Over at American Vision they continue to bang the drum against voting third party. This time it is Eric Rauch who steps up with an article that borders on insantiy entitled, “A Plea For Sanity.”
In Mr. Rauch’s first paragraph he manages to accuse those of us who disagree with his brown-nosing the Republican Party as “losing our minds.” Mr. Rauch concedes that except for the three months surrounding a Presidential election cycle those to whom he is referring are the best of the best, but then he laments that we lose our minds during the Presidential election cycle. I don’t know why Mr. Rauch limits our insanity to the three months surrounding a presidential election cycle as I almost never vote Republican no matter what the election cycle.
Mr. Rauch’s evidence for our insanity seems to be that we will vote our conscience, which, quite to his chagrin, means that we won’t vote Republican. Maybe we should start a support group called, “Independents Anonymous.”
Bret — “Hi, my name is Bret, I’m Christian but I’m still an Independent.”
Group — “Hi Bret.”
Maybe Mr. Rauch would like us to go on Thorazine during these three months in order to help us get past our fits of insanity.
Really, the idea that people have lost their minds simply because they won’t drink the kool-aid that Republicans serve up in every election cycle or simply because they actually believe in the idea of “voting their conscience” is an idea that has itself slipped quite beyond madness into the realm of the surreal.
Next, Mr. Rauch seems to imply that since God chose the leaders in the Old Testament those of us living in Republics therefore don’t have to be concerned with the voice of conscience when we vote in November. Now, how it is the two ideas, that God chose the OT Kings therefore means we don’t have to be concerned with the voice of conscience in our vote in November fit together is quite beyond my ability to reconcile … but then I’m not the one who is arguing from the Twilight Zone. The connection seems to be that since we are not voting for king, messiah, dictator, or even judge, but only for a chief executive who has specific enumerated powers according to the Constitution, (which, by the way, are constantly ignored) we therefore are relieved of being answerable to God for our vote. But that is only a guess on my part on how Erich’s reasoning is working. If you want somebody to make sense of this hash you’ll have to write Erich.
Erich then continues to reason from the outer limits of the Twilight Zone by advancing the idea that since David was an adulterer and murderer after God chose Him to be King therefore it is acceptable to vote for known adulterers and murderers in order to make them President. I’m not making this up. I couldn’t if I tried. Now, to be fair to Erich, I quite agree that “just because a man may be qualified to be an elder or deacon in the Church, does not automatically qualify him to be the President.” That is most certainly true, unless of course, that man is running against two known socialists, and then he would be less unqualified then the Socialists and so worthy of being voted for.
Erich goes on to talk about how the founding father’s learned about the terror of tyranny of King George and so created a Constitutional system that prevented power from being absolutized and he makes this argument while at the same time advocating that we vote for someone who makes King George look like a paleo-conservative. Erich is correct that our system is one of checks and balances but he is wrong to implore us to vote for somebody who will continue to ignore the Constitution.
Next, Erich quotes from R. C. Sproul Jr.. It is a fine quote. It does nothing to advance his argument but it is still a fine quote.
And then Erich says something that got me laughing so hard I had to call a friend to share the mirth. Erich said,
“I think Sproul overstates (as do many at this crucial time) the significance of the vote. Voting does not necessarily imply endorsement or approval.”
Um… Earth to Erich… testing … 1, 2, 3 … Ground control to Eric…
When we vote, we vote for somebody. When you vote for somebody you are by necessity endorsing and approving them. Now you may hate the fact that you are endorsing and approving them. You may wish that you hadn’t endorsed or approved them, but make no mistake Erich, you have, by your vote, endorsed or approved them. I mean, come on … they don’t divvy up the votes candidates get between the votes that were an endorsement and an approval and the votes that were not endorsements or approval. There is no such thing as a “non-endorsement vote.”
You write this stuff and actually have the chutzpah to suggest I’m the one losing my mind?
Next the Erich Rauch, doing his best Captain Obvious impersonation, offers this gem,
“Christians only want to talk about third party candidates when the two majority candidates don’t pass their scorecard.”
Well, jeepers Erich, should we only start talking about third party candidates when the two majority candidates do pass our scorecards? I mean, when else would we ever start talking about third party candidates except when the candidates of the two major parties are complete socialists?
