What’s Wrong with the World

Jeff, you know better than anyone else besides me how many of the items in the above list (mostly, the economic ones) I'd put little asterisks by to say that I don't endorse them.

But, and it's a big and important "but," I agree with your overarching point. And where I come in especially, nodding my head sadly, is with this one:

cynically deployed "social issues" as instruments of voter mobilization, then snickered behind the backs of the salt-of-the-earth folks who voted for them on the basis of those issues

To be fair, I'm not at all sure that it was President Bush personally snickering. But the phrase isn't entirely inapt, because I'm sure somebody was snickering, and President Bush didn't stop the snickering. Hadley Arkes has said, with a deliberate use of paradox, that he wishes Bush would have done less and talked more about life issues. We could have used a lot more bully pulpit, a lot more clarity, and, God knows, a lot less of that horrible phrase "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land." The cynicism there was patent, as was Bush's complete unwillingness to go to the mat on judicial (and other) nominations--to go bare-knuckled on recess appointments, to refrain from coaching people to say nonsense about Roe in order to grovel to the Democrats and get nominated, and so forth. It was said several times that he didn't particularly want Roe v. Wade overturned, and I fear this was all too true.

Indeed, conservatives, even social conservatives, have been to no small degree in the wilderness already. The liberals won't admit it. But they never will. If a sitting president were to pay for his own daughter's abortion, and he were a Republican, the liberals would never be sure he was enthusiastic enough about it. No sacrifice to Moloch is ever enough for the Party of Death and its acolytes. So conservatives shouldn't be listening to _them_ about whether conservatives are a power in the land.

We aren't. We haven't been for a long time. We should admit that and base our plans on that understanding.

Very kind of the Times to offer up a reading list consisting of authors that have made their peace with the Managerial State, and often supported the very policies that have lead to the banishment from power. The exile will be a prolonged one if conservatives heed the advice of the Times.

Although I find myself largely agreeing with this post, I dissent from this:

formed ranks behind a President poised to violate campaign pledges regarding judicial nominations, when he wished to nominate his incompetent cronies and lickspittles to the Supreme Court

Formed ranks isn't quite the term to describe what happened; the choice of Harriet Miers came in for wide criticism from self-professed conservatives.

Moreover, it's not right to suggest that Bush was merely trying to nominate "incompetent cronies and lickspittles" [plural??] to the Supreme Court. As Jan Crawford Greenburg's superb book on the Supreme Court makes clear, Bush's motivation in picking Miers was that she was just about the only person who: 1) had little to no written record of her views (thus making her potentially easier to confirm against a horde of Democrats eager to demonize anyone who had ever said a bad word about abortion); but at the same time 2) was someone that Bush completely trusted to have a restrained view of the Constitution (thus avoiding the mistake that his father had made in picking Souter, i.e., a cipher who turned out to be one of the most liberal Justices). And just to be clear, Greenburg is explicit on the point that Bush was trying to avoid picking another Souter.

It is somewhat exaggerated, but I do want to say re. Miers that I read a very strange article in Human Life Review recently in which it was implied that Miers was positively a good candidate from the conservative point of view. The author completely forgot that dreadful speech to the Dallas Women's Club or whatever it was in which she clearly implied an ideological adherence to the major concepts of Roe v. Wade--Where "science" has not pronounced (hint, hint, supposedly "nobody knows when human life begins" and all that junk) the decision should be left to the individual. It was a dreadful speech, the quoted comments even worse when seen in context than out of it, and conservatives were quite right to protest.

I have contemplated the wilderness. I have even wrote a post or two touching on the topic. I think we put ourselves in a bad position when we can't win no matter the outcome. In order of preference, one could have an election where:
1) Either candidate advances the cause, but one does so more than the other
2) One candidate will advance the cause, but the other will not harm it
3) Neither candidate will harm the cause
4) One candidate will advance the cause, but the other will harm it
5) One candidate will not harm the cause, but the other will harm it
6) Both candidates harm the cause, but one does so more than the other.

