Article VI Blog

Two articles appeared this morning that when read side-by-side, paint a pretty clear picture of why the last election went so poorly.  From South Carolina’s “The State” come s a piece entitled “4 reasons why Republicans are rekindling evangelical outreach.”  The piece is attempting to describe how everybody is working things out, but within is this most telling bit:

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, told social conservatives in April to stop contributing to the party until leaders “grow a backbone and start defending core principles.” As the party adjusts to cultural changes, Connelly says Republicans might see it communicating a bit differently in coming elections, and evangelicals will need to adjust.

[...]

Some social conservatives have threatened to leave the party if it shifts its position against same-sex marriage. As some have suggested recalibrating the marriage message to reach younger voters, Connelly says the party’s stance is firm.

The problem is self-evident there, but beofre we get to it, we need to look at the other article.  This one is from the Washington Times and it looks at the upcoming Faith and Freedom “convention.“:

Yet what will be in dispute among the conference’s rank and file is whether conservative religious voters failed to come out in full force last year for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney partly because of internal evangelical disputes over his Mormon faith or whether the candidate could lay legitimate claim to conservatism. Evangelical voters clearly didn’t come out in big numbers in 2008 for Republican nominee John McCain after he publicly denounced the Rev. Pat Robertson and other evangelical leaders and took policy positions often anathema to traditional conservatives, both economic and social.

Mr. Robertson will be honored for his work at the summit’s banquet Friday evening.

Also disputed, mostly in private, will be whether the evangelical movement, especially its younger members, is moving toward a libertarian toleration — but not approval — of homosexuality, cohabitation by unwed couples and other social issues.

We’ve done the numbers.  Evangelical turnout was decent, but the presidential abstentions were telling.

On Tuesday, I tried to make the point that the NSA stuff was a distraction.  Here we are again.  Dissing Pat Robertson or marriage purity are important issues to us, but are the important issues to the nation?  And if they are not they are distractions.  That is how our nation works.  What we are seeing now is culmination of liberal efforts that have lasted decades.  Those efforts are to implement ideas that took root long ago.  “The 60′s” were about trying to force those ideas on us.  It did not work.  They then went about taking over the cultural institutions, schools and churches, so that now, several generations later, their ideas are preeminent and they can get the legislation they want.  We cannot FORCE the nation back in the other direction anymore than they could force it in this direction to begin with.

So, to get where we really want to be we are looking at the work of decades.  What do we do politically in the meantime?

Staying home and pouting that the world is not right is not an option.  During their decades of culture shaping the liberal were still very active politically.  They learned the value of compromise and the value of the small victory.  The wacko climate change people made peace with the wacko animal rights people both of whom made peace with the sexual liberationists so that as culture changed they had a coalition to push the agenda forward.  They even managed to win quite a few elections in the effort.

They came to understand that the “core principle” was not controlling CO2 emissions or achieving same-sex marriage – rather, it was simply advancing liberalness on the cultural front in schools and churches and the political front in the form of the Democrat party.   If we insist that our “core principles” are theology and sexual purity then we will never get to a point where our agenda will matter again.  Right now we are sequestering ourselves.

The path to power in a democracy like ours is service, not agenda.

Let me repeat that – the path to power in a democracy like ours is service, not agenda.  During the last few decades the liberals have put on the appearance of service to achieve their goals.  In schools, in churches, in the Democrat Party, they have served, often at the expense of setting their specific issues to the side.  The scandals of this administration demonstrate; however, that it was only appearance.

We can win this fight because for us service is a core principle, not a facade merely to achieve power.  Christ was a servant even unto the cross.  Can we do less?

Posted in Social/Religious Trends, The Way Forward, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

On Friday, I attempted to make the point that the NSA data collection story was a big deal politically, but was not a serious “issue.”  And yet the story rolls on.  In fact it rolls on enough that the line that the “IRS scandal is solved” has some traction.   We have a new and juicier scandal, or so we think.