Next Erich insists that those homeschoolers who vote third party are not really being true to their grassroot principles by voting third party. It seems to me by Erich’s reasoning that, as homeschoolers what we should have done to be consistent with Erich’s take is to have left our children in the government schools in order to bring reform from within the schools, just as he wants us to stay in the Republican party so that we can bring reform to the Republican Party. Think about it Erich. We are the ones being consistent here. We left the schools because we knew they were ponds of scum and now we are leaving the major parties because we likewise know they are ponds of scum.
Erich finishes his brilliant piece by calling our refusal to vote for Republican socialists as those who are involved in a “humanist response.” Now, how a refusal to vote for a Socialist is a humanist response is an idea that only someone who has lost their mind could ever try to advance. Erich needs to know that in voting third party I am not, in his words, only concerned about myself, but rather I believe that by voting for Republican I would be helping to destroy this country.
In his article Erich called referred to those who didn’t agree with him about voting for Republican socialists as having lost their mind. He said that we were involved in a “humanist response.” He said that we were only concerned about ourselves. Those are fighting words and he has received a fighting response.
“Voting does not necessarily imply endorsement or approval.”
Perhaps a class in logic is in order. A dictionary might also be helpful. I can’t even comprehend this statement. Perhaps he is confusing the American system of voting with that of the Australians???
Nickey,
Like I said … you’ll have to ask Erich. I’m with you, it’s a comment that defies rationality.
Do the Aussies vote in such a way that his comment would make sense?
Thanks for visiting Nickey.
Bret
What you mention about homeschooling is spot-on, Bret. If we carry AV’s brilliant arguments on this issue to their logical conclusions, we should have stuck with the government schools and worked change from within. And we ought not to be happy about the Reformation, either. What was Martin Luther thinking? He should have stayed a priest and seen the good side of the Pope while working hard to jettison the bad stuff from his position of power within the Catholic church as an influential teacher at the university in Wittenberg.
Bret, my understanding of the Australian voting system is that every person over the age of 18 is required to vote or be fined. When they fill in their ballot they have two options 1)Choose which party they prefer more and mark that box or 2)Mark all candidates with a number according to who they like the most to who they like the least.
It is in the second choice that this phrase *could* make since. If I had to mark a ballot with whom I liked more and whom I liked less, I suppose I might dislike McCain a little less than I dislike Obama… But American’s don’t vote this way.
The logic of “grassroots action = getting into bed with Republican Party” escapes me. As does “Republican Party = paleo-conservatism/classical liberalism, et al.” Some cultural and political institutions are worth infiltrating and preserving, some aren’t. I am more and more convinced that the GOP (the party of Lincoln) is not worth saving. It is not ordained by God, not eternal, and Christ’s rule over the nations can (and will) be manifested without it.
Rauch and Demar are also arguing against a straw man here. Those of us who object to the two major parties do not base our case solely on an appeal to personal conscience. The fact is that the choices presented by the two parties are objectively abysmal, even when measured against the most basic standard of Constitutional knowledge, fidelity, etc. One hardly needs to be an idealist to reject the twaddle proffered in the name of “conservatism” and “limited government” these days.
I could see some plausibility to Rauch’s argument if we were still functioning under a “enumerated powers” Constitutional system, if checks and balanced were actually working, and if we were still a nation with a Christian milieu, where the social order was generally Christian and acted as a restraint against lawlessness in many spheres. In that case, I could maybe understand considering someone like a Thomas Jefferson.
But we are not in that situation anymore. We are at a point where the church and many of the people remain blind and dumb under the increasing tyranny of the messianic welfare/warfare state. Electing leaders who have no fear of God or man and no regard for truth and justice exacerbates our already dire situation and constitutes more leading of the blind by the blind. To say it another way, good fruit will not come from a bad tree.
Johshua,
Well spoken.
I completely agree about the Jefferson quote. The guy was a Deist but I could’ve voted for him, if only because he embraced the idea of a limited government with clearly defined enumerated powers.
Nickey,
Thanks. That was interesting!
I didn’t know that about Aussie elections.
Fascinating.
Bret
Heldveld,
I’m not automatically opposed to voting for the lesser of two evils. I am opposed to voting for one of two people, neither of whom are anywhere near a worldview that is salutary in the slightest.
Go to Chalcedon and read Ortiz’s piece. I don’t know if he was answering Eric Rauch directly (I suspect so), but he hits this issue pretty hard and closes with an absolute stinger. Unfortunately for AV and for all of us, that article was printed publicly and thus needs to be dealt with publicly.