I has the privilege today of attending a luncheon sponsored by the South Carolina Republican Convention. The luncheon was held in Columbia and the keynote speaker was Fred Dalton Thompson. When the opportunity to go to this presented itself, there was no chance I was going to pass it up.
Thompson spoke for about 25 minutes and covered a lot of ground. In a speech of that length you can either cover one topic with some depth or you can skim the surface of a lot of topics. Since there was no overriding theme, Thompson chose the latter. What follows is my account of Thompson’s comments today.
Senator Thompson had quite a few quotable moments. The first was in his recounting of his visit with Former Prime Minister Thatcher and her relationship with Ronald Reagan. Referring to the accomplishments of the two Thompson said “strength doesn’t cause wars, strength prevents wars.” He then recounted how following the end of the cold war the US cut defense spending by more than 1/3, military development by 50% and allowed our intelligence operations to languish, particularly our human intelligence capabilities. He pointed out that through numerous attacks on our assets around the world we did little to nothing until 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
Thompson showed a real grasp of the situation we face in Islamic fascism. He said that our enemy sees this conflict as having already gone on for a hundred years and they are prepared to go another hundred if necessary. He said that people just don’t understand or appreciate that fact. He went on to say that in previous conflicts the country always pulled together but now partisan politics takes precedence. A big applause moment was when Thompson talked about the sons of two friends who are serving in Iraq and have re-upped. He said they had hope and optimism and he wasn’t going to give up hope so long as they held it. Thompson said we need leadership to bring us together, implying that he can provide that leadership.
In the subject of illegal immigration Thompson agreed that it was dividing our party but he expressed optimism that the party would get past it. He emphasized that the resolution had to come from consideration of what was best for the country, not what was best for either party. He said that thousands of illegal immigrants are not Mexicans and that is a grave risk to national security. Thompson said that we could not hope to protect our country until we secure our borders and he flatly said that the current immigration reform bill is not what is best for this country. He rightly pointed out that we got the same promises in 1986 that we are getting today and there is no reason to believe them now. He also pointed out that the US grants one million green cards per year now so claims that we are taking an anti-immigration stand are unfounded. In another quotable moment Thompson said “we welcome legal immigrants and this is home to all of us but we get to decide who comes to our home.” Thompson said the government can’t handle the backlog of four million legal immigrants waiting on processing now so how can they possibly handle 12-20 million more?
On the question of taxes Thompson said that low taxes benefit everyone but the tax and spend types want to divide up a static pie instead of increasing the size of the pie so everyone gets a larger piece, precisely Reagan’s position. He did not endorse the FairTax but he did say that we are bankrupting the country, the government and the economy and that waiting to fix the problem hurts everyone.
In a great moment for religious conservatives Thompson, referring to the Declaration of Independence, said that our rights come from God and not from government. He went on to say that our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our federal form of government with separation of powers. The implication seemed to be that we’ve strayed far from that ideal now. While not expressly mentioning abortion or assisted suicide, Thompson emphasized the sanctity of human life.
Thompson said we need a new coalition of people coming together for the good of the country. The clear implication was that he could build that coalition. That is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. He built a coalition of people from both parties, not in government but in the electorate. Reagan won two landslide victories by convincing democrats to vote for him.
I’ve often said this country is floundering because no leader has been able to cast a vision that the people caught hold of. Bush seems to understand the threat from Islamic fascism but he has utterly failed to articulate that to the people in a way that grabs their attention. There have been a lot of comparisons between Reagan and Thompson, not the least being they are both actors. Some have pointed out that Thompson is not like Reagan in the sense that Reagan has a long history of conservative intellectual thought and writing. Thompson clearly does not have that.