Yesterday, Michael Medved got a tweet half right:

NSA “snooping” issue is terrible for GOP- divides the base, gives Obama a controversy in which his behavior is entirely defensible

It is terrible for the GOP and it does divide the base, but the actions are not “entirely” defensible.  (Obama is on defensible ground on this one, but it is a soft position and not therefore “entirely” defensible.)  Were this the Bush administration, I think this would be evident but when we have an administration that we despise to begin with, looks increasingly like it abused the power of office to gain re-election, and is feckless in foreign affairs we are, as we have before, rising to the bait.

Simply put the story is too complex to ever amount to a useful political tool other than as further evidence that this administration has no veracity.  People are never going to sit through the endless and dull discussions of the differences between data mining and eavesdropping.  The very phrase “complex algorithm,” save as a punch line on “The Big Bang Theory,” is a nap inducer.  And yet we have lost several news cycles on this stuff now, while something everyone can hear “The IRS is going to bully you” has gone unsaid.

Religion is an excellent analogy here.  Mitt Romney lost in 2008 because people wanted to debate his theology rather than look at his life and the fruits thereof.  He lost in 2012 because a significant portion of the base refused to trust him because, essentially, he would not enter the debate on his theology.   Most of the American people do not care about theology – let alone specific Mormon theology.  And there are a lot of Christians in that group.  But enough people did to swing the election, so Obama’s lapdog media made sure it was a big deal, even though it was not.

Well, here we are again.  With the IRS, not to mention Benghazi, the DOJ, the EPA and a bunch of other alphabet spaghetti, we have Obama by the short and curlies.  But this warrant and the related issues are, for enough of us, a juicy distraction.  “SQUIRREL!”

Is the administration well-behaved here?  No, of course not, but there are issues and then there are issues.  If you had a choice of having a little dog doo stuck to your shoes or being dragged out of town, you’re going to take the dog doo.  That’s what’s up here.  The snooping issue is deliberately stepping in the pile of dog doo in hopes that by the time everybody gets through saying “Don’t come in here until you clean that up” and “Ewwwwwwww,” they will have forgotten why they were getting set to lynch you and send you about your business.  For this stratagem to work, we have to be more obsessed with the dog doo that the real and serious issues that got us to this point.

Squirrel hunting is fun, but I am after big game – which means I have to stay focused, and can’t waste ammo on the squirrels.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Over at Powerline this morning Romney speechwriter, Gabriel Schoenfeld, presents a nutshell statement of the thesis of his new e-book – A Bad Day on the Romney Campaign: An Insider’s Account:

What does Mitt Romney’s defeat last November mean for the future of the Republican party? One’s answer hinges, in large measure, on one’s understanding of what caused Romney to lose to a remarkably vulnerable incumbent….

…I try to account for a long chain of mistakes that led the campaign to misfire in the middle of the national-security crisis that erupted in Cairo and Benghazi on September 11, 2012. As I attempt to show, the errors made in that episode did not happen in a vacuum. Rather, they were one of the consequences of a vision of American politics embraced by Romney and his top strategists. The problem before them in the quest for the presidency was, at its core, conceived of as an advertising and marketing challenge.

That vision of politics failed and the consultants Romney hired—if not political consultants as a class—are now fighting for their livelihoods, if not their lives. “Should We Shoot All the Consultants Now?” was the title of a panel discussion held at a recent conservative conclave. As that blunt question makes plain, at least some Republicans comprehend that turning politics into nothing more than a subsidiary of the advertising and marketing business, as the Romney campaign attempted to do, is the path to repeated failure.

[...]

The RNC postmortem does not beat around the bush. Politics, in its vision, is the art of best matching a candidate’s positions to the preferences of voters as those preferences are revealed in polls and focus groups. To this end, great weight is placed in the report on the urgency of gathering ever more information about the electorate. In particular, explains the report, “we need to know what language is most likely to motivate a donor or a voter and convert them into a vote for Republican candidates.” To discover exactly the right collection of words—the magical incantation— for getting votes, the “use of data and measurement is critical.”