I think those of us in the prolife community have been primarily in the 4 or 5 situtions, sometimes advancing to 3. "Conservatism" has been hitting 1 and 2 in the GOP for a while, and I think they would do well to recognize that they are very far from the wilderness still. I know it isn't a conservatism that Maximos subscribes to, but I think it is real. As for this election, the prolife community at least at the leadership level is basically looking at this as a scenario 6 or at best a scenario 5.

The real troubling thing is that many seem to see the wilderness as a destination in itself. Many subscribe to the idea that you aren't being a real Christian if you aren't marginalized by society. And while it is true that people will often have to stand alone in their beliefs, it shouldn't be a goal itself. I for one am not happy that the Republican Party has nominated a candidate I can't support. I am not all that thrilled that the Democratic candidate has a lot of baggage with them. I'm just hoping than an olive branch to the Democrats will engender some goodwill down the road.

Many subscribe to the idea that you aren't being a real Christian if you aren't marginalized by society.

That may be true of "many", I suppose, but it smells rather like a straw man.

I often see the protest that if we do the right thing we will be marginalized; to which the proper Christian response is "who cares?", or at least "that changes nothing, so why even bring it up?" But that is entirely different.

Lydia beat me to the punch in regards to that dreadful speech delivered before the Women's Forum, or whatever the heck that was supposed to have been. It strains credulity, in my estimation, to suggest the Bush was incognizant of that speech and its ramifications; the administration sought, from my perspective, the appearance of a stealth candidate, and not the substance, because, for whatever perverse, cynical, or cronyism-related reasons, they wanted to elevate one of their own.

It may smell like a strawman to you. If you were to follow conservative Evangelical circles, you would be more likely to recognize it. There are a few trad circles where marginalization is a point of pride, for example some areas of the SSPX, but you are more likely to find it in conservative Evangelical circles.

What I remember from that Miers affair was Bush lashing out at conservatives with the imperious remark that he didn't like it when one of his friends was being attacked, and wouldn't sit still for it. The liberal response to the entire mess could almost be desribed as bemused. Together with the outcry over McCain-Kennedy, it was one of two moments over the last eight years that I knew what it felt like to be out of the wilderness.

Together with the outcry over McCain-Kennedy, it was one of two moments over the last eight years that I knew what it felt like to be out of the wilderness.

I can identify with that sentiment, though it seems to me that the feeling of having entered the promised land was transitory, for the power exerted through that unified outcry was principally negative; we halted a dubious nomination and prompted a superior one (fingers crossed), and halted an explicit ratification of the establishment's intention to constitute a new people, but we have not proven capable of reversing this intention. Halting the comprehensive dispossession of the American people merely served, functionally, to ratify that status quo, which only means that the establishment will continue to create conditions of impossibility, and then, at some unspecified later date, request a do-over.

Lydia writes: "Hadley Arkes has said, with a deliberate use of paradox, that he wishes Bush would have done less and talked more about life issues. We could have used a lot more bully pulpit,"

One question I've decided pro-lifers must ask themselves about every putatively anti-abortion candidate is: What will this candidate do *and say* to help prepare the country for a post-Roe future?

I'm just hoping than an olive branch to the Democrats will engender some goodwill down the road.

Surely you must be joking.

I'm willing to concede the imperative of using the bully pulpit. I'm at a loss to understand the need for less action or for how much action has been attempted. Yes, there have been some actions in the funding area, but other than that there hasn't been a whole lot of positive action. Perhaps it is a reference to the PBA ban that was passed.

I'm not joking and don't call me, "Shirley". ;-)

Perhaps if I introduce a relative scale the point will be more plain. My hope is that an olive branch will bring more dividends than offering the bird.

In case this is coming as a surprise, Byronic, MZ is a "prolifer for Obama." So that's what all of that is all about. McCain is a candidate he "can't support," but... (Not that I support McCain either, far from it, but the irony of that coming from an Obama supporter is shouting.)

The wilderness is here. Let's make the most of it.