There is, however, one comparison that really works and that is the ability to communicate. Reagan could cast a vision and so can Thompson. On all the issues I’ve heard him speak on Thompson has been on the right side. He certainly was today. He may not be the conservative intellectual Reagan was but he has that long missing ability to communicate in a way that is at once understandable and compelling. He has the ability to cast a vision. I believe that he can bring in a lot of Democrats and that could easily turn the tide, not just in the election but also in terms of moving this country forward as a people with a common vision for the future. Unless this country gets behind a strong leader who is willing to do what it takes, we are in for a very difficult and painful future. As Churchill said, “sometimes it isn’t enough to do your best, sometimes you have to do what is required.” We, as a country, must be willing to do what is required if we expect our future to look anything like our past. It is my belief that of all the Republican candidates, Fred Dalton Thompson is far and away the best man to cast the vision for this country.
As an ending note let me relate my brief exchange with Thompson today. There was a large crowd of people who wanted to meet Thompson and shake his hand and I was in the middle of it. When I finally got the chance I extended my hand and Thompson took it. He has a real man’s handshake. His large hand wrapped around mine with a firm grip the way a man is supposed to shake hands, not bone crushing but you know you’re shaking hands. I told him that a lot of people were really excited at the prospect of him running and I was one of them. He smiled and thanked me. Then I told him that all those people, including myself, were going to be really disappointed if he decided against running. He grinned real big and said, “so will I.”
————–
NOTE: I recorded Thompson’s speech on my cell phone. The audio isn’t the best in the world and there is considerable background noise but it you can hear what Thompson had to say. The format is a peculiar cell phone format and I can’t find a way to convert it to mp3. I’m thinking about uploading it anyway since Real Player will play it but I’d prefer to convert it to mp3 so everyone can use it. If you know a good way to convert it, please let me know. Alternatively, if you have the ability to convert it I’ll be happy to send it to you for conversion if you’ll send the converted file back. Just let me know.
UPDATE: Thanks to Orlando the file is now in mp3 format. To listen to it click here.
If I hear the phrase “under the bill” one more time regarding “comprehensive immigration reform” I think I will throw up. I was listening to Chertoff on Cavuto this afternoon and every time Cavuto brought up conservative objections, Chertoff’s response was “under the bill…” I’m convinced they are being intentionally obtuse. We’ve repeated over and over that we don’t trust the government to do what the bill says.
We’ve been down this road before and all the evidence says the government isn’t serious about controlling the border or doing anything about illegals already here except to give them a pass. Of course, that just creates more incentive for more illegals to cross the boarder the government has shown no interest in securing. So why on earth should we trust them when they tell us that “under the bill” this and that will happen.
Chertoff, et. al. know this full well. Lindsey Graham knows this. All of them know this. We’ve said it ad nauseum! They simply choose to ignore what we say and go on calling us bigots and talking about what the bill will do. The fact is, current law calls for a fence that isn’t getting built. Current law calls for border enforcement. There is no need for another law to do these things. Yet Bush, Chertoff and the rest have no interest in enforcing current law. So WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THEM to enforce a new law? There is simply no reason to trust them.
A common definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. The Bush administration and its lackeys in Congress apparently assume the electorate is insane. We should trust them to do the same thing they always done and expect them to actually enforce the law this time! I don’t think so.
I like the idea I heard on the Laura Ingraham show today. Lets just start calling them former, as in former Senator Lindsey Graham and former Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. I’ve already started working to unseat Lindsey Graham and there is a groundswell against him in South Carolina.
So if you are tempted to buy this line the “under the bill” they will secure the border and there will be a fence and there are triggers, don’t you believe it. They have to earn our trust. If your friend lies to you, you might give them another chance. But if they lie to you repeatedly, it takes a long, sustained effort of earning trust before you will be willing to trust them again. The same is true of our government. Let’s all assume the state motto of Oklahoma: Show Me! The only way they can show me is to start enforcing the law now and sustain that effort for an extended period of time. Then and only then, come back and maybe we’ll talk. But until they do that, there is absolutely no reason to trust them.
 : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
: Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
: Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
: Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
: Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
: Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
I can’t begin to describe my emotions upon hearing the collective stream of BS coming from the Senate Floor. Senator after Senator took the floor to describe their wonderful immigrant ancestors. The message was clear. All of us who oppose the rising tide of illegal immigrants remaining here legally are actually opposed to ALL immigration. We don’t understand what this country was built on. We are bigots and xenophobes.
Listening to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter tell about his father and brother immigrating here was just wonderful. What an inspiring story. But what on Earth does it have to do with the situation at hand? Specter’s father and brother immigrated here legally. They came here, submitted to processing, filled out the paperwork and followed our immigration laws. They learned English and worked to assimilate into American society.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham did precisely the same thing last week. The video is below in this blog. He talked about a Hispanic guy in the Air Force that was an inspiration to him. Great! No problem! Does anyone believe that Hispanic man in the Air Force was an illegal alien? Did he sneak across our border and join the Air Force? Of course not. If he was an immigrant at all he was a legal immigrant.
This in contrast to the ever growing flood of illegal aliens crossing our borders. They are not interested in becoming Americans. They have no desire to learn English or assimilate into American society. Mostly they want to take advantage of the services offered here and send money back to their home countries. Did you know that one of the biggest aspects of the Mexican economy is money sent home from America? That’s certainly one reason the Mexican government has been so opposed to any effort on our part to do something about the border.
The Congress can’t seem to understand why the American public doesn’t trust them on this. Could it be that we have been here before? We were told we’d have border security with the immigration reform in the ’80s. Did we get it? Does 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country look like we got it?
Now, rather than engage in an honest debate, they prefer to lie about those of us who oppose this measure. They say we are bigots and xenophobes. They do not acknowledge that there is a difference between illegal and legal immigration. In short, they lie to support their position and, apparently, they believe that if they lie long enough we will buy the lie. Small wonder we don’t trust Congress!
If you guys in the Congress want to gain some credibility, stop trying to shove this sham of a bill down our throats and instead, ENFORCE OUR CURRENT LAWS!! If you do that consistently for a period of time, you might just build up a little credibility. But so long as you insist on playing politics with the American people, so long as they continue to lie and mischaracterize those of us who oppose their position, they have no credibility.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to change though. Graham, Specter, McCain and all the rest of the Republicans pushing so hard on this issue are not concerned with what we, the people they represent, think. They somehow think that doing this will enhance their future electability. As for Graham, I think he’s angling for the VP spot with McCain. The problem for Graham is, McCain doesn’t stand a chance of getting the nomination and Graham doesn’t stand a chance of keeping his Senate seat in ‘08. His political career as a Republican is all but over. He is already a lame duck and he is blind to the fact.
I can think of no better reason for resurrecting the issue of term limits. Career politicians are the biggest problem in this country. They are far less concerned with what is actually best for this country than they are about the next election. So long as power is the motivating factor, do not expect most of our elected officials to actually honor their promises and act in an ethical, principled manner.
I was on the phone with my father in Georgia last night. He’s been a big supporter of Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss. But Chambliss is one of those Republicans working so hard to sell out this country. My dad can’t believe it! I don’t know what all the backroom deals have been. I know President Bush is looking for a legacy in a lame duck presidency and who can imagine what he has promised to Republicans who toe the line on this.
Here’s what I do know. If Republicans allow this legislation to become law, the Republican party is finished for the foreseeable future. All of Harry Reid’s predictions of massive Democrat Gains in the Senate will come to pass. Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House for the next ten years at least. Maybe a solid conservative like Fred Thompson will be able to pull out the White House, I don’t know. But I’d lay odds that we will again be saying President Clinton and that is a future I don’t relish.
Finally, if this legislation becomes law, the Democrat party will be the ultimate winner. The vast majority of the illegal aliens in this country are already indebted to Democrats for the services they currently receive. The Democrats will continue with their vote buying legislative agenda. It could be a generation or more before the Republican party can recover, if them. Why congressional Republicans can’t see that simple fact is quite beyond me.
Let me preface this by saying I am not disgruntled. As I mentioned in the previous post, I thoroughly enjoyed the FairTax Rally and I complement the organizers. Having said that, I want to offer constructive criticism so the organizers can improve on their success. There were a number of things that could have easily gone better. Some of them I am sure the organizers are aware of. Others they may be know about. So here are my observations.
The first problem was with arriving volunteers. We were supposed to be there for training at 1:00 PM. The problem was the parking at the fairgrounds didn’t open until 2:00. So leaders at the fairgrounds directed us to park across the street in a lot across the railroad tracks. We parked and walked across a very busy 4 lane highway to board the bus to the coliseum which was several miles away. Once we got to the training we were told that we could not leave our cars where they were and if they weren’t moved by 3:00 they would be locked in. So we had to board the buses, head back to the fairgrounds, cross the busy highway again, move our cars, then board the buses and go back to the coliseum. All this took more than an hour and many of us, me included, had no training or job assignments at all. I ended up taking station at a door and helping with incoming ticket taking. This was a lot of hassle that volunteers really didn’t need after driving, in some cases, hundreds of miles to do this.
Another very big problem made worse by the remote parking was some of the venue’s policies. They did not allow food, drinks or backpacks into the coliseum. Now many venues don’t allow food or drinks. But the web site for the rally indicated that you did not have to bring food because there would be food available. It left the impression that you could bring food and drinks. As a result, many people had to throw away lots of food because taking it back to their car simply wasn’t practical.
The backpack issue was far worse. I understand why the coliseum has this policy but considering what they allow in, it is simply stupid. You could bring in any kind of bag including briefcases, suitcases, you name it. The only type of bag prohibited was backpacks. Can anyone tell me how a backpack is more dangerous than a suitcase? Lots of people were forced to board buses and return to the parking lot with their backpacks. This cost them at minimum an hour and could have easily been avoided.
Numerous volunteers also brought backpacks because they were going to be there a long time. No one said anything about them coming in for the training and in many cases volunteers were fine. But in one case a volunteer who worked outside found himself unable to re-enter when it was time for the event to begin because of his backpack that he’d had all day.
What made it worse was the apparent lack of consistency in enforcement. One woman had a backpack style purse. It was clearly a purse but the fact that it had shoulder straps meant they were not going to let her in and she had to return to the parking lot with it. Yet another couple had what was clearly a backpack that they were using as a diaper bag. Officials decided to call it a diaper bag and let them in with it.
The coliseum seriously needs to revisit this policy. It makes no sense and is nothing more than rules overriding common sense. Rather than take responsibility for decisions, they prefer to set silly rules and hope it keeps everyone safe.
Here are my suggestions for the organizers. Get with the venue well ahead and make sure you know what their policies are and how they will be enforced. Once that is done, make sure those policies are spelled out in all event related materials including fliers, web site, etc. Give those who attend the opportunity to have as smooth an event as possible.
Make sure you have everything lined up for volunteers. While no one was seriously angry over having to go move cars, there was a general feeling that maybe organizers didn’t really know what they were doing.
Look at this event as a learning opportunity. Examine what went well and what did not and make appropriate adjustments. You pulled off an amazingly successful event but it could have been better still. If you take my advice it will be much better next time.
Thanks again for the opportunity to be a part of this rally. I enjoyed it and would do it again in a heartbeat.
Check back later today for debate observations and analysis.
Yesterday had so much to talk about that it’s difficult to sort it all out. Between the FairTax Rally and the GOP debate, I could write far more than most of you probably want to read. I’ve decided to break it all up into three posts. This post will deal with the FairTax Rally and its high points. The second post will deal with some of my criticisms of the FairTax rally and how they could make it better. Finally, I will write a post about the debate last night. I hope you will stick with me throughout.
As a volunteer at the FairTax rally I had to be there at 1:00 for training. That made for a long day but it was well worth it. There were about a dozen volunteers from Charleston that convoyed up together yesterday morning. We met at the rest area near mile marker 203 on I-26 and went up from there.
