Republicans Wander in the Wilderness

The shock of losing the 2012 presidential election set the GOP back on its heels. Many in GOP leadership are wandering in the wilderness–lurching from one foolish idea to the next.  Oddly, they are deaf to their true base and have  no idea which path leads to a victory for 2016.

“Ken Mehlman is either deluded or disingenuous. The former chairman of the Republican National Committee is among those now trying to bring the Republican Party around to the cause of gay marriage.”  More here.

Mehlman  and his ilk are 180 degrees off base.  The Democrats “own” the permissive sexual platform. No GOP  who chirps “me too!” and hops aboard the wagon to social decay will win a single Republican Senate seat, much less the White House. Republicans will fail again in 2014 and 2016 if they head down the path of Republican Lite. (see Social Decline and the GOP)

The road ahead is a steep arduous journey.  And,  one wonders if Republicans have the stomach for it.  Notice that the “progressive” Americans won’t vote for decent moral values unless and until leadership– cultural, political and most of all, religious–calls the nation back to the founding morality.  Let’s dispense with any illusions that the country was built by free-thinking deists. That there were such persons of influence is true. But their views were not codified in the Constitution.  The far greater weight goes to those Founders and early leaders who insisted that as a nation we must be virtuous citizens, self reliant,  and faithful to God.

Social Decline and the GOP

Oh, there is a whole lotta wailing still goin’ on.

Post election finger pointing is tiresome after a second week of the rehash, rehashed.   Many party wonks and hand wringing “conservatives” think the Republican Party must capitulate on the social issues (Natural marriage, abortion, euthanasia)  in order to appeal to the handful of independents and the Hispanic block.

Balderdash!  The social issues won the day for the Democrats.  Democratic blogs and PACs, media pundits and such clearly crow that their social issues, not the economy, won the day.

Those “moderate” Republicans who think that  the GOP had better adopt  same-sex unions, euthanasia and abortion while they retain a fiscally conservative platform, need to rethink their game-plan.  Such a move simply creates two Democrat parties: Democrat Light and Democrat.  Trouble is, once  the Republicans travel that path, they can kiss all hope  of election good-bye.  There are simply  too many hard ideological Democrats who worship at the altar of State.  The rest are receiving a major portion of their sustenance from the government– they are not interested in fiscal sobriety.  They have no use for Democrat Light (formerly the GOP)

Here’s the real problem  that few in office are willing to acknowledge:You cannot have a healthy economy in a nation where natural families are in decline.

Consider this statistic: Entrepreneurship  and innovation is  predominant among 25-45 year -old citizens.  We have fewer 25-45  year -old people entering the workforce, sufficient to alarm the Bureau of Labor   New ideas and risk taking do not generate in retirement communities.  Some have put the estimate of economic loss from abortion at $45 TRILLION !

Nations in decline cannot repair an ailing economy.

Marxists and Socialists –our enemies–know this. Hence their agenda to destroy the moral codes that protect marriage and family, including sufficient births to people the nation generation after generation.  When a people are “freed” from  natural marriage and family, debt increases.  A debauched culture pursues pleasure and immediate material excess rather than invest for the future (with far fewer babies born) to the detriment of the next generation, because–bluntly–they won’t have to pay the tab–your kids will be hung with the bill.  Those who have no faith in the ideals of family, patriotism and the Judeo -Christian moral code that built Western Civilization, have zero scruples about saddling your children as their beast of burden.  They frankly do not care what happens after their own death–it means nothing to them if the nation dies.

“But,” you may object, “there are plenty of Democrats with families who surely must care.”   Maybe.  We’ve all met those looney parents who teach their youngsters that baby seals are entitled to protection but baby humans are not.  I do not doubt that some Democrat parents care for their children’s future in theory, as long as that future includes  Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi’s moral code: birth control pills and abortions for 12 year olds.  For many on the left, the ideals of permissive sex, same-sex unions, abortion and euthanasia are more important than the chaotic decline such tenets bring  to the coming generation. In short, these parents will offer up the future of their own children, fully confident that –some how — the coming age will be tolerant and peaceful–or else.

Else?   Yes, Virginia, they will use the force of government to coerce this chaos on all–so much for tolerance.  The intolerance  of “progressives” toward Christians and others of  traditional moral wisdom is gathering speed. Catholics and all citizens of good will and a stiff spine must jab right  back against the growing claim that the GOP can only survive if it capitulates on the social issues.

What can you do? Contact your Republican elected officials-– state and national– and tell them the social issues matter to the base–Just say NO to  Democrat Light.