[...]

The RNC’s quest for better data so that it can have better “messaging” is not a mechanism for leadership. It is a mechanism for following the crowd. There is a notable irony here; the professionals are proposing not only the degradation of deliberative democracy, but also a mechanism for losing race after race. Voters do not need to “run a pretest” to identify and be repelled by a candidate who is painstakingly cleaving to the incantations derived from focus groups and polls.

Both as a candidate and as a president, George W. Bush had his share of defects. But one of the reasons he twice won presidential elections is that he was exactly who he said he was. Voters could tell, and they liked that in a leader. Both as a man and as a governor, Mitt Romney had his share of virtues, and no doubt they would have been on display had he become president. But one of the reasons he lost twice is that he was often not who he said he was. Voters could tell that, too—the artificiality of his focus-group-chosen language was often striking—and they did not like it at all. A good marketing team would have understood that packaging Mitt Romney as something he was not was a mistake. Indeed, a really good marketing team would not have packaged him at all. They would have let this impressive man be himself.

More pertinently, this impressive man could himself have chosen to remain himself. David Frum maintains that Romney, one of the Republican Party’s “most articulate and intelligent standard-bearers in decades,” was “forced” by ideological conservatives “to jettison his own best self and best judgment.” There is of course something to this argument. Conservatives in key states, the argument continues, have a lock on the primary process. If Romney had not concealed his true moderate self and tacked to the right, he would have had little chance of capturing the Republican nomination. We cannot rerun history backward to see if such an analysis is correct. But a case can be made that voters of every stripe, including conservatives, would have had far more respect for Romney if he had resisted the conservative Siren calls to sail in their direction and, instead of posing as a “severe conservative,” had stood fast for what he believed.

[...]

In the wake of defeat, the Republican Party needs to strike out in a radically new direction—actually, not a radically new direction, but a radically old one–a conservative one, one in which “intuition, gut instincts, [and] ‘traditional’ ways of doing things,” the very things that the GOP professionals would mindlessly toss away, are again properly valued. Recapturing the White House will be difficult, but all the same it is simpler than the professionals would have us believe. We don’t need the APIs and other gizmos and the data analytic institute that they are recommending. What we need is a candidate who understands the country and its problems, is knowledgeable about its history, has a vision for its future, doesn’t buy the snake oil that the consultants are peddling, and unabashedly says what he believes. Mitt Romney could have been that candidate. Sadly, this man of so much promise and ability chose a different path.

I was neither as close to the campaign as Schoenfeld, nor am I a political pro, nor have I read the book, but reacting to this pocket argument, I think it suffers from two glaring problems.  Problem one is that the candidate that did beat Romney in the last election won precisely because  he did the data stuff that Schoenfeld argues against so much better than Romney.  If you want to talk about a gap between the candidate’s “true” nature and his campaign rhetoric you need look no further than Barack Obama.   Whether Schoenfeld wants to admit it or not, the stuff he says is inadequate just won two presidential elections.  It is infuriating, particularly for conservatives, that image triumphs over substance, but here we are.  Maybe Schoenfeld addresses this in the book, but if he does not, I would have to find the book as woefully short-sighted.

Now, that said, I too prefer a world where such apparent subterfuge is not the stuff of politics.  And, I cannot disagree that conservatives, far more than liberals, tend to see through such and it can serve as a de-energizer for the base, but one must remember that elections are won by holding the base and winning the middle, not playing to the base.  Barack Obama seems to make it transparent that such is how to win the middle.  From this perspective, that means the base has got to wise up just a bit, Lord knows the liberal base has.

As to Romney “being himself” – here is where the second issue arises that this pocket presentation does not address.  Conventional wisdom is that Romney lost the 2008 primary precisely because, a) his strategy hinged on winning Iowa, and b)  far right conservatives and Evangelicals in Iowa organized against him precisely because he is a Mormon.  Therefore, one must conclude that even if his strategy in 2012 did not hinge on Iowa, he had to de-emphasize his faith.  And yet, his faith is precisely at the core of “himself” – I do know he and his family well enough to know that to be definitively true.  You simply cannot talk about what Romney “should have done” without a serious discussion of how to handle his faith.  Again, maybe the book does so, but this synopsis does not and therefore makes the book unattractive to this reader.