Let the guys at Vox Nova curry favor with their new masters and vainly jockey for an Ambassadorship to the Holy See. Such an appointment will only be rejected by the Vatican. Meanwhile, think of the joyfully violent, Guinness-fueled policy discussions our government-in-exile will have as we plot the Counter-Revolution. I've yet to contact my nominees to the "Shadow Cabinet", but all would happily serve in volunteer capacities, as long as the complete dismantling of Leviathan is the sole goal of our future Administration.

State - Andrew Bacevich
Treasury - Ron Paul
Defense - General Jack Sheehan USMC (Ret)
Attorney General - Phil Kline
Education - Tom Fleming
Energy - James Howard Kunstler
Homeland Security - Michael Scheurer
Housing & Urban Development - Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk
Commerce - William Cavanaugh
Labor - Mark Zwick
Health and Human Services - Louise Zwick
Immigration - Pat Buchanan
Interior - Kirkpatrick Sale
Transportation - Lance Armstrong

Ambassador to the U.N., John Lukacs and Chief Presidential Speech-Writers; Bill Kaufman and John Zmirak.

I don't have an issue with much of your list, although I find Armstrong quite contemptable. I imagine you hold Catholic teaching on immigration in contempt like Buchanan.

I find it funny that you use 'their new masters' instead of 'our new masters'.

Couldn't we put Lawrence Auster in charge of immigration instead?

And nominate Phyllis Schlafly to the Supreme Court.

O.k.,o.k. Armstrong is off. Perhaps, Sale will take his place at Transportation and we'll safe the job for a member of the Amish community. And Wendell Berry takes over at Agriculture.

As for immigration, I'm a personalist. The Church has not told me to open any doors but my own, nor has she said; "build yourself a polyglot Tower of Babel and create a permanent state of warfare amongst your working poor." I am required to welcome the stranger before me. Not cling to the cheap grace of watching unassimilated masses descend on my struggling urban neighbors. Note too; the presence of the Zwick's in this Administration. I'm free of at least formal ties to the culture of death. You've willingly handcuffed yourself to one of it's leading minions.

Lydia, Auster might lack the requisite sense of humor to join this Administration. The last time I looked he was posing as the Only One Who Truly Gets It. Schlafly deserves a spot somewhere, but I had you in mind to replace Ginsberg. Talk it over at home.

I'm not familiar with Sale, so I don't have any further objections to your cabinent. We are of one mind Kevin. :-D (Okay, I think Ron Paul is a fruitcake, but he is a lovable fruitcake.)

Sale is uncomfortable with anything that doesn't pre-date the Industrial Revolution by several centuries and the author of this insight:

"The virtue of small government is that the mistakes are small as well...If you want to leave a nation you think is corrupt, inefficient, militaristic, oppressive, repressive, but you don’t want to move to Canada or France, what do you do? Well, the way is through secession, where you could stay home and be where you want to be.”

He wants to make Vermont an independent Republic and restrict the number of New Yorkers that overstay their welcome in his state. Add him to the roster of lovable fruitcakes. Feel free, MZ to offer additional nominations. But keep in mind the individual must be alive. Otherwise, I'd have
already suggested Dorothy Day as Czar of Domestic Policy.

Kevin,
No discriminating against the dead. I want to see what a zombie cabinet looks like.

In case this is coming as a surprise, Byronic, MZ is a "prolifer for Obama.

Guessed it from his previous.

Perhaps if I introduce a relative scale the point will be more plain. My hope is that an olive branch will bring more dividends than offering the bird.

Right. You're a surrender monkey. You aren't offering an olive branch, you're throwing up the white flag. You know, there is something between olive branch and middle finger, M.Z. "Pro-lifers for Obama." Talk about the Bush Whitehouse sniggering at the religious right. I think the Obama/pro-abort camp is laughing their tails off at you people. You've been sold a bill of goods just like the Falwell right-wingers. You aren't going to end abortion by meek prostration before the juggernaut. We are on the verge of seeing abortion irrevocably enshrined into our national culture and identity, and you're caving in. If you want to be Democrats be Democrats, fine. Is the Democratic Party the party of abortion rights, or is there any room left for dissent in that party?