What’s the Message? Reflection on the Lost Election

Image

Let us set aside the debate about any Republican tactical missteps or the general question of Nice Guy against Street Fighter.

More profitable for Catholics may be the reflection on what it means that 50% of us–our nation– are willing to sacrifice economic stability in order to insure liberal social mores. Exit polls indicate a majority of voters listed the economy at the top of their worry list, yet, still preferred Obama to Romney. Their reasons essentially came to this: Women’s rights, same-sex unions, and “fairness” by which most mean income redistribution.

Here is a clip from the oh-so-erudite New Yorker Magazine:


Nearly as pleasing as Obama’s surprisingly easy reëlection—and, to me at least, rather more surprising—was the electorate’s nearly across-the-board embrace of cultural and social liberalism and, implicitly, of secularism… In Maine, Maryland, and Washington, for the first time anywhere, initiatives to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples were on the ballot. All three passed—a gigantic breakthrough. In a fourth state, Minnesota, voters rejected a ban on gay marriage. This had never happened before, either; what had happened before, thirty-two times, was that such bans were approved, sometimes overwhelmingly. The pro-equality majorities this time were small, between fifty-one and fifty-three per cent, but they were unprecedented. The change is stunning. It’s epochal. And it shows signs of being permanent.

Author Hertzberg  is effusive–the victory is a “gigantic breakthrough” and “the change is stunning…epochal”

………………I fear he is correct.   Notice–it was NOT about the economy for them.  The Republicans utterly missed that.  No, Democrats understood that Obama is wrecking the economy but they did not care. Simply stated, for many of them the compelling  issue is the culture war.   And it should have been for us too–the nation is so divided, now, that a even the hemorrhaging economy is tolerable, but Christian values are not.

The bishops begin their November deliberations on Monday, and “what do we do now?” is the subtext of every agenda item.  What we may need is a blueprint for charitable but firm civil disobedience.

Link to upcoming USSCB meeting http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-156.cfm

 

******** some have emailed to ask where they may find my article from 2008 0n Obama and Saul Alinsky. Here is a link to “The Other Side of Change:”

http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/mjanderson/04417.html

More past articles can be found here http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/mjanderson/

Christopher Hitchens, I wish I’d known you personally

A very public anti-God figure, journalist, author and cultural critic Christopher Hitchens, has a vicious form of cancer.  Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great gave an interview to Anderson Cooper that is worth viewing.

Hitchens notes that people are praying for him, and that some are praying he will “suffer and die.”

How ghastly.

Others, he admits, are praying in a more charitable manner, if–to his mind– without effect.

Oddly, the fellow enrages me or engages me–I enjoy Hitchens when I can mentally block the vulgarities he employs.  I cannot fathom how his famed intellect was seduced by Socialism, though it can indicate an idealistic hope for a better world. His attack against Mother Teresa is crude and unwarranted.  His excessive life style is one my Southern Propriety finds oppressive, even slavish. I cringe, yes, when he resorts to what many Christians think is blasphemy ( he cannot mean it if he does not in fact believe there is a God).

But on the whole I find him to be a St. Paul-like figure–an energetic  mind, a man very proud of his native talent, not shy about his certainties and possessed of a certain type of humor that amuses even when one disagrees with his premise.  I wish I had known him personally.

I’d like to know the off camera Hitchens. I imagine we could find areas of interest just shy of “religion” that would fill a couple of hours over a plate of risotto ai carciofi.  But I’d forfeit my dinner with Christopher Hitchens if I could offer my chair to Hillaire Belloc. Wouldn’t that be an intriguing conversation?

Perhaps, in view of Belloc’s  heavenly residence, I might arrange an evening for  Hitchens with that incredibly “lightsome” soul,  James V. Schall, S.J. of Georgetown University.    What Mr. Hitchens would enjoy is an erudite exchange with good minds melded to good souls. No “religious” topics, of course.  And none needed, because, after all, to Schall and Belloc, any and everything interesting is “of God.”

Somehow, despite my own adamant and nearly (?) smug orthodoxy, I’m not moved to pray for Mr. Hitchens’ conversion. I do not want to see him humbled or in any manner flattened into a desperate last minute- hedge-your-bets-Pascalian repentance.  I do not want the man’s chemo weakened, cancer ravaged “half demented” mind pushed to submit to an evangelist’s zealous belt notching.   It is not that I don’t wish his salvation. I do.