There is a two-way street here.  Republican candidates might be more tempted to move to the right if they right were not so fickle, but Romney’s two campaigns seem to illustrate that moving to the right is not enough.  In 2008 he was sincerely himself and could not get out of the primaries because of his ideology.  If Schoenfeld is to be believed in 2012 he tried to be something else and THAT is the reason he lost.  Somewhere in the mess, the right has got to make peace with compromise – move a bit more to the center.  Schoenfeld seems to argue that it is up to the candidate to “lead” them there.  I would challenge Schoenfeld to show me exactly where Obama has lead Democrats and how he has done so.  They just seem to be smart enough to understand that lining up behind a guy, even if he is not ideal, and getting him elected is the best path to their particular agenda.  Is it really too much to ask that of our side?

Posted in Analyzing 2012, Religious Bigotry | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

By now, everybody knows about the NSA/Verizon data thing.  Hugh Hewitt is not sure it is such a big deal.  Hewitt is expert at such matters have served an important role in obtaining such data during his tenure in the DOJ in the Reagan administration.  I will agree that it is not a big deal from the standpoint of violation of privacy or the “government snooping on Americans.”

But this is a big deal.

Let us return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, all the way back to 2007/2008.  Do we remember the left wing furor over the Patriot Act?  The legislation under which the subpoena in question was obtained.  Do we remember this particular Straw Man being set up by then Candidate Obama who used it repeatedly to paint the Bush administration, and by extension Republicans inclusive of Candidate McCain, as power-mad tin-pots bent on using data obtained in this fashion to invade our homes and our most private  thoughts and deeds?

Apparently, like Guantanamo Bay – that was just campaign rhetoric.  But this is also different than Gitmo.  Gitmo was portrayed as a violation of human rights, but it was still abstract – out there.  The Patriot Act Straw Man was a threat to our individual and personal liberties.  He terrified some people to the core with this idea.

But now that he is in charge, it is not such a bad idea at all.

And that is why this is a big deal.  Apparently there is no gap between campaign rhetoric and governing reality that this administration finds too large.  From my perspective, we cannot trust a single word they are saying.  Even Nixon, in the end, had more honor than that.

But what remained of Nixon’s honor was, and in some corners is still, continually besmirched by a hostile and rabid press.  This administration does not suffer from such a disadvantage:

The New York Times edited its damning editorial condemning the Obama administration for collecting phone call data from Americans to make it less stinging shortly after the editorial was published online Thursday afternoon.

The editorial originally declared that the Obama “administration has lost all credibility” as a result of the recently revealed news that the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been secretly collecting call data from American users of Verizon under the authority of the Patriot Act.

But hours later the stinging sentence had been modified to read the Obama “administration has now lost all credibility on this issue.” [Emphasis added]

Apparently, the NY Times is willing to flush their veracity down the toilet in solidarity with any remaining trust between this administration and the American people.  For once in recent memory, the Old Grey Lady had it right the first time.

This administration has completely eroded the trust between itself and the people – at least the ones that are paying attention.  What I find problematic is that the course of the administration and the lapdog press is such that it is also rapidly eroding the trust between the people and the office.

If this continues, we are going to need more than a great candidate with a crack political team in 2016.  We are going to need an individual of extraordinary character.  Not just a good president, but a paragon.  The work that will confront the next president is extraordinary.

Posted in character, leadership, Political Strategy | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

A columnist in the London Guardian, writing under a psueodnym, asks:

Why is it that liberals feel no qualms about being rude? Far too many people who are perfectly polite and courteous, otherwise, think nothing of insulting you for not sharing their political opinions.