There were numerous speakers, some surprises. Of course Neal Boortz spoke several times along with Sean Hannity. Herman Cain was scheduled to speak but he was ill and could not make it. Predictably Boortz and Hannity were inspiring and really whipped up the crowd. If you haven’t heard Sean Hannity speak in person you’ve missed out. They guy is just good.
Neal Boortz told the audience about the new book he and John Lender are working on, The FairTax, Answering the Critics. He pointed out the the vast majority of criticism of the FairTax is actually criticism of things is doesn’t do or doesn’t involve. Boortz told the audience that the critics first lie about what the FairTax is then attack their false picture of the FairTax.
The goal of the rally was 10,000 people. I haven’t heard any official numbers but if they didn’t make it, they didn’t miss by much. There was a great crowd and everyone was excited. The general tenor was one of optimism and there was a concerted effort to convince supporters that the FairTax could become a reality this year! I don’t share that same optimism though I did come away convinced that it is at least possible. Prior to this rally I didn’t really think the FairTax was achievable at all.
The strangest part of the rally was when John Stossel spoke. I think most of the crowd was confused because Stossel didn’t really support the FairTax. Rather, he spoke about a flat tax. At one point someone in the crowd yelled out “FairTax” and there were a few hoots of supports. All in all the crowd just seemed confused. I found myself wondering if Stossel knew what rally he was at. As for the organizers, why didn’t they ensure that speakers would actually speak in support of the FairTax? Stossel didn’t, however, dampen the spirits of the crowd.
Unannounced speakers included Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee. Both spoke passionately about the FairTax and indicated they would work to implement it. Of the two, only Huckabee mentioned it in the debate and he went on at length when he did mention it.
The absolute highlight of the rally was the march. Everyone had a sign provided by rally organizers and we filed out of the coliseum en mass to march around the Koger Center. The looks on the faces of people outside was priceless. There was small groups of supporters of various candidates, none larger than a couple dozen people. Then here comes this massive crowd of close to 10,000 people all wearing white FairTax t-shirts and carrying FairTax signs, chanting in unison and marching all around the Koger Center. It was really an amazing sight. I’ll have some photos posted later in case your local news didn’t carry it. They certainly should have, there were TV cameras on use the whole time and at any given point in the march, it took at least 20 minutes for the whole crowd to pass.
Here are a couple of short videos of the march. The quality isn’t very good because I shot it with my cell phone but you can at least get an idea of what it was like.
I very much enjoyed the rally and I would encourage anyone who has the opportunity to attend one. Clearly support is building but that can only continue if more and more people join the movement.
Stay tuned later today for observations and analysis of the GOP debate.
Predictably, following the horror on the Virginia Tech campus yesterday, there are numerous calls for more strict gun control. The claim is that if we can just get guns out of people’s hands, senseless violence like this can be averted. This is a typical knee jerk reaction fueled entirely by emotion rather than reasoned assessment.
Ironically, a bill in the Virginia legislature, HB1572, never made it out of subcommittee. Virginia’s concealed carry laws exempt state college campuses from the right to carry a concealed weapon. HB1572 would have eliminated that exemption. Had HB1572 been passed into law, students and faculty who had concealed carry permits would have been able to carry a firearm on campus and very likely this crazed gunman would have been stopped long before he killed 32 students and faculty.
Gun control advocates operate under the assumption that gun control can somehow remove guns from the hands of criminals. The facts, however, contradict that assumption. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. We don’t have enough information at this juncture to know whether the gunman at Virginia Tech had a legal gun but the statistics say he probably did not.
The NRA’s magazine, The American Rifleman, has a column every month dedicated to recounting how legal gun owners stop crime. Case after case is listed where someone legally carrying a gun stops a crime and often kills a violent criminal before that criminal can harm innocent people. The statistics say that people who legally obtain and license hand guns either never use them against another person or use them in the prevention of a crime. It virtually never happens that a person with a legal gun uses that gun in the commission of a crime.
Conversely, criminals are not deterred by gun laws. The old saw is true that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. A gun in the hands the right person yesterday could have easily stopped this gunman before so many innocent students and faculty were killed or injured.
The calls for more gun control will continue for some time. The Democrat Party will attempt to use this horrible tragedy to advance their political agenda and increase their power. This event will be shamelessly politicized to an enormous degree.
If you want to see the true results of gun control, watch this YouTube video of congressional testimony.
This woman watched her parents be killed by another deranged gunman with an illegally obtained weapon while she was helpless to do anything about it because her right to carry a weapon had been abridged. She said she’d rather be in jail on a gun charge with her parents alive than free with her parents dead. I fully agree. An armed citizenry is the best defense against this kind of senseless violence. Don’t let this horrible tragedy goad you into the knee jerk reaction of more gun control. That is not a solution. It only makes us less safe.
We are taught that the police are there to protect us but in truth, the police cannot protect us and if pressed, they will admit as much. The police are in the business of solving crimes that have already been committed, not crime prevention. If we are to be safe in our schools, our neighborhoods and our homes, we must have the ability to protect ourselves. That is far more difficult if we are disarmed.
Rudy Giuliani has given conservatives more ammunition. In an interview on CNN Giuliani expressed his view of “strict constructionist” judges.
As you can see, Giuliani’s idea of strict constructionist doesn’t exactly match up with most conservatives. In his view, as with so many others on the court today, stare decisis trumps the Constitution! So bad law and bad jurisprudence should stand simply because it has been around a while?
If that view had prevailed in times past, separate but equal would still be the law of the land. The Dred Scott case would still be precedent! In my view, while stare decisis is important, it is not and should not be the final word.
Giuliani also stands by his positions on partial birth abortion and federal funding of abortions. He supports both. Oh he gives the standard, “I don’t like and want to see less of it” speech but the bottom line is, Giuliani supports all abortion at any time during pregnancy for any reason or no reason at all.
One is hard pressed to see how Giuliani can possibly get the Republican nomination with such views. Social conservatives are not likely to vote for him when they know his positions. While Giuliani has enjoyed an early lead, most voters haven’t really known where he stands on many issues. As more interviews like the one above are seen and read about by conservatives, Giuliani’s numbers will fall precipitously as conservatives realize that he is a social liberal. He does not stand a chance.
There was a time when I was a great supporter of James Dobson and Focus on the Family. He and his organization have done enormous good in the world and many people have been lead to Christ through their ministries. I still think Focus on the Family does some wonderful work but I’m starting to wonder about Dobson.
In a move I cannot fathom, Dobson called U.S. News and World Report senior editor Dan Gilgoff, apparently to discuss Thompson’s possible candidacy. Dobson said that, while Thompson is a conservative with good credentials, he’s not a Christian.
“Everyone knows he’s conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for,” Dobson said of Thompson. “[But] I don’t think he’s a Christian; at least that’s my impression,” Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party’s conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.
Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo said that Thompson is indeed a Christian and that he was baptized into the Church of Christ. According to the U.S. News article:
In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson’s claim. He said that, while Dobson didn’t believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless “has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian-someone who talks openly about his faith.”
“We use that word-Christian-to refer to people who are evangelical Christians,” Schneeberger added. “Dr. Dobson wasn’t expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to ‘read the tea leaves’ about such a possibility.”
After accusing Thompson of not being a Christian, Dobson went on to all but endorse Newt Gingrich, calling him the “brightest guy out there.”
Now I’ve been a fan of Gingrich for years. I think he’s incredibly intelligent and few people understand the challenges we face as a nation like he does. I would not have a problem with a Gingrich presidency. But Gingrich has some pretty heavy baggage for the average evangelical to get past. In my opinion Gingrich would find it very difficult to get elected. Likely he couldn’t even get nominated.
Thompson, on the other hand, has nothing like the baggage Gingrich has. And, as Dobson admitted, he has excellent conservative credentials. He would serve the country well while supporting a pro family agenda.
