Conservative Donnybrook

I appreciate SM and Willmoore rushing to my defense, but I think everyone has missed the point. What awb says is true, if Giuliani is the nominee, we are faced with an evil vs. more evil choice. But, what I am saying is that by the Social Conservatives throwing down the gauntlet now and announcing to the world that they will vote for a third party if Giuliani is the nominee, it is everyone’s hope, and I think I can speak for the Social Right, that the rest of the GOP will back off of Giuliani as the nominee.

In that respect, this is the perfect time (there can be no other time) to announce to the world the intentions of those of us who cannot vote for a pro-death candidate that we will vote for a third party if the rest of the party parts ways. What we are saying is: Let us avoid that eventuality and find a viable option who is satisfactory to all sides. For me, that option is Mike Huckabee, but others may find Mitt Romney or, for whatever reason, John McCain acceptable alternatives that also support the culture of life. Either of those choices is preferable to Giuliani who is at once pro-death, but also anti-gun, big government and pro-illegal immigration.

While I would hold my nose and vote with the party if those others were nominated, I simply (and I think I speak for the Social Conservatives on this) will not vote for Giuliani. I would rather vote for a third party than cast my vote for more abortion, more government, less guns, and more illegal immigrants.

The time is now to address this issue. After the nomination is far too late. The rift will have blossomed at that point. Everyone else needs to get into line and think about the big picture.

Put me down with SM regarding the value of voting one’s conscience in the upcoming (shudder) Hillary v. Rudy smackdown. While I haven’t quite made my mind up about whether to hold my nose and pull the lever for Giuliani, the prospect of casting a protest vote for, say, Ron Paul, should he run on a third-party ticket, will be sorely tempting.

I have no illusions that Ron Paul (within or outside of the GOP) or a third-party social conservative has any chance of winning the general election. But there is the possibility of winning through losing. Anything that could trigger re-examiniation and renewed debate about exactly what it means to be a conservative or a Republican in America, and what we stand for, has got to be a good thing, and a few years in the wilderness can only help that process along. If neglect of social conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists (the last, I admit, is unfortunately not a massive constituency) sinks the ‘08 GOP ticket, then salutary changes in the Republican party are likely. Or, at least, possible.

Of course, I don’t expect awb to agree with me, because he is a Podhoretz-type, world-war-IV neoconservative (correct me if I’m wrong, awb), and I am not. So it makes sense, I suppose, that if we are really in a generational war with those dark forces of Islamofascism which threaten Western civilization, and Iraq is at the crux of the struggle, then yes, certainly if Giuliani is nominated, then it is important that he win, and conservatives’ domestic concerns and intra-party squabbles must take a back seat.

I don’t share that view, so there is little hope that we can come to consensus on that issue. But this is the very issue of conservative identity that will require some serious soul-searching. Are the concerns of paleo-types, traditionalists, libertarians, and others to be shunted aside indefinitely to accommodate the needs of the GOP as the party of endless war?

It seems that awb has failed to see the forest through the trees.  Nowhere in my post did I conclude that a free market approach to the election would yield a third party winner.  To the contrary, I would be surprised if a conservative third party candidate grabs the same 2.73% that Nader did in 2000.  What my argument did was explode the either/or model that awb clings to.  Although a third party candidate might not win, the ripples felt throughout the Republican party might sting enough to warrant a re-examination and restructuring of the GOP.  I much prefer this third alternative and its possibilities to awb’s either/or model.  He demands that we choose Benito Giuliani over Shillary, or all will be lost.  Not true.  The reverberations of Nader’s seemingly paltry 2.73% are still heard today (ask a Democrat, if you must), and there is no reason to believe that a third party candidate could not prod the GOP and the neocronies in power to rethink their rather tired gampelan.  The mere threat of a third party candidate, alone, has Washington abuzz. 