Pretty good question, is it not?  He cites example after example.  Here’s a couple:

Liberals have no shame. A dinner guest in our home stood up at the table, clinked his wine glass and said, “It shows how stupid the American people are, they voted for Bush twice.” He turned to me, smirking, and said, “I know you voted for him.” A biochemist who had been too busy learning liberal doctrine instead of the basic manners of being a guest.

We also had dinner with a couple who spent the evening trashing Rudy Giulliani, claiming that the former mayor of New York had nothing to do with turning the city around, even though he took office in a crime-ridden city and stepped down when it was safe. It would have happened anyhow, they said. As we said goodnight in the driveway, one said with a grin, “We like you even if you are Republicans.”

and he concludes:

President Nixon proposed a healthcare plan that was blocked by Senator Ted Kennedy, and the senator later apologized for putting political interests ahead of the good of the country. He had not wanted Republicans to get credit for accomplishing something positive.

This is a critical time in America. Instead of taking sides we should be working together. Now is the time for liberals to emulate Ted Kennedy and, instead of automatically ridiculing conservatives for digging into questions about Benghazi, the IRS and the seizure of press records, help us find the truth – no matter what that might turn out to be.

That conclusion shows what results from such an approach – it forces one to embrace corruption for political survival.

But let’s return to his opening question – WHY?  Every rude liberal you know will have a different answer.  Most you will find, I think, are deeply personal.  “I and those like me have been oppressed…” – “Well, I was treated like this….”  And there in lies the rub – the left makes the personal political and vice-versa.  Such is a result of absenting religion from public discourse.  There are two ways in which this is easily demonstrated.

For most who are serious about their faith, religion is a personal balm.  It is a place where one takes one’s feelings and finds comfort and solace when the world is unjust.  Much of the great sacred music of the last 200 years or so came out of the slave camps of the old south when the slaves turned to faith in their very real and very genuine oppression.  The world is neither fair nor just.  Religion teaches us that we are “sinners” and that as such we will always mess up.  Faith teaches us how to cope with a world of sinners, we don;t always need to try and fix it.

Which leads me to the second way that religion helps.  Faith allows us to see beyond ourselves and our needs.  For example – it allows us to see a world of sinners, even if we are unable to confront our own sin.  By acknowledging a greater power, usually the God of Christianity, we gain a perspective on a problem that allows us to understand that our own personal concerns, painful though they may be, are not the definitive issue in the problem.

A personal view of the political allows for rudeness.  When it is personal, disagreement is not with ideas, but with the person holding the ideas.  Thus disagreement is insult and rudeness seems a reasonable response to insult.

I have many stories of such rudeness that I could share as well.  There is one thing I know – we can ill-afford to respond in kind.  If we dip into the game of dismissal, insult and rudeness, tempting though it is in the face of the onslaught, then we are playing on their turf, not our own.  But more importantly, to do so is to abandon the perspective that our faith gives us, and therefore in some sense to hold less of our faith.  We lose when that happens.

Posted in character, Culture Wars, Evangelical Shortcomings, Prejudice, Religious Bigotry, Social/Religious Trends | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The Washington Times reports:

California senators introduced a bill on Thursday that would strip the Boy Scouts of America of its tax-exempt status in the state.

They’re not happy with the group’s recent vote on gay membership, saying it didn’t go far enough.

[...]

The bill passed the Senate 27-9.

Welcome to the chilling new age.

Coercion has replaced convincing.  Decades upon decades of good acts and making good people is to be punished over a legitimate disagreement on a single issue!?  This is abuse of government at its absolute worst.  How can a government even dream of singling out an organization in this fashion?  One organization!  The power of government is being used not on a policy basis, but on a punitive, highly aimed basis.  Was it not opposition to such government action that our nation was founded upon?

The threats of this action I have understood.  Such threats are powerful rhetoric and policy changes are wrought in rhetoric.  But to actually pull the trigger and act, and to do so based on a compromise action is frightening.  This is political violence, make no mistake.  We are unleashing forces that we may not be able to control.

Posted in Religious Bigotry, Same-sex marriage, Social/Religious Trends | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post