Again, it's not merely about limiting abortions and making them "rare." It's the principle behind the idea of abortion as a fundamental right, and that principle is homocidal. You don't make peace with that, you don't prostrate yourselves before that--at least not while you're still free. What's going to happen is that you Catholic liberals are going to die a messy death with that olive branch in your hand. You don't send St. Francis to do St. Dominic's job.

I would never form or join such a group as "Pro-lifers for Obama", particularly in the American context of pro-life meaning strictly anti-abortion. The rest of your comment is nonsense and a caricature.

Step 2,
"I want to see what a zombie cabinet looks like."

Step2,If you really must satisfy your morbid curiosity, you can look at the link. Brace yourself, please; http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html

I would never form or join such a group as "Pro-lifers for Obama", particularly in the American context of pro-life meaning strictly anti-abortion. The rest of your comment is nonsense and a caricature.

I don't see that 'pro-life' must mean strictly 'anti-abortion,' but, Shirley, a stance that claims to be pro-life without being anti-abortion is not pro-life at all. Caricature the comment may be, but a caricature often says something true. Perhaps I've not yet understood just what you mean by "olive branch." I've take it to mean a sign of peace and goodwill. Is there peace and goodwill possible, politically speaking, between those who think that abortion is homocidal, and those who think (like Obama) that it is hygienic? Perhaps by "olive branch" you mean something more like "willingness to negotiate." When it comes to abortion, Obama doesn't seem interested in negotiation. Am I reading him wrong? He seems, rather, to be quite intent on ending, once and for all, the possibility of negotiation. Now I hold that, due to the nature of abortion (it's always homocidal), one simply cannot be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time. Is that a caricature and nonsense?

The olive branch is to support his election despite disagreement on abortion for reasons of agreement elsewhere. Like all politicians, Obama is interested in having a governing coalition to advance his agenda. If he does in fact make abortion advocacy a priority in his administration, he will find a Republican Congress quickly, and I will be one of the first to advocate for it. If he does nothing (or close to nothing) on abortion and yet achieves things like not getting us into a war in Iran and getting us out of Iraq, I will consider my act to have been prudent. It seems a better proposition than hoping McCain will do something about abortion despite all evidence contrariwise while tolerating the dropping of bombs on Iranians. I get that many here don't think the proposition before us is between an Obama presidency and a McCain presidency. I find the argument unpersuasive.

I notice that when the phrase "pro-lifers for Obama" is brought up (and I brought it up, I admit) what MZ wants to be sure to qualify before he joins on is the phrase "pro-lifers" (God forbid it should be associated too narrowly with stuff like, you know, murdering the unborn, the aged, and the disabled) and _not_ the phrase "for Obama."

"If he does nothing (or close to nothing) on abortion and yet achieves things like not getting us into a war in Iran and getting us out of Iraq..."

I guess selling-out requires industrial strength blindfolds;

"Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take "no options off the table"..."A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama said."
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL23104041320080723?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Maybe, you don't take the man at his word but I think the rest of us have to;

"Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America... And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."

Just so you know;

Among the types of laws that the FOCA would invalidate are:

-- The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits most federal funding of abortion, and the laws of many states that restrict state funding of abortion.

-- Laws in effect in some jurisdictions that bar abortions in government-operated hospitals.

-- Laws requiring parental notification or consent, or judicial authorization, before an abortion can be performed on a minor daughter.

-- Laws requiring that girls and women seeking abortion receive certain information on matters such as fetal development and alternatives to abortion, and then wait a specified period before the abortion is actually performed, usually 24 or 48 hours.

-- "Conscience" laws, allowing doctors, nurses, or other state-licensed professionals, and hospitals or other health-care providers, to decline to provide or pay for abortions.

Your man Obama is quite a guy.

Lydia,

Can't win even when we agree can I?

If he does in fact make abortion advocacy a priority in his administration, he will find a Republican Congress quickly, and I will be one of the first to advocate for it. If he does nothing (or close to nothing) on abortion and yet achieves things like not getting us into a war in Iran and getting us out of Iraq, I will consider my act to have been prudent.

Kevin has already beat me to my answer, so I won't be redundant. Suffice to say that it seems you are betting on Obama's not keeping certain campaign promises, while keeping some others. Since he's promised to do just about everything and it's opposite, you've got a wide variety of options to choose from and hope for. What if he does this? What if he doesn't do that? But you aren't going to get to customize Obama's presidency. You hope he won't keep his promise vis-a-vis the Freedom of Choice Act. Now I've got to tell you, considering all of his flip-flopping, er, moving-to-the-center that he's been doing lately, this Freedom of Choice Act idea, or at least the will and agenda that it represents, seems like the one campaign promise Obama is damn sure intent on keeping.

Really, MZ, I'm not at all sure how much we agree. People who get really het up about abortion usually don't jump right in to say, "I don't want the term 'pro-life' narrowly confined to abortion." Because let's face it, people who jump right in to say that are usually touting the usual seamless garment line according to which war, gun-control, welfare and other government programs for The Poor, and heaven knows what else (being more welcoming to illegal immigrants, perhaps?) are supposed to be included in being "pro-life." I'd rather stick to the more crude and culturally familiar use of the phrase according to which, yes, abortion is what first comes to people's minds when they hear the term, perhaps followed (as they get to hanging out more with pro-lifers) by embryo-destructive research and euthanasia, but all that active, direct, and deliberate murdering of the innocent stuff. Not the social stuff nor even the war stuff.

"touting the usual seamless garment line"

In Obama's case, which includes; "revising" his original anti-war position on Iraq, his sabre-rattling in Iran, the empire-building pedigrees of his foreign policy advisors and his slavish devotion to Abortion, he really has wrapped himself up in a seamless garment of Death.

It's simply left to MZ to determine if he really wants to don the same hideous garb, and if he's comforatble wearing it to Mass.

Given your penchant for philosophy Lydia, the seamless garment should be more comprehendable to you than for others. Cardinal Bernardin was uncompromising in his opposition to abortion and was actually prescient in his belief that attacks upon the elderly would soon be threatened. Of course the seamless garment was supposed to inform political action and not be political action itself.

I can't figure out what Kevin's opinion is ordered to other than cynicism. I can appreciate thebyronicman noting that I could be wrong in my application of prudence. Whether that would involve an endorsement of McCain, I can't answer for him. This all gets back to the point that we've been dancing around for months on end that there is a fork in the road and that some believe that there will be some mystical third path available or that being dragged down one of the paths is redemptive over making the best choice and hoping for better choices in the future.

MZ, it ain't a matter of what's comprehensible. I think I understand the mindset of the advocates (I've seen) of the seamless garment idea pretty well. I just disagree with them.

Priests For Life has two of his lectures available online. They seem to think he supports their view. Perhaps you disagree with how certain people have applied it rather than the principle.

" I can't figure out what Kevin's opinion is ordered to other than cynicism."

On the contrary, I reject the cynicism of placing political compromise over faithful witness and personal integrity by relying on the old stand-bys issued by collaborators since time immemorial; "I had no choice" or "how was I to know?"

I've tried to place myself in your shoes and for the life of me, I can't imagine those who know me best, my fellow communicants or those active in our pro-life efforts, allowing me to take your path without staging an intervention.

Interesting how this thread, as previous ones, typically end up addressing the Vox-Nova-tian heresy.

Perhaps an ecumenical council consisting of various notable Christian bodies should be convened in order to formally point out and make clear to such heretics (i.e., as far as the Culture of Life is concerned) that one cannot say they are Pro-Life and yet appoint a candidate blatantly against it to the highest office in the land and would actually go so far as to implement and enforce the Pro-Abortion agenda to its fullest extent by executive power?

