Not Conservative Enough?
President Bush has appointed a new nominee for the office of Attorney General; a judge who apparently is controversial because he "isn't conservative enough."
Okay--admission: I don't know much about this man so I don't know how "good" a conservative he is or not. But my point today is not particularly about this nominee as much as it is about conservatives who need to wake up smell the coffee brewing in the real world percolator. It is a world made up of few people who love the Lord and His ways and everyone else who are here to pursue happiness as they define it.
What this means in a country governed by a plurality of people with varied and sundry ideologies is that it is doubtful you will ever have the ideal candidate, conservative or liberal, simply because we are human and we have different convictions on many things.
I am a pretty conservative individual yet there are some who would say I am pretty liberal, at least in certain areas. The point is there will always be someone more or less conservative, more or less liberal than you. Deal with it.
So this new nominee is or has been part of Rudy Giuliani's team for his nomination for President. For some, that's enough to throw him into the dumpster as a liberal or at least as being "insufficiently conservative." I sympathize as Giuliani indeed has some troubling positions by my way of reckoning but compared to Hillary Clinton??? I trust you get it.
Conservatives need to understand that the realm of government is one compromise after another. Rarely does anyone get everything they put forth in a bill and sometimes you have to swallow hard to accept what you get feeling like you sold out.
We are IN the world. The World we long for will NEVER be established through the ballot box; never.
The quicker you realize that, the sooner you'll lose those ulcers and maybe even vote for someone other than your ideal write-in candidate who will get your vote and maybe his mother's. You can hold your head high having voted your conscience and voted your principle but at the end of the day, our national leaders will be the truly liberal and obscenely godless because the conservative candidate just wasn't "conservative enough."
How well does that make you sleep at night?
posted by PB at 1:05 PM
8 Comments:
''Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.'' - John
Quincy Adams
Some of us choose NOT to vote for the ''lesser of two evils''..knowing that well intentioned folks like you will accuse us of throwing our vote away. Its ok, we understand
Oh, and I dare say most of us don't have ''ulcers'', and we sleep quite well at night knowing our allegiance is to the absolute Sovereign of the universe.
If you choose to compromise at the ballot box then so be it..but please know that there are some of us out here that simply cannot.
Incidently the Church historically thrives under governments that are ruled by tyranists...and where persecution is found.
I've been wanting to ask you about the "voting your conscience"/"throwing away your vote" thing for a while now. Thanks for giving me some good stuff to chew on.
My initial feeling lines right up with your post, but the other commenter pretty much hits the nail on the head for why I feel so torn about this type of scenario.
I'm beginning to see that part of the problem is in viewing ourselves as being more in control or having more power than we ought to or truly do. Things were more straightforward when we had kings... a lot harder, but a lot simpler.
Matt Sargent: ''I'm beginning to see that part of the problem is in viewing ourselves as being more in control or having more power than we ought to or truly do.''
That is exactly right. That is my point and generally the point of those of us who will not compromise at the ballot box.
Mr. Cripe seems to be under the impression that those of us who will not vote for the lesser of two evils have some kind of misguided utopian view that we can have heaven on earth via the ballot box.. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Perhaps if Christians could see past the lip service that has been paid to them, (for the sole purpose of getting their votes), we might find that God would bless our faithfulness in NOT compromising our principles (hopefully principles based on Scriptural truth) in the voting booth.
We are not called to be successful, but rather we are called to be faithful.
The problem I have is one of discerning viability. Any joker can wind up on the ballot - it doesn't make them a legitimate candidate. In the primaries, I vote my conscience (Go Mike Huckabee!), but if it comes down to Hillary or Rudy on the final ticket, I believe it is my duty to vote for the one who is closer to righteousness, even if it's by a hairsbreadth.
Throw in a third name, some conservative Constitution party dude, and then it gets hairy. Do I vote for the most Christian candidate, knowing that historically this would help the ultra-liberal to get in? Does God want every single believer to become a missionary in Africa because that's the 'ideal' Christan vocation? I believe the answer in both cases is no - God has called us to do the most good where He has placed us. We are also called to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
I couldn't sleep at night knowing that my idealistic vote helped get Hillary in when I could have helped prevent it. I know it's inevitable someday, but that doesn't give me license to precipitate matters by checking my mind at the voting booth.
My vote helps to accomplish either good or evil. If I vote for a longshot just because they're the 'ideal' candidate when they have no realistic chance of winning, then am I not aiding the cause of unrighteousness?
Ralph et al. please understand that in a 2 minute commentary you cannot say everything that should be said--
I AGREE there are things we cannot, must NOT compromise on, but most Christians are unwilling to compromise on "things" that are not all that important in the grand scheme of things. THAT is what I was referring to primarily.
I don't pretend to know what the Sovereign Lord God has decreed to take place in 2008. In this post-christian America, however, I would not be surprised at all if Rudy and Hillary are the final candidates representing the two major parties.
America deserve them.
When you check the box for Rudy, giving your endorsement for him as the ''closet to rightousness'' (?)
remember this.
Rudy Giuliani is unabashedly pro-abortion. He has been seen walking down Fifth Avenue with thousands of homosexuals demanding “gay rights.” He has been one of the country’s most radical proponents of gun control. He made New York a sanctuary city for illegal aliens and is a strong proponent of amnesty for illegal aliens. As a prosecutor, his abuse of power and disregard for law are legendary.
Of course both he and Hillary are now working frantically to create new images but ultimately they are but two peas in a pod.
I will ''honor the king'' (1 Peter 2:17) I will be ''subject to the governing authority'' (Romans 13:1)
but as a regenerated believer, I can not possibly endorse this type of candidate. That you can is between you and God.... I simply cannot comprehend your position.
I leave you with more exerpts from the writings of John Quincy Adams.
“The Bible contains the revelation of the will of God. It contains the history of the creation of the world, and of mankind.....It is essential...that you should form and adopt certain rules or principles, for the government of your own conduct and temper. Unless you have such rules and principles, there will be numberless occasions on which you will have no guide for your government but your passions...It is in the Bible, you must learn them, and from the Bible how to practice them.....Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.''
I understand your assumption based on what I wrote that if it indeed came down to Rudy and Hillary that I would necessarily vote for Rudy. Bad assumption. Two of the big issues I cannot compromise on are abortion, and homosexuality. Perhaps I have completely confused you now but such is the nature of communication via a paucity of words.
So if all the conservative Christians refused to vote for Rudy and thereby Hillary gets in, that is not, in effect, allowing a greater evil to prevail?
Are they truly 'peas in a pod' and does Rudy have absolutely no redeeming value? Simply by virtue of being a Republican could he not have some positive effect that Hillary would not in spite of his horrendous stances on the big issues?
Huckabee, Huckabee - he's our guy; If he doesn't make it, I think I'll cry!
Post a Comment
<< Home