One of the problems evangelicals have faced is the need to support a perfect candidate. Anything less is simply unacceptable. The result of that kind of thinking has been the steady loss of freedoms in this country. It has taken years to get where we are as a nation and it isn’t going to be fixed overnight. An all or nothing approach will guarantee that it never gets fixed.
James Dobson needs to take a long hard look at his political involvement. Most of the blogs I’ve seen commenting on this have been left leaning blogs and they haven’t been kind to Dobson. Mine is clearly not a left leaning blog and I am a strong evangelical. I have real problems with Dobson right now and I’m sure there will be others on the right who also have a problem with him.
Conservatives, whether evangelical Christian or not, want to see this country restored to a Constitutional republic. Fred Thompson looks like a man who can move us in that direction. If James Dobson doesn’t think Thompson is outspoken enough about his faith, that’s really too bad. Some people think Dobson is too outspoken. Sometimes I wonder if Dobson really does want a theocracy in America.
Dr. Dobson, perhaps you should stick to family issues. Perhaps it’s time to get out of politics altogether.
There is a blog that many Christians are probably unaware of. Its title is God’s Politics and its author is Jim Wallis. Wallis is a liberal who believes in using scripture to support his views. While I have no reason to think Wallis is less than sincere, I also strongly disapprove of his approach to scripture. Wallis is, apparently, very enamored with the “social gospel” and believes that every social disparity is an affront to God. The minimum wage is the latest front in his larger social justice battle.
In his blog Wallis claims that God Hates Inequality. Referring to the Senate vote to increase the minimum wage, Wallis says, “this is a good vote.” He goes on to make quite a claim. “It’s a political fact now that faith communities across the board, very widely, are in favor of increasing the minimum wage. Why is that? What’s the theological foundation behind that? We don’t just do politics; we do politics because of our faith.”
Interesting. The last part of that statement sounds very much like my own claim. I’ve often said that my political views flow directly from my religious beliefs. I’m not in a position to determine whether Wallis’ claim is as justified as I believe mine is. What I will claim is that Wallis has no problem taking scripture out of context and twisting it to fit his view of social justice. In support of his view on the minimum wage Wallis quotes from Isaiah:
What does the Bible have to say about the minimum wage?
The prophet Isaiah said: “my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain…” (65:22-23).
Does this passage support Wallis’ position? The broader passage is Isaiah 65: 17-25. The subject of the passage is the new heaven and new earth that God will one day create. Here is the full text of that passage.
17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. 18 But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create;for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness. 19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress. 20 No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. 21 They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. 23 They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them. 24 Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear. 25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,”says the LORD.
ESV
Clearly this passage has nothing at all to do with minimum wage or economics in this world. Or should Congress pass legislation requiring lions and lambs to lie down together and requiring lions to eat hay?
Wallis’ next attempt to justify his views on biblical grounds comes from the book of James.
James, who was the sibling of Jesus, and probably knew what his brother thought about things pretty well, said: “Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you have kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord.”
The passage is James 5:4. Here the brother of Jesus is addressing the church, not the Roman government. James is chastising Christians for not paying their laborers what they agreed to pay. One might make a case from this passage that Christian employers should pay more than minimum wage but that’s about it. Certainly this has nothing to do with the law. Indeed, Jesus himself had something to say about wages. In Mathew 20 Jesus said:
Matt 20:1-15
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ 5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ 8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’
ESV
Clearly this parable does not support Wallis’ view of inequity. Jesus presents a picture of one employer paying different people the same wage for different amounts of work. The question is not whether it seems fair, the question is did each person agree to do certain work for certain wages? The answer is yes and, apparently, Jesus did not see inequity in it. This flies in the face of Wallis’ view and his use of scripture.
I oppose ANY minimum wage and I do so, at least in part, on my religious convictions. Because I know something about economics I understand that any increase in the minimum wage will inevitably result in higher unemployment precisely among those who can least afford it. That’s just simple economics and it has played out over and over. But more than that, I object to Wallis and others who are willing to do violence to the facts to persuade others to their position.