But a man who has spent decades as an “anti-theist” and who thinks that belief in God is the loss of individual freedom cannot be reached by a last minute assault on his freedom to reject God.  I believe God is a Lover.  I pray that  Hitchens can assent to his “aha!” moment, that he can see that ineffable beauty, the Love of God Himself,  that permits, for love’s sake,  Hitchens’ freedom  to rail against the very source of his freedom.  God never wanted a host of puppets; bobbing their mindless wooden noggins, they’d be utterly uninteresting. St. Paul was not uninteresting.  Perfect Love took the risk that man’s freedom entails–rejection.

I want for Mr. H  that recognition of a pattern that is of its own exquisite perfection after all, when seen from the distance.

And so… I pray that the most curmudgeonly saints in heaven–and there are quite a few!–come quickly to the side of  Mr. Hitchens, whose guardian angel will surely welcome their unique intercession for this most stubborn of charges.

Is the Pope right about AIDS in Africa?

At least one liberal Harvard professor thinks so:

According to Harvard professor Edward Green, Benedict XVI tells the truth about fighting the plague of the millennium in Africa: fidelity and abstinence promotion are better weapons than preservatives

http://www.tempi.it/007320-liberal-academic-edward-green-pope-right-about-aids-and-condom?page=0

United Nations Treaty Rears It’s Ugly Head –Again

The United Nations’  Convention on the Rights of the Child has been rejected by the US Congress for 20 years.  Now this pernicious treaty for “Rights of the Child” is  back. The Obama administration has promised to seek ratifcation of the treaty.

Susan Rice is the new US ambassador to the U.N. On  Monday,June 22, Ambassador Rice told students in a Harlem school that the Obama administration was actively working to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Ambassador Rice,  however, admitted to Senator Barbara Boxer in February that she was concerned about ” the challenge of domestic implementation.”

The CRC is a direct threat to every American parent, as well as to national sovereignty.  It makes a global institution the daddy–parents could easily be overruled when a child exercises her new global rights to a “review” of parental decisions about his / her choices in friends, religion and–of course! –“health care,” which is U.N. code-speak for contraception and abortion.

For more information on this direct threat to your rights as a parent and the sovereignty of America, please see my article http://www.wf-f.org/0901MJA-UN.html

To protest contact:

White House comment line: 202-456-1111
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
(enter zip code for contact information for your senator and congressmen)

They voted for him before they voted against him

By now most faithful Catholics (as in “faithful to the teachings of the Catholic  Church”) know someone who admits that they voted for Obama, but wish they could push cosmic reset button and unvote their temporary insanity. Alas.

No poll will appear that asks  voters who pulled the lever for Obama if they would do so today. No matter. We know from anecdotal confessions on blogs, webpages and even national talking head voyeurs that significant numbers of voters would rescind their votes were it possible to do so.  The fracas at Notre Dame affords us a view from the wrong end of the telescope. It is worse than any hesitant lever-puller imagined. The shock some feel is near laughable–could they truly–truly?– not have known.

obama-punishmentAmong  us, wherever go, there are well meaning Catholics who had supposed  that matters such as a “living wage,” universal health care, hatred of the war in Iraq and “hope”  were cause enough to overlook the one other matter–abortion–that burdened their deliberations in 2008.  Some can be forgiven their myopic angle of view since so many US Catholics lack any schooling in basic theology.

Greater anguish resides in those who knew. And knew that they knew.  Recently an acquaintance  remarked that he could not douse his smoldering anger at Obama for a “breech of trust.”   This man is an attorney who attends mass  faithfully with his family in tow. He is a self described “happy papist.”  Not so happy at the moment.  His  idea was that Obama implied that he would proceed in an open, civil manner that permitted Catholics who disagreed with his principles to trust his good will.

I am not certain that the opposite might better serve us–that is, to vote for principle and never mind the good will. Here I take good will to be less about goodness than good form. Obama seduced many with his polished good form. However empty of any substance that can objectively be described as “good”, candidate Obama excelled at good form, good style, good packaging.  But now that the package has been opened the truth is impossible to escape.  And the truth is not about Obama who hid nothing from us.

No, the truth is about flaccid Catholics who heard what they wanted to hear and shut out all else in a flimsy hope (that word again!) that  somehow it would work out.

Catholics made the election of a hardened abortion proponent possible. Without a majority of the Catholic Vote this national nightmare could not have happened.

The one hope, perhaps, is that we have here a teachable moment. Every Catholic who now regrets his November insanity is open to our voice of faith –faith not in one  man’s promises however smoothly delivered–faith in the enduring ever new ever eternal voice of the Church who calls us back from the precipice.

%d bloggers like this: