The Myth of the Racist Republicans
The Claremont Institute
Books Discussed in this Essay:
The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South, by Joseph A. Aistrup.
The Rise of Southern Republicans, by Earl Black and Merle Black.
From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963-1994, by Dan T. Carter.
A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow, by David L. Chappell.
The Emerging Republican Majority, by Kevin Phillips.
A myth about conservatism is circulating in academia and journalism and has spread to the 2004 presidential campaign. It goes something like this: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist; therefore, the GOP is racist. Sometimes the conclusion is softened, and Republicans are convicted merely of base opportunism: the GOP is the party that became willing to pander to racists. Either way, today’s Republican Party—and by extension the conservative movement at its heart—supposedly has revealed something terrible about itself.
This myth is not the only viewpoint in scholarly debates on the subject. But it is testimony to its growing influence that it is taken aboard by writers like Dan Carter, a prize-winning biographer of George Wallace, and to a lesser extent by the respected students of the South, Earl and Merle Black. It is so pervasive in mass media reporting on racial issues that an NBC news anchor can casually speak of “a new era for the Republican Party, one in which racial intolerance really won’t be tolerated.” It has become a staple of Democratic politicians like Howard Dean, who accuses Republicans of “dividing Americans against each other, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst in people” through the use of so-called racist “codewords.” All this matters because people use such putative connections to form judgments, and “racist” is as toxic a reputation as one can have in U.S. politics. Certainly the 2000 Bush campaign went to a lot of trouble to combat the GOP’s reputation as racially exclusionary. I even know young Republicans who fear that behind their party’s victories lies a dirty, not-so-little Southern secret.
Now to be sure, the GOP had a Southern strategy. Willing to work with, rather than against, the grain of Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationist candidates in the 1960s. And from the 1950s on, virtually all national and local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters. This record is incontestable. It is also not much of a story—that a party acted expediently in an often nasty political context.
The new myth is much bolder than this. It insists that these events should decisively shape our understanding of conservatism and the modern Republican Party. Dan Carter writes that today’s conservatism must be traced directly back to the “politics of rage” that George Wallace blended from “racial fear, anticommunism, cultural nostalgia, and traditional right-wing economics.” Another scholar, Joseph Aistrup, claims that Reagan’s 1980 Southern coalition was “the reincarnation of the Wallace movement of 1968.” For the Black brothers, the GOP had once been the “party of Abraham Lincoln,” but it became the “party of Barry Goldwater,” opposed to civil rights and black interests. It is only a short step to the Democrats’ insinuation that the GOP is the latest exploiter of the tragic, race-based thread of U.S. history. In short, the GOP did not merely seek votes expediently; it made a pact with America’s devil.
The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP’s policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South’s dominant party in the least racist phase of the region’s history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.
Let’s start with policies. Like many others, Carter and the Black brothers argue that the GOP appealed to Southern racism not explicitly but through “coded” racial appeals. Carter is representative of many when he says that Wallace’s racialism can be seen, varying in style but not substance, in “Goldwater’s vote against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, in Richard Nixon’s subtle manipulation of the busing issue, in Ronald Reagan’s genial demolition of affirmative action, in George Bush’s use of the Willie Horton ads, and in Newt Gingrich’s demonization of welfare mothers.”
The problem here is that Wallace’s segregationism was obviously racist, but these other positions are not obviously racist. This creates an analytic challenge that these authors do not meet. If an illegitimate viewpoint (racism) is hidden inside another viewpoint, that second view—to be a useful hiding place—must be one that can be held for entirely legitimate (non-racist) reasons. Conservative intellectuals might not always linger long enough on the fact that opposition to busing and affirmative action can be disguised racism. On the other hand, these are also positions that principled non-racists can hold. To be persuasive, claims of coding must establish how to tell which is which. Racial coding is often said to occur when voters are highly prone to understanding a non-racist message as a proxy for something else that is racist. This may have happened in 1964, when Goldwater, who neither supported segregation nor called for it, employed the term “states’ rights,” which to many whites in the Deep South implied the continuation of Jim Crow.
The problem comes when we try to extend this forward. Black and Black try to do this by showing that Nixon and Reagan crafted positions on busing, affirmative action, and welfare reform in a political climate in which many white voters doubted the virtues of preferential hiring, valued individual responsibility, and opposed busing as intrusive. To be condemned as racist “code,” the GOP’s positions would have to come across as proxies for these views -and in turn these views would have to be racist. The problem is that these views are not self-evidently racist. Many scholars simply treat them as if they were. Adding insult to injury, usually they don’t even pause to identify when views like opposition to affirmative action would not be racist.
In effect, these critics want to have it both ways: they acknowledge that these views could in principle be non-racist (otherwise they wouldn’t be a “code” for racism) but suggest they never are in practice (and so can be reliably treated as proxies for racism). The result is that their claims are non-falsifiable because they are tautological: these views are deemed racist because they are defined as racist. This amounts to saying that opposition to the policies favored by today’s civil rights establishment is a valid indicator of racism. One suspects these theorists would, quite correctly, insist that people can disagree with the Israeli government without being in any way anti-Semitic. But they do not extend the same distinction to this issue. This is partisanship posturing as social science.
The Southern Strategy
This bias is evident also in how differently they treat the long Democratic dominance of the South. Carter and the Black brothers suggest that the accommodation of white racism penetrates to the very soul of modern conservatism. But earlier generations of openly segregationist Southerners voted overwhelmingly for Woodrow Wilson’s and Franklin Roosevelt’s Democratic Party, which relaxed its civil rights stances accordingly. This coalition passed much of the New Deal legislation that remains the basis of modern liberalism. So what does the segregationist presence imply for the character of liberalism at its electoral and legislative apogee? These scholars sidestep the question by simply not discussing it. This silence implies that racism and liberalism were simply strange political bedfellows, without any common values.
But the commonality, the philosophical link, is swiftly identified once the Democrats leave the stage. In study after study, authors say that “racial and economic conservatism” married white Southerners to the GOP after 1964. So whereas historically accidental events must have led racists to vote for good men like FDR, after 1964 racists voted their conscience. How convenient. And how easy it would be for, say, a libertarian conservative like Walter Williams to generate a counter-narrative that exposes statism as the philosophical link between segregation and liberalism’s economic populism.
Yet liberal commentators commit a further, even more obvious, analytic error. They assume that if many former Wallace voters ended up voting Republican in the 1970s and beyond, it had to be because Republicans went to the segregationist mountain, rather than the mountain coming to them. There are two reasons to question this assumption. The first is the logic of electoral competition. Extremist voters usually have little choice but to vote for a major party which they consider at best the lesser of two evils, one that offers them little of what they truly desire. Segregationists were in this position after 1968, when Wallace won less than 9% of the electoral college and Nixon became president anyway, without their votes. Segregationists simply had very limited national bargaining power. In the end, not the Deep South but the GOP was the mountain.
Second, this was borne out in how little the GOP had to “offer,” so to speak, segregationists for their support after 1968, even according to the myth’s own terms. Segregationists wanted policies that privileged whites. In the GOP, they had to settle for relatively race-neutral policies: opposition to forced busing and reluctant coexistence with affirmative action. The reason these policies aren’t plausible codes for real racism is that they aren’t the equivalents of discrimination, much less of segregation.
Why did segregationists settle for these policies rather than continue to vote Democratic? The GOP’s appeal was mightily aided by none other than the Democratic Party itself, which was lurching leftward in the 1970s, becoming, as the contemporary phrase had it, the party of “acid, amnesty, and abortion.” Among other things, the Democrats absorbed a civil rights movement that was itself expanding, and thus diluting, its agenda to include economic redistributionism, opposition to the Vietnam War, and Black Power. The many enthusiasms of the new Democratic Party drove away suburban middle-class voters almost everywhere in the country, not least the South.
Given that trend, the GOP did not need to become the party of white solidarity in order to attract more voters. The fact that many former Wallace supporters ended up voting Republican says a lot less about the GOP than it does about segregationists’ collapsing political alternatives. Kevin Phillips was hardly coy about this in his Emerging Republican Majority. He wrote in 1969 that Nixon did not “have to bid much ideologically” to get Wallace’s electorate, given its limited power, and that moderation was far more promising for the GOP than anything even approaching a racialist strategy. While “the Republican Party cannot go to the Deep South”—meaning the GOP simply would not offer the policies that whites there seemed to desire most—”the Deep South must soon go to the national GOP,” regardless.
Electoral Patterns
In all these ways, the gop appears as the national party of the middle-class, not of white solidarity. And it is this interpretation, and not the myth, that is supported by the voting results. The myth’s proponents highlight, and distort, