The reaction to my last post, Anti-Bushites for Bush, has come predominantly (and privately) from Objectivist friends who don't (at least, not yet) support Bush over the suicidally anti-self-defense Kerry. Other Libertarian minded people, some my friends and some I've only read about, hold a similar position. It is best described by none other than Leonard Peikoff, Objectivist philosopher and intellectual heir to Ayn Rand: "This election presents us with a choice between dreadfully bad [Kerry] and apocolyptically bad [Bush]."
Why do they find Bush so completely unacceptable? Because, they believe, his agenda is a massive reformation of government in fundamentalist evangelical terms. But what evidence is there of this? They cite his extremely modest official acts of Christian belief, such as prohibition of federal funding to create NEW lines of embryonic stem cells, and signing into law the ban on D&E abortion which carried in the house and senate with 90% support (and I believe will be overturned by SCOTUS anyway), and his meek, belated and grudging support for a 'defense of marriage' amendment to the Constitution which has no chance of passage in the congress or in the states. Or they cite his political appointees like Ashcroft, who is cast as the second-coming of William Bradford, or the head of the FDA who Peikoff cites as some sort of Crusader. Or they cite the overwhelming support for Bush as "our man" by an estimated sixty million evangelical Christians in this country, as though their support for him reshapes his personna any more than the overwhelming support of Clinton, Gore or Kerry by black voters makes any of them black. And the ultimate argument is always Supreme Court appointments, as if a congress that refuses to send Bush appointments to even a federal circuit court would permit him to seat a bible thumper on the high court.
And against all of this "massive" evangelical reform effort by the administration we have the institutionalized inertia of a secular statist government bureaucracy led, above all, by the US State Department populated largely, as is the UN, by various degrees of one-world-government neo marxists.
Why is it that Bush rarely, if ever, mentions religion in any of his speeches other than the obligatory 'God Bless America' closing? Could it be that his faith is a private matter, as John Kerry claims his to be as well?
---------------
One of the best evaluations I've read to date of the relative threats to civilization from religion and relativism comes from Harry Binswanger. In his October 21 essay 'Vote for President Bush' he too concludes that the influence of religion is growing, but he hints at the cause that I feel is at the root of the phenomenon: a backlash against amorality, uncertainty and self-sacrifice. (That religion itself involves self-sacrifice is a subtle enough point that religion still appears as a somewhat moral haven in a storm of immorality.) Binswanger writes,
"The main negative, is of course, Bush's religiosity. The growth of religion in America is alarming. And it can only get worse, whether or not Bush is re-elected. It is some consolation that Bush has not made his campaign center on religion: that means that a Bush re-election cannot be taken as a mandate for tearing down the church-state barrier.
But religion is growing in influence and will continue to grow because of its monopoly on morality. People need moral guidance, and if they can't find that guidance in any rational, secular philosophy, most of them will seek it from where it is being offered: religion."
And in his ultimate conclusion that Bush is the right choice for America and for civilization, Binswanger observes,
"At this late date, after the three debates, the nature of this campaign is set, and the meaning of this election has come into focus for me. The meaning is: independence vs. dependence. The Bush policies favor America retaining its sovereignty--cooperating with allies as and when they are willing--and America on the offensive. The Kerry program favors America surrendering that independence to curry favor with the bribed French and the America-hating despots at the U.N."
To believe that religion can once again dominate our culture given all that science has achieved is tantamount to living in fear of the Flat Earth Society. Both are remnants of a less enlightened humanity.
As an aside to those who think our government is in danger of becoming too religious consider these former laws in the American colonies, when religion controlled government. From 'The Painful Truth' by Colin Ward at herbertwarmstrong.com:
(Take note how similar many of them are to those found in the present-day Middle East.)
1610 Virginia . Church attendance was mandatory twice each Sunday. Failure to comply could result in: First offence- having no provisions given out. Second offence- public flogging. Third offence- death. (It should be pointed out that, at least in Virginia , the death penalty was merely a scare tactic and was never carried out, unlike the situation in New England ).
1630 Connecticut . Citizens could not vote on public matters unless a member of an approved church.
1646 Massachusetts . Quakers were ordered banished on pain of death. Catholic priests were given the same order a year later.
