and I will see His will done on earth.

  • bill August 21, 2012, 11:00 am

    Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. One should as has been pointed out to me. One should find something positive in the candidate and use that as the choice mechanism rather than voting for the lesser of two or more evils. The good may be to keep the worst out.?

  • DudeFaceOfAmerica August 21, 2012, 10:20 am

    Alan. I still watch that debate between you an Obama and dream of what could of been. Well said!

    Responding to questions below: As a Christian, we have two choices; 1. What is my secondary responsibility as citizen and 2. What is my primary responsibility as a Christian. When these two choices afford the luxury of lawful balance then we may vote for and actively support a political representative. However, throughout the entire political process, as Christians, we must fight to allow the carrot of promised Earthly utopia to dangle in front of us. We must be clear about our Christ’s commission and our purpose.

    Too many Christians embrace the new religion of America, ‘Americanism’. It is a hybrid of Mormonism and Kingdom-Now Evangelicalism. Americanism is the new breed of Nationalism where Christians and Mormons believe the Nation of America, like Israel of the OT, to be part of God’s covenant blessing toward His people. Christ becomes an ambiguous ‘God of Liberty’, a graceless super being Who promises blessing for our legalistic Obedience. The irony here is that America’s Godly judgement is a result of the Church crusading for “rules to hate instead of lifting up a ruler to love”.

    Christian Americans have become impatient. They have consumed the carrot and are fighting to preserve a cultural way of life instead of being separated proclaimers of the way to true life. The Church wants utopia without a cross to bear. The Church has lost Her way and Her commission has become an ecumenical co-mission to, with good intention, dethrone Christ and rule our own Christian Earthly Kingdom; Christ took too long to deal with blatant immorality. Yes, we must defend the truth but we must not legislate nominal Christian morality nor confirm the heretical and anti-christ beliefs of a leader promising Godly blessing apart from sharing in the sufferings of Christ through faith.

    This is our dilemma. Our hope is something unseen and we are attempting to make it seen as to remove the birth pangs. We must remember that we are primarily sojourners on a specific and separate mission. Christ’s Kingdom was inaugurated at the cross. He reigns supreme even now, but we must not be impatient for the consummation and yet we eagerly await it. As Americans it is tempting to ‘vote anyway’ but as Christians voting is not the obligatory “render to Caesar what is Caesars”.

    When a majority of the people vote immorality in as law there is nothing the Church can, nor should, do AS the Church save the one thing it was commissioned to do and never should have stopped doing… preach the gospel and discipling the nations until Christ returns. America is not a Christian Nation, if anything it is a Mormon Nation and Christians need to stop confusing theological categories. We need to remove the false idol of “The God of Liberty” and begin lifting Christ up before all men once again.

    So in other words, as a Christian, don’t vote for a lesser of two evils.

  • jerrymcglothlin August 20, 2012, 9:56 pm

    Let me also chime in. What is the alternative for a Christian conservative who wants to cast a moral vote for someone other than Obama or Romney?

    • Terry Rayburn August 22, 2012, 2:10 pm

      As I mentioned to Mr. Keyes (who I have the greatest of respect for), a) voting for a candidate who can win, b) voting for
      a [presumably better] candidate who cannot win, or c) not voting.

    • daniel August 23, 2012, 5:46 pm

      Tom hoefling or virgil goode

  • Gregg Jackson August 20, 2012, 9:42 pm

    Alan, what is the alternative for Christian conservatives who recognize the fact that there is no substantive difference between Obama and Romney and who cannot in good conscience vote for either evil man? I personally am supporting Tom Hoefling from America’s Party? How about you?

  • Terry Rayburn August 20, 2012, 4:41 pm

    God only is perfect, and in that relative sense every imperfect human is “evil”. Thus EVERY vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils. To deny that is to demean the perfection of God, and His standard of perfection.

    We need a Savior precisely because we do not attain that standard. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, Rom. 3:23.

    So unless one thinks that Obama is the “lesser of two evils”, one ought to acknowledge that for a Conservative to vote a “write-in” or “3rd-party” is a vote for the GREATER of two evils, Obama. This is because (and I realize 3rd-party-ists hate to hear this) no one else can win at this stage.

    While sadly I agree that both parties have huge statist similarities, to say that there are no significant differences between Romney and Obama as to policy is a distortion of reality (deliberate or otherwise).

    Having said that, each should vote according to his conscience, but the conscience should be Scripturally informed, as opposed to thinking there is anyone completely absent of evil.

    To repeat, EVERY vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils.

