Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Why I Have Voted Republican

I recently came across a snippet from Scot McKnight in which he detailed his motives for his leftward political stance. I found some things problematic with these motives.

I . . . lean left in politics. I tell my friends that I have voted Democrat for years for all the wrong reasons. I don't think that the Democratic Party is worth a hoot, but its historic commitment to the poor and to centralizing government for social justice is what I think government should do. I don't support abortion -- in fact, I think it is immoral. I believe in civil rights, but I don't believe homosexuality is God's design. And, like many in in the emerging movement, I think the Religious Right doesn't see what it is doing. . .

Well, let's just get it out in the open. I have always voted Republican. There, I've said it. I don't view myself as a Republican, mind you, but merely a conservative who is voting for the lesser of two evils. There is much to despise in the Republican party: a commitment to war, to financial greed, to big business over small business, etc. They have long held the image of the stuffy, Wall Street banker. I do think times are changing, however.

The Democratic Party has been changing, too. It has grown ever more left since FDR's public works and JFK's charm. It has begun to look more and more Bolshevik with each passing year. The commitment to the poor and the laborer has been replaced by lip service and a new commitment to a strong, centralized government. A strong, centralized government has been the beginning of all oppression in every nation throughout history, which is why the developers of our governmental system placed so much emphasis on state governments and on checks and balances. When state sovereignty is reallocated to a national level (it has), militias are abandoned (which happened after the Civil War in favor of a National Guard), and the other branches of government are largely one party (Democratic President, congressional majority, and judicial majority), we may expect government oppression.

Scot McKnight desires a centralized government for social justice, but history has shown us that a centralized government leads away from social justice. It also takes away personal responsibility for caring for those around you. How does it show Christ's love to sinners to give money to the government and allow them to spend it for you, especially when that government is committed to upholding and encouraging sin and unloving acts?

McKnight is also committed to civil rights. Yet I am unsure if he understands the concept. Civil rights are those rights granted under law. In our nation, they have typically been informed by democratic process - the majority rules. That is no longer the case. Now those with the highest lobbying budget and most vocal voice rule. Conservatives, by nature, are defeated on this new playing field. A centralized government, made of a largely homogeneous group, are less likely to grant civil rights, not more likely.

You may wonder why I am down on Democrats and not so much on Republicans. Republicans are usually conservatives, and conservatives usually don't like change. They like to move at a slower pace and preserve things that work. Further, conservatives, whether theists or not, tend to cherish their individual freedoms - to worship, to lifestyle, to the pursuit of happiness. This is tied to their desire for preservation. Our nation was founded on principles of individuality. Democrats, on the other hand, tend toward change. Things are not right unless there is something to kick against. Democrats, which have slowly become almost synonymous with Liberals, usually espouse one form of humanism or another. With this humanism comes collectivism (also known as communism). A strong centralized government is needed to keep the collective intact. Once the centralized government is in place, dissent is seen as an attack on the safety of the collective. Individuality becomes only one shade of a particular, collective, color (just think of how similar teenagers who want to appear "different" become).

So, as one who finds value in individual rights and the ability to order my life and spend my hard-earned money the way I see fit, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for those who specifically want to take those things away. I would suggest to McKnight, and others, that if they do not believe homosexuality and abortion are right - don't vote for the party that makes those things its platform. Vote for a party that will allow dissent and will change, albeit slowly, and then do the hard work of changing it yourself. So, yes, Dr. McKnight, you vote Democrat for all the wrong reasons.

Republicans don't have their acts together any more than Democrats, but there is a fundamental philosophical difference that makes this party a far wiser choice in the long run. If you want Panera rather than breadlines, if you want free market rather than government handouts, if you want free speech for holy things rather than only for pornography, then the Republican party may be the one for you.

Lastly, I think that the Religious Right knows pretty well what it is doing, and we're generally o.k. with it. At some point we must fight for wholesome things. Accommodation and compromise has not worked. It hasn't worked because we have been compromising with liars. Open your eyes and see the "freedom" that the Social Gospel has given communities - Pride; license to steal, rape, and murder; the wholesale slaughter of the unborn; dependence on the government for handouts; a lack of desire to work. Those communities which have embraced the liberal, socialistic line have embraced a bankrupt philosophy. If that alienates some people, I am alright with it.

Socialism does not work because it does not value the image of God which is exactly that thing that makes us human. It reduces us to bondage to ourselves, our desires. Ask the Russians how that worked for them.


A. B. Caneday said...

Well said!

Timothy L. Decker said...

Republican huh? I would have figured you for a Dem... ;-)

Steven Douglas said...