1649 The Maryland Acts of Toleration. Denying God or the Bible: First offence- being bored through the tongue with a red hot iron and fined 20 pounds Sterling, or 6 months in prison. Second offence- being branded in the forehead and fined 40 pounds or 1 year in prison. Third offence- Death. These punishments did not necessarily apply to freeholders or other “reputable persons” such as clergymen. The toleration the acts promised was extended only to church-going Christians.
1651 Massachusetts . Denying the authority of the Bible carried a punishment of up to 40 lashes, banishment, or death for repeated offences.
1659 Massachusetts . The Provincial Court of Records shows that 3 Quakers were hanged for repeated refusal to recant their beliefs.
1660 Massachusetts . Membership in an approved church became mandatory.
1661 Massachusetts . The General Court of Boston contains an account of Quakers being stripped to the waist and flogged through town while tied to and walking behind a cart. The punishment was carried out in two more towns before the offenders were banished into the wilderness.
1661 Virginia . Baptism of children became mandatory. Failure to comply resulted in a fine of 2,000 pounds of tobacco, half to go to the public and half to the informant.
1663 Virginia . Anyone found to be allowing Quakers to preach or teach, in or near their house, was to be fined 5,000 pounds of tobacco.
1671 Massachusetts . Traveling or sporting (hunting, fishing etc) on Sunday could be met with fines, whippings, or death for repeated offences.
1679 Rhode Island . Fines or 3 hours in the stocks could be handed out for exercise, sport, or labor on Sunday.
1683 New Jersey . Fines imposed for recreation, travel, or labor on Sunday.
1691 New York . Fines or 3 hours in the stocks for “prophaning the Lord’s Day”. This included hunting, fishing, horse racing, travel, labor, drinking in a ‘tippling house’, or other exercises considered unlawful.
1692 Massachusetts . Blaspheming the name of God could result in up to 6 months in prison, public flogging, being bored through the tongue with a red hot iron, or be forced to sit on the gallows with a rope around the neck. In a gracious gesture, officials determined that no more than any 2 of these punishments should be meted out for the same offence.
1696 New Hampshire . Citizens failing to keep the Lord’s Day by applying themselves to the duty of religion were to be fined, imprisoned, or put in the stocks for up to 3 hours.
1700 Pennsylvania . Fines imposed for drinking on Sunday. Stocks for repeated offences. In a magnanimous move, Pennsylvania specifically refrained from legislating mandatory church membership and attendance, so long as you were a professing Christian.
1762 Georgia . Church Wardens and Constables were empowered to search the towns during both AM and PM church services to apprehend non-attendees. The guilty could be fined or put in the stocks up to 2 hours.
1789 New York . Sunday fines were imposed for sleeping excessively, loitering out of doors, or traveling to and from church in too much haste. President George Washington was stopped by an enforcer, known as the Tithingman, and had to explain why he was on horseback on a Sunday. He was able to talk his way out of a fine only by proving he had become lost coming through Connecticut the day before and was still several miles from town, where he promised he would lay up for the remainder of the day.
1795 Delaware . Fines or imprisonment for prophaning the Lord’s Day.
1797 Delaware . For willful and premeditated blasphemy, the offender was to be placed in the stocks for 2 hours, be branded in the forehead, and be publicly whipped with 39 lashes, well laid on.
1820 Massachusetts . The convention deciding on a new state constitution refused to include Jews in a statement of religious freedom.
HALLELUIA BROTHER JOHNGALT!
I frequent Libertarian blogs and brush against the odd Objectivist every now and then. And I am beside myself to see that these people cannot see President Bush as a better friend to liberty than Senator Kerry.
Never mind what most suspect Kerry might do: abandon Free Iraq, raise taxes across the board, federalize health care. Nope, examine only the things he promises to do: raise marginal taxes rates on high earners, make the tax curve more steeply progressive, give the old-line collectivist economies of Europe a stronger voice in American policy.
I believe every word of your post to be true. And I don't have the kindest thoughts for those who would disqualify a man for public office because of professed faith. That's no better than "only voting for Christians" folks.
The other side is those who won't vote for him because he increased spending. Enjoy your years of the Kerry Administration, friends -- have a good time!
Jane Galt comes to a conclusion similar to her distant cousin...