    • Daniel Woodworth August 20, 2012, 5:07 pm

      What you say is technically correct, however in practice it is completely unhelpful. It is true that, next to God’s perfect standard every human is “evil.” However, that is not the standard being used to judge candidates. The definition of “evil” that I would use for candidates (I won’t attempt to speak for Mr. Keyes) is that the candidate supports positions or beliefs that I not only do not support myself but that I cannot in good conscience associate myself with in any way. According to that definition both Romney and Obama are “evil” and I cannot support either one of them, but not every candidate is evil.

      • Terry Rayburn August 22, 2012, 2:05 pm

        And surely your conscience should guide you there. I would never say otherwise.

        But I would contend that yours is what the Bible calls a “weak” conscience, one which is biblically uninformed, and would have kept Paul the Apostle from “appealing to Rome” for a hearing because he didn’t like some of the Emperor’s policies.

        Either that, or your conscience has nothing to do with it, and you’re just a stubborn willful mule, using the conscience concept to dig your heels in.

        That’s a joke, Daniel 🙂

    • alkeyes August 20, 2012, 5:37 pm

      But you ignore the meaning of Christ’s coming. By showing us the way to do good here, even here, he allows us to choose the sovereignty of God, “on earth as it is in heaven.” Properly understood, this is what makes human self-government conceivable for us. We can choose to eschew evil, and learn from Christ’s example to do good. Following Christ’s instruction that we may aspire to be “perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect”. For though God’s perfection is beyond our reach unaided, it is not beyond our hope, through the mediation of Christ. Though in reaching we stumble, we never fall beyond the reach of the forgiveness Christ makes possible.
      The choice of Christ makes the choice of evils unnecessary. If we still follow that path it is because we choose to do so, not because we must. Since Christ came, Scriptural information isn’t just a matter of words on a page, it is a matter of hearts transformed by the love of Christ and thoughts reformed by the mind of Christ. This is why the timid calculations of the “lesser evil” leaders who profess to believe in the grace of God through Christ are so tragically mistaken. Their unprincipled calculus has brought us to the pass we’re in. And as long as they persist in their pragmatic delusions, and people continue to follow them, we will not pass through the open door that leads back to our God acknowledging roots.

      • Terry Rayburn August 22, 2012, 1:50 pm

        Mr. Keyes,

        I’m not ignoring the coming of Christ. He came because we are a fallen race in a fallen world. Even transformed hearts and minds are attached, as it were, to “members” in which sin still dwells.

        Therefore, there are no “perfect” candidates. So we are left with a) voting for a candidate who can win, b) voting for a [presumably better] candidate who cannot win, or c) not voting.

        Conscience can dictate which of those three we choose, but we have to at least admit that voting for someone who cannot win, or not voting at all, will aid by default one of the two who CAN win. This is math (though under the sovereignty of God, which I affirm at least as strongly as you do, even to the outcome of a dice toss).

        I don’t believe you addressed two of my main points: 1) that realistically only BO or MR can win, and 2) that there are substantive differences between them, even though sadly several similarities as well.

        I think it’s worth voting for Romney in order to take advantage of those substantive differences (e.g., even though we have been disappointed by Justice John Roberts, I would far rather have a couple of him nominated in the next four years than, say, a couple of Ruth Ginsburgs to preside over perhaps decades).

        • Matt Beaven August 22, 2012, 9:04 pm

          Substantive differences? Not so! Everything we hate about Obama, Romney did first — mandate and all.

          • Terry Rayburn August 22, 2012, 10:29 pm

            Really? Did Romney vote to allow already-born children to be set aside by doctors to die? Did Romney cut 700 billion dollars from Medicare to fund a NATIONAL healthcare bill? Did Romney kick off a plan to gut the military? Did Romney disparage business and fight to limit oil exploration? Did Romney override the legislature by executive orders that over-strengthen the Executive Branch? And on and on.

    • Gregg Jackson August 20, 2012, 9:14 pm

      Terry, if hypothetically speaking Obama were running against somebody even more liberal on paper (which one could reasonably argue Romney is based on his actual record), would you vote for Obama?

      • CA August 21, 2012, 10:41 am

        NO!

      • Terry Rayburn August 22, 2012, 1:58 pm

        Mr. Jackson,

        Speaking hypothetically (which sometimes is silly, but…okay), if Joseph Stalin were running against Barack Obama, I would certainly vote for Barack, thereby preventing (or at least delaying) the purging of all lovers of liberty.

        I must, for the record however, disagree that one could “reasonably” argue that Romney is more liberal than Obama, since his “actual record” includes several anti-abortion measures, several balanced budgets, and at least some tax cuts.

        • ken August 22, 2012, 6:46 pm

          Good Grief Terry! This is a sad mistake. If you want to apply truth to ‘reasonable’ or ‘actual record’ please go to the definitive Romney record at http://greggjackson.com/blog/?p=471

          • Terry Rayburn August 30, 2012, 9:27 pm

            And what in this blog indicates that Romney is MORE liberal than Obama?

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this:
\"Google