Thursday, November 04, 2004

What Does the Election Mean?

On Tuesday, George Bush won re-election and the Republicans gained seats in both the House and Senate. What does it all mean?

Well, the first thing that must be conceded is that the Republicans have gotten better at politics, even as they’ve gotten worse on policy. There is no longer a conservative party in Washington, there is only a left-wing Republican Party, which has endorsed the foreign policy of Wilson and the domestic policy of LBJ, and a wacky Democratic party that is, as Tom Fleming says, a party of “baby-killers, illegal immigrants, welfare dependents, and ghouls who want to become immortal by consuming dead babies.” (Shortly after this, by the way, Fleming writes that paleos “are going to have to drop some of their (and my) apocalyptic rhetoric, denying all legitimacy to the state and insisting on a simon-pure anti-abortion litmus test.”)

Nevertheless, Tom Delay should be congratulated for playing hardball and knocking off several Democrat incumbents in Texas, and Rove and company must be applauded for getting their voters to the polls, not only winning the popular vote, but also knocking off the likes of minority leader Tom Daschle.

The most depressing thing about the election is what it says about the state of evangelical Christianity. By some estimates, Evangelicals accounted for up to 1/3 of the electorate. The so-called “Christian Right” has now become an appendage of the Republican Party. And they’ve sold their souls for less than thirty pieces of silver.

One example of the silliness in Christian circles was this essay by Albert Mohler. In an otherwise concise and sharp discussion of recent political history, Mohler made the following statement:

Clearly, issues as basic as the sanctity of human life and the integrity of marriage are at stake in today's election. With one presidential candidate [Senator John Kerry] bragging of being the most pro-homosexual candidate in the nation's history, and the other candidate [President George W. Bush] pledging to support a Federal Marriage Amendment, the choice is clear. Similarly, Senator Kerry has made his advocacy of embryonic stem-cell research a centerpiece of his campaign, pledging to put American tax dollars into the business of creating and
destroying human embryos in the name of medical research. President George W. Bush, on the other hand, stands by the policy he established in August of 2001, which prevents any further destruction of human embryos through taxpayer-supported research. Once again, the choice is clear. Taking into
account also the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and fundamental questions about the nation's foreign policy, it seems safe to conclude that the stakes could hardly be higher.
Let’s get it straight--George Bush is not pro-life. Don’t believe me? Look for yourself. Would a president operating by Biblical precepts financially support, with tax dollars, the murderers at Planned Parenthood? When you’re done with the chart, read more about how THIS administration has funded abortion using Medicaid provisions that provide Planned Parenthood with nearly $100 million dollars annually. Will you be reading about that from the lackeys at ‘Right to Life,’ who are declaring victory even as they are ginning up the fund-raising machine? As Judy Brown says:

The malaise that will accompany Mr. Bush's re-election, I fear, will eat away at the edges of the pro-life battle without generating a clear victory for the personhood of every innocent human being. The definition of what it means to be pro-life will take another hit. Due to decay from within, this could spell the end of what we have known as the pro-life movement.
On the radio on election day, an apoplectic Mohler denounced an articulate caller questioning Bush’s pro-life credentials by spitting that “George Bush is the only reason” that taxpayer moneys are not used to fund stem-cell research. Is he joking? In his speech to the nation on the matter, the President said, “I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and- death decision has already been made.” What he effectively said at that moment is that scientists who killed babies to do research would be rewarded with federal boodle. What this amounted to, as Dr. Mohler, an intelligent and Godly man, must know, was the federal government giving its imprimatur to the support of research that benefited some while relying on the destruction of human life. The slippery slope logic employed here leads straight to the abomination of the citizens of California voting to use tax dollars to support similar “research.”

Neither is Mr. Bush committed to protecting marriage. In fact, while Mohler claims that John Kerry would have been the most pro-homosexual president in U. S. history, George Bush already HAS BEEN the most pro-homosexual president in U. S. history. Moreover, though he supported a phony and unnecessary Constitutional amendment, Bush has spoken in favor of states allowing civil unions and condemned the Republican platform for its opposition to such arrangements.

Nor is their anything particularly Christian or conservative about administration foreign policy. Data produced by John’s Hopkins and published by the British medical journal Lancet indicate that over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the beginning of the war. Let’s sum up the Iraq war quickly: 1,124 dead and 8,100 wounded American servicemen, 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, $200 + billion down the rat hole, no WMDs, no ties to Osama, no end in sight

Meanwhile, as Glen Chancy has argued, far from waging an intelligent battle against militant Islam, the U. S. is actually crippling some of the oldest Christian communities in the world. That Christians were better off in Iraq before the war is an obvious truth ignored by the media and Bush-backing Evangelicals who seem more preoccupied with Israel’s security than the plight of Christians who are facing the Islamic horde. As Chancy says, “Perhaps if the Assyrians and others renounced Christ and embraced the Talmud, American Christians would care what happens to them?”

Mr. Bush has said that, "The establishment of a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. Our commitment to the global expansion of the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror is...the third pillar of security." Bush’s utopianism was on display even today at his first press conference since the election when he continued to defend democratist idolatry to the assembled masses of the Washington press corps. This Wilsonian pabulum is little more than a glossy democratic imperialism that will bleed us dry and isolate America from the world. The administration has staked American credibility to a war we cannot win and a cause (i.e., democratism) that has no support among our people. The election has, alas, been a vindication of the War Party.

Is there any good news? Yes, there is. Ultimately, we serve a sovereign God who is in control. And, heck, we can always pray for gridlock. The last three presidents who won re-election were saturated with scandal in their second terms. Given that the Israeli spy scandal, the Plame case, the “yellow cake” debacle, the lack of WMDs, Haliburton’s contracts, etc. are still out there, there is always the possibility that though the electorate did not hold the Bushies accountable, perhaps the courts will.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home