Conservative Donnybrook

I have, on two separate occasions now, advocated for the formation of a third party. Not surprisingly, my fellow blogger, Bill, has taken me to task for my previous comment that voting for a third party could imperil one’s soul. Therefore, it is properly incumbent upon me to detail why I think voting for a third party in the future is, in any way, different going forward than it was in the late election.

First, the late election was notable for the stark contrast between the candidates’ stances on abortion. On the Democratic side, there was a candidate who favored infanticide for alive-born aborted babies. On the other side was a candidate who professed to be against abortion (although I recognize that his voting record was ambiguous). In light of the differences, the outcome of the election made one’s vote particularly important, given the stakes.

I wrote a post wherein I supported the decision of a local priest to withhold the Eucharist from persons who had voted for Obama. My argument proceeded along the lines that because of the peculiar situation of the United States, where the people are their own rulers, our votes take on special meaning. The basis for this claim, as I alluded to, was St. Paul’s comments in Romans:

1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.

2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,

4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.

5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.

6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Continue Reading »

Bill Kristol, the pre-eminent neoconservative spokesman, recently wrote an editorial for the New York Times (on Monday – I meant to write this on Monday, but I am a conservative and have a job). In that op-ed piece he argues that the Republican bread is buttered on the big government side. I understand that when parties lose elections that despondency may set in and that certain people may give in to despair, but to abandon the basic definition of conservatism and re-brand it as New Conservatism is too cynical, I hope to think, for any right thinking conservative.

There are one or two Kristol admirers who post to this website and I wish to inquire whether they think Kristol is speaking for them. Is he simply realizing the truth of the situation and offering realism? Or has he left the reservation? Was he ever on the reservation? Is it perhaps the case, as I maintain, that he has always been a cheerleader for Liberalism and his latest paean to Big Government has revealed him?

I’d love to hear from the Bill Kristol lovers. Which is it? How do you defend this? In particular, I’m calling out awb to defend his infatuation with Mr. Kristol. Still there? What do you say?

At the end of the op-ed it notes that “Paul Krugman is off today.” One wonders if America wouldn’t have been better off if he had worked.