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004974.html
Posted by: jk at October 31, 2004 05:01 PMEric,
You're prognostication about the outcome is probably correct but look closely and see how it defeats your point. Please notice how you word it - "when people vote their gut feeling...."
This is one of the main points that, unfortunately, I think you've missed: we are completely surrounded by the "primacy of consciousness" mentality, i.e. people and politicians going with their gut, or what God/Allah tells them, or....yes, their feelings.
Though I have still not yet decided whether I want to endure the aforementioned requisite vomiting that goes with it, I'm afraid that, all feelings aside, applying logic to the facts dictates a vote for Kerry.
The analogy of Bush being the half-full glass is not instructive. My view would be that we have a choice of a glass clearly labeled poison (Kerry) and a glass with the same poison (statism, altruism, appeasement...) labeled and tasting like milk. Which is more dangerous?
Posted by: mw at November 1, 2004 04:35 PMI have always been interested in the skew that lets you believe that the Christians are just bogeymen in the Republican party, but that hard core socialists and marxists really are taking over the Democratic party. Congress will never seat a bible thumper on the Supreme Court, but they are just itching to hand over our sovereignty to the UN and socialize health care? I tend to believe that those who shout the loudest do so to drown out the fact that they are in the minority, regardless of which political extreme they come from.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 1, 2004 05:02 PMmw,
When I say that Americans feel in their gut that Bush is the best of the two candidates for president I mean that their American sense of life will guide their decision. It is true that a majority of Americans can't elucidate what their sense of life means, in epistemological terms, but they will say things like freedom, capitalism, democracy, innocent until proven guilty, truth, honor, trust.
I will answer your question of which is more dangerous, but first I must contest your characterization of Bush's poison. His poison is indeed the same as Kerry's but only filling half the glass, with the other half being filled with milk (as Tracinski also observed.) So which is more dangerous - half poison and half milk or pure poison - the only argument for pure poison being less dangerous is that it may be recognized as such and avoided. But how does this logic hold if we WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY drink it?
The argument that we will be better off allowing Kerry to appease us into an unconditional surrender in the War on Terror than continuing under Bush with a war hindered by diplomacy and negotiation (much like the European campaign in WWII) is erroneous. To win a war of self-defense belatedly at higher than necessary cost is always preferrable to losing it.
I am an optimist. I believe that rational ideals like liberty and capitalism will ultimately win out over the bankrupt ideas of statism and collectivism. I believe this victory can be achieved gradually, without violent revolution, and without a temporary and artificial embrace of the fully wrong as some sort of well-meaning but misguided effort to "once and for all" rid America of the pernicious effects of religion.
The New Deal of the 1930's may have been abetted by Christian altruism but it was first and foremost the product of a Marxist-Leninist ideology promulgated in our universities. This same relationship led to the mistakes and failures of the Vietnam war. It is the very same relationship that is sapping the moral rectitude from our war of self-defense against fundamentalist Islamicists and, ultimately, the secular communist police state in North Korea. The anti-individual statists are leading the charge for surrender and the Christian appeasers are inclined to give them a favorable hearing. But Bush has shattered the mold of the traditional Christian altruist. While he preaches compassion he still promotes freedom and capitalism as the keys to a peaceful world. He engaged in serious and, at least in the beginning determined effort to bring America's enemies to justice, dead or alive. And what does Bush, the most forcefully defensive President of the United States since Harry S. Truman, get in return? "Sorry Mr. President, not good enough."
Posted by: johngalt at November 1, 2004 10:39 PMHmm,
I guess you and I also have a different reading of history, John Galt. The New Deal was the result of Marxist- Leninist ideology taught in our universities? The early 1920's was the time of the Red Scare where marxists and socialists were outcasts of society, lumped in with anarchists and vilified by the mail bombs sent by anarchists to industry leaders and the stock market. The Espionage and Sedition Acts were the precursor to today's Patriot act, put in place to combat espionage and terrorism at home after WWI. Do the names Sacco and Vanzetti ring a bell? Most historians (shall we just label them liberal stooges now and save time?) show the New Deal to be a response to the conditions of the time, notably the Great Depression and the appalling living conditions of many of the elderly in this country. The Great Depression of course could be seen as capitalism run amok with vast stock speculation bankrupting many companies.