This article is in response to Gary De Mar bellyaching about Christians voting third party in a recent article written by De Mar.
First, I want to make it clear that Gary De Mar is not an enemy. The disagreement here is tactical and not strategic. Gary and I both share the same strategy of defeating the pagan left. The disagreement here is whether or not Gary’s tactics are counterproductive to achieving his strategy. The disagreement here extends to Gary’s accusations that the tactics of those of us who advocate voting third party are counterproductive to our shared strategy of crushing the pagan left.
First, Gary, like so many others, does not seem to comprehend why voting third party is necessary. Voting third party is necessary to communicate, in the only way that the major parties can understand, a profound discontent that will require substantive change in the major parties before those major parties can hope to attract again the votes of those who are voting third party. If Christians keep voting for Republicans, as Gary advocates, what is communicated to the Republican Party is that there is no necessity for the party to change in the direction of the political convictions of those who have bolted the party to vote third party. If the Republican Party believes the “Christian” vote is in its back pocket it will have no incentive to improve on issues that Christians care about. A Party that believes that it has a constituency that it can’t lose, no matter what, will ignore that constituency.
Second, building third parties, historically, has been a means by which the American Parties segues ideologically to new political positions. In the first couple of decades of the 20th century the Socialist party was a third party that ran Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas as Presidential candidates. Both Debs and Thomas were soundly trounced. What most people don’t know is that the Democratic Party, under the candidacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eventually adopted large portions of the Socialist party platform into the Democratic Party, thus going a long way towards remaking the Democratic Party into the image of the Socialist party. Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas were never elected President but their Party and its ideas changed the Democratic Party forever. Other examples of this phenomenon in history can be recited.
Gary, doesn’t seem to understand that a third Party movement, supported by a healthy minority, though never winning, can work to be the means by which a party transitions ideologically. When Gary chastises people for voting third party and uses his influence to keep Christians from lending third party their strength he is insuring that the Republican Party will never take the Christian vote seriously.
Third, Gary seems to operating under the assumption that if Christians can manage to take over the Republican Party as a vehicle to advance their convictions that those styled “country club” Americans will support the Party. Gary’s reasoning seems to be that if Christians support the Republican Party now, while holding their noses, that what will happen is that other elements of the Republican Party will support De Mar type candidates while holding their noses. This is a questionable assumption on Gary’s part.
Fourth, voting third party is necessary in order to communicate that there are sizable portions of the electorate that are not generally satisfied with the two parties. The way the current two party system works is to funnel people into the major parties so that their vote communicates “general agreement” with the Party. Voting third Party gives a voice to people who are not in “general agreement” with the two Parties. Gary may be able to use his vote to communicate “general agreement” with the Republicans, but I find nothing in the Republican party with which I am in general agreement.
Fifth, voting third party is necessary in order to bring change through incremental gradualism. Those like Gary who advocate voting for Republican as a means by which to incrementally bring about change in the Republican Party would be hard pressed to reveal where any incremental progress has occurred. Indeed, if anything, it would be quite easy to point to incremental regress in the Republican Party (Mega growth in the size of the Government during the Bush administration, Increase of Entitlement programs, Increase in the extension of Empire, Attempt to Socialize the Financial sector of the economy, etc.). Gary, by voting for the Republican Party, communicates approval of this incremental regress.
Finally, on a practical level, we ought to be asking ourselves if we follow Gary’s advice how we are to prevent young Christians who get involved in the GOP to keep from being subsumed by the Borg. One only has to look at Patrick Henry College and their support for anti-home schooler Mike Huckabee to see that while in theory building a college to change the Republican Party from within might have seemed like a good idea, in the end it has just contributed to another educational establishment making good little soldiers for the fascist state as opposed to rebels who will fight the pagan left Borg.
Will Republican sycophants follow these tactics for bringing about significant change in our political process? Probably not. They will bellyache about how some Christians will remain true to their principles and those syophants will continue to compromise trying to achieve their strategic goals by using tactical means that are counter-productive to those stated goals.
I saw that this morning and figured there’d be some discussion. As helpful as American Vision is, they sure seem to forget sometimes that the antithesis is not between red and blue but Christ and his enemies (of which both parties have made themselves). DeMar’s pragmatism in this article is embarrassing for someone with his reconstruction credentials. That kind thinking got a whole lot people “scattered across the wilderness.”