By pitting us in this either/or model awb leaves us but one option: evil (to the extent that it is greater or lesser is irrelevant).  A vote for a third party candidate is not an implicit vote for Hillary, as awb falsely assumes, but a vote for what is good.  awb’s insistence on this model leaves us with no alternative but to vote for an abortionista.  In a free market, the well-informed citizen has alternatives, one of which is to vote for a pro-life third party candidate.  If that candidate does not win, so be it.  If the Republicans fail to supply an adequate candidate, there will be less demand for that candidate and would-be Republican voters are free to look elsewhere.   The Republicans, in turn, would have no choice but to review their platform and the GOP’s mistreatment of the Religious Right.  The market approach does work after all, awb.

The Reality of Catholicism

Out of What Chaos, by Lee Oser (Scarith/New Academia Publishing, 2007), 144 pp.

Reviewed by David G. Bonagura, Jr.

Readers know the plight of the Catholic novel through its absence on bookshelves. Next to the venerable works of Evelyn Waugh, Flannery O’Connor, and Graham Greene sits an open space that Catholic novelists of recent decades have been unable to fill. Surely the ethos in which these great authors wrote cannot be recreated in the new millennium; rather there exists a need for new authors who can capture the essence of the current age with a Catholic sensibility. Such authors, moreover, face the additional challenge of conveying the authenticity of the faith to a secular world unaccustomed to the realities of sacramentality and sin. The contemporary music scene, replete with its sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, is a most unlikely backdrop for a Catholic novel, yet Lee Oser boldly presents Catholicism as the most authentic “life-style choice” for a group of young rockers in his novel “Out of What Chaos.” Continue Reading »

Before I respond to The Superfluous Man (SM) let me note that I did not say I support the lesser of two evils theory but only raised it as an issue that must be faced in the 2008 elections:

Like most conservatives the thought of Giuliani as president is unpleasant at best but when faced with Mrs. Clinton as president, the situation begs the question: should we vote for the lesser of two evils or hold our principled ground and guarantee a Mrs. Clinton victory? Tough question and I’m not sure if there is a correct answer.

That being said SM is approaching this issue like most do at the far-right or far-left of the political spectrum. Rather than looking at the facts and political reality confronting him SM chooses to adhere to the specter of an ideology. The fact is that if the 2008 election pits Mr. Guiliani against Mrs. Clinton and the core of the Republican Party chooses either not to vote or vote for a third party Mrs. Clinton will win. The correctness of choosing not to vote for Mr. Guilani and implicitly allowing a Mrs. Clinton victory is something to be debated at another time (It makes my stomach turn thinking of voting for the man) but it cannot be denied that the market approach that SM suggests will not have a substantive impact in 2008.

The ideological correctness of SM’s market approach cannot be argued with. Like any good conservative I respect the power of free markets and understand the need for them to remain unfettered. But suggesting that a push toward market principles in politics will yield a third party winner in 2008 is simply incorrect. All one must do is look to the history of third party success in the United States. There is none. The most successful third party was the Populist Party back in 1892. They won twenty-two electoral college votes over one hundred years ago. Since then only H. Ross Perot has made any impact from outside the two party system, taking under twenty percent of the popular vote and no electoral college votes.

Adhering to the market approach may provide dividends to the Republican base in the form of a reformed party or a new and powerful third party. This route would be costly though and it will cost us the 2008 election.

Recently, Dr. James Dobson and a group of social conservatives resolved to explore third party candidates should the GOP fail them by nominating an abortionista (read: Benito Giuliani).  On this blog [Conservative Donnybrook: Christian Right Fracturing the Party?], Karl applauded the move as a necessary showdown with “a Republican party [that] has abandoned and betrayed the Religious Right.”  awb, on the other hand, evoked the “lesser of two evils” principle, which essentially holds that when faced with two bad political choices, the wisest course of action is to select the minor threat over the major threat.  Here, I aim to show that this “lesser evil” principle defies logic as a false dichotomy and actually proves harmful by limiting voter choice in what would otherwise be a “free market.” Continue Reading »