Time after time we hear claims about people trying to support families on the minimum wage. This simply isn’t the case. The overwhelming majority of minimum wage workers are entry level employees who are supporting no one. They have no work skills and so have little value in the market place. They are “paying their dues” by accepting low wages for the personal benefit of learning a work ethic. They are learning how to work and hold a job and be a good employee.
Yes, there are some few people who are trying to make a living at minimum wage. Usually they are they because of their own choices. But even those people do not remain at minimum wage if they are motivated to be good employees and work hard. Anyone who is stuck in a minimum wage job for any length of time has no one but himself to blame. The Apostle Paul had a few things to say about work.
Eph 4:28
8 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.
ESV1 Thess 4:10-12
But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, 11 and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, 12 so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.
ESV2 Thess 3:10-12
10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work , let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work , but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
ESV
Paul said the man who would not work should not eat. I submit that the employee who will not give a days work to his employer for a days wages is a thief! And Wallis wants to increase the minimum wage and justifies that position with scripture. He may be entirely sincere but he is sincerely wrong.
Opinion Journal today has a piece with the unappealing title Tithe and Spend Republicans. The ostensible subject of the piece is Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee who is a Baptist Pastor and self proclaimed conservative. Huckabee, however, seems to believe that the state should be the vehicle for carrying out Christian charity. From the article:
So while Huckabee favors President Bush’s capital gains tax cuts, he also wonders if his faith “confuses Republicans who are only concerned about how we preserve wealth.” He is for a flat tax while also advocating increased funding for arts education, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and an enlarged government role in preventive health care.
This, it seems, is the logical extension of “compassionate conservatism,” the bane of true conservatives. President Bush has surely had evangelicals on board with him when it comes to his pro-life stance and tax cuts. But every conservative I know laments the fact that Bush and the Republican Congress presided over the largest expansion of the federal government since LBJ with dubious items like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit.
As a Christian I am all for carrying out Christ’s desire for us to care for the poor. Where I differ is in the approach. First, I think Jesus directed His intentions at individual Christians and churches, not governments. One look at how (in)efficiently governments handle social programs is all one needs to understand why.
The government itself warns individuals to check out charities before contributing to them to ensure that most of the money collected actually goes to the purpose for which the charity exists. When more than 50% or money raised goes to overhead, it is generally a bad idea to contribute to that charity. Well if the government could approach 50% efficiency I’d be astounded. Charity should be the work of legitimate charities who are equipped to do the job, not the government.
While America is the most giving nation on earth, Americans are hampered in their ability to give because of confiscatory taxes. Churches and other charities have less to devote to helping the poor because their members have less to give. Add to that the compelling notion that we don’t need to give to charities because the government will take care of the poor and you have a problem. Huckabee’s stint as governor is a case in point. In oder to pay for his compassionate conservatism, he had to increase taxes. He went from being “one the best governors in America to one of the worst.”
President Bush, Mike Huckabee and others like them are not conservatives. They don’t seem to understand what a conservative is. And, in my view, they have misinterpreted the scriptural mandate to feed the poor. I agree with Huckabee that when we prevent a baby from being aborted we need to be concerned about the life that child will have. I part company with him on how that should be approached. Using the government as the vehicle for assistance relieves the Christian of the responsibility for providing assistance. And unlike most charities, government assistance too often comes without accountability which amounts to no help at all because it often encourages the behaviors that caused the need in the first place.
Generally speaking conservatives, whether Christian or not, have a desire to help those who genuinely need help. But Conservatives understand that help should be provided in the most efficient way possible. At the least that allows for more people to be helped and if it’s done properly, those who really need help will not continue to need help in perpetuity.
Matt 25:34-41says:
34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
ESV
What we have to understand is that this is a call to individual Christians. It is not a call to enact government programs. It is a call for individuals to voluntarily give of their treasure to help others. It is not a call to take anyone’s treasure against his will in order to help others. Charity is only charity when it comes voluntarily from the heart. And “help” provided by a faceless institution will never be the equal of help provided by loving individuals providing that help because they love their neighbor.