Bret, I agree Demar is not an enemy, which is why I am all the more frustrated with his position here.
He is somewhat naieve in thinking the two parties got where they are by honest effort alone. He ignores the more “conspiratorial” side of party politics whereby certain people (eg. Ron Paul) and views are excluded from the outset. The cultural milieu and media gatekeepers also contribute to this.
Check out this quote from Demar in the comments section of the AV blog: “Every candidate is a lesser or greater choice of evil. There is no “righteous” candidate. If you think there is, you will be very disappointed.”
Let the fisking commence.
Bret, I have seen this among many that I consider theological fellow-travelers. At bottom, I believe this is a case of postmillennial impatience. Rather than stick to biblical principle in our endorsement of political leaders (and make no mistake, a vote is an endorsement), they opt for a “pragmatic” lesser of evils politics that is merely dashing toward the back of the train that continues its course off the cliff. We need to jump off the train and be ready to give an answer to the faith we have in Christ.
Jon,
That is exactly what I was trying to get at in a post from about 10 days ago entitled “Pretend Postmillennialism.”
http://ironink.org/admin.php?ctrl=browse&show_past=1&show_future=1&cat=51
In my estimation these people are trying to bring in the Kingdom by political machinations. The result of such tampering will be the ruination of postmillennialism when their machinations don’t work out the way they think they will.
Yes, I recall reading that article. I think your sentiments responding to Demar in this post are clearer though. The term “pretend postmillennialism,” I thought, detracted from your point, because those men from whom we’ve benefited, especially in our understanding of eschatology, aren’t necessarily diminishing the theology itself (making it pretend) as much as (from our vantage point) attempting to hurry it along. Postmillennialism still stands as our eschatology, but some of our brothers are wrongly intending to hasten the day.
Good point.
I went with “Pretend Postmillennialism” because I thought it was kinder than my original thought which was “Pernicious Postmillennialism.”
And you’re right …
We’ve Benefited From Them
They Are Still Postmillennialists
They Are To Be Championed.
But dang it … this championing of Republicans is enough to make a guy forget all that.
In my estimation these people are trying to bring in the Kingdom by political machinations. The result of such tampering will be the ruination of postmillennialism when their machinations don’t work out the way they think they will.
Unfortunately, such impatience also gives credence to those who see the reconstructionist “camp” as wanting to impose top-down change, rather than the kind of change that comes from simultaneously preaching the true gospel faithfully and doing God’s will in every area of life as Christians who believe He will bless our faithful efforts in those areas. To his credit, DeMar did suggest the hard work of rolling up our sleeves and doing what needs to be done. I am not sure if he was suggesting infiltrating the Democrat party as well as the GOP.
Sadly, what usually happens with such syncretism, is syncretism (everyone’s talking about Deborah…what about Solomon and his wives?) Do we see the hotshots at Patrick Henry College sending out young people who are being equipped to fight against the business as usual, or are they subsumed by the power elite…or marginalized?
I have tried pragmatism and found it wanting. Hard work, yes…but compromise leads to regression, as Bret pointed out.
I think this is pretty simple. You don’t “crush the pagan left” by voting for the pagan left, which in this case is McCain.
Really, come on.
De Mar and all of these other recon pragmatists need to do some in-depth reading in poly sci. Someone please send them a subscription to Chronicles and Paul Gottfried’s books.
My dance with Republicans ended in 1996. I had been disenchanted since 1988. I never laid eyes on a Chronicles until after I quit voting for the Republican Left. It shouldn’t take a subscription to “Chronicles” for me to realize that these guys were be duplicitous.
Though, I quite admit that an article to “Chronicles” could only help.
Greetings all,
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiasties 12:13-14
For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Luke 12:2
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. I John 5:3
May our LORD have mercy upon us.
Jim K.
Pastor Bret and fellow commentors,
Please forgive my last posting appears. I did it while I was fighting a malady, and wasn’t as diligent to pay attention to what I was doing. Nevertheless, I think the posted Scriptures to be on point for the topic at hand, along with many others that I could have added. But, at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established (Deut. 19:15).
On another matter, I saw the highly edited interview with Mrs. Palin on the national news last night. Any Christian worthy of the name would rise up in anger (as I nearly did) at what she said. She clearly shows where her true allegiance lies, as Pastor Bret has pointed out elsewhere here. As the Romans would say, Caveat Emptor (Let the buyer beware!)
Jim K.