One I suppose could introduce a resolution condemning as heresy that one can be pro-life and support a candidate who wants to "Bomb Bomb Iran."

You have been presented with the concrete evidence of exactly what will be lost when Obama fulfills his promise to sign FOCA into law. There are no obstacles to prevent Obama's diabolical promise from being accomplished.

On the other hand, there is no guarantee that McCain will follow through on his obscene threat and we know there are assume institutional impediments (a Democrat Congress, resistance within the Pentagon and opposition by allies) to such a course of action. A course of action that your man, Obama now says he won't rule out.

In short, your public wrestling match with your conscience is a bore. We already know the outcome.

Since Paul asked me not to be profane here, I won't. Enjoy yourself Kevin.

"Since Paul asked me not to be profane here, I won't."

Too late, I'm afraid.

Whether that would involve an endorsement of McCain, I can't answer for him.

Speaking for myself, absolutely not. Because I don't think that my political activity is mitigated by an abstention from voting in the general election, and neither do I feel in the slightest bit disenfranchised by the fact that I can't in good conscience support either candidate offered for my consumption. I'm none too happy about it, mind you. But not disenfranchised. If, however, I was an insider career pol who needed to be on some bandwagon or other in order to facilitate his upward mobility, then I'd pretty much have to be directly aligned. But then I'd be compromised. And I inherently mistrust the argumentation of a political careerist, even if it looks good on paper and sounds uplifting when delivered live to a crowd of thousands. I can't escape the sneaking suspicion that something is being left out, or that I'm a target of manipulation. This is why I'm a conservative in the older style, because the less blue-sky and paradise a politician promises, the more I'm inclined to trust him.

For the record, M.Z. Forrest appears to believe that voting for one of the major candidates is obligatory unless one is willing to commit to Amish-style secession from mainstream society.

Be that as it may, it still doesn't justify a person claming to be Pro-Life voting a staunchly Pro-Abortion candidate into office who in no uncertain terms whatsoever has vowed time and again that he would, upon becoming president, sign FOCA!

To claim to be Pro-Life and yet allow (let alone, give their full political support to) such a man to claim the highest office in the land, a man who would exercise executive power to advance the Pro-Murder, I mean, Pro-Abortion agenda to its fullest extent is just inconceivable.

I may respect M.Z. and M.M. generally; however, their stance in the matter is highly suspect, not to mention, repugnant.

"No discriminating against the dead."

Step2,
You're right and likely had Chesterton's insight in mind; "Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about."

Here's one cabinet that could breathe life back into a catatonic Republic.

State - Robert Taft
Free of charisma and messianic delusions, watching him torch the Nato charter would be the ultimate "revenge of the nerds."

Treasury - T. Coleman Andrews
Ike's former IRS chairman resigned from the post and called the income tax a "devouring evil". Let him exorcise the demons in our system.

Defense - Casper Weinberger & George McGovern
In hindsight, this is a perfect pairing.

Attorney General - John Quincy Adams
Anti-slavery firebrand takes aim at the Merchants of Death and brings Abortion Inc down.

Education - Henry Adams
A nation of vidiots no more. Polymaths rule.

Interior - Chief Sitting Bull
A convert to Catholicism, who can match his love for the land?

Housing & Urban Development - Jane Jacobs & Zora Neal Hurston
There is a rose in Spanish Harlem. More will bloom under the care of these 2 gardeners.

Commerce - E.F. Schumacher
Put him on the fast-track to citizenship and bury the mega-corps.

Agriculture - Wendell Berry
The best part - he's still alive!

Those were some intriguing choices Kevin. Thanks.

No problem, Step2, by the time this excruciatingly painful election is over, the entire, albeit much smaller, federal government will be staffed by the greatest reactionaries, patriots and cranks ever to have graced our fair land and all the unwanted appendages of Empire will be shed. Come October these "United States" will rightly consist of the original 13, making the World Series a far more accurate description of the Fall Classic than it is now.

In the meantime, William Jennings Bryan at the SEC should get Wall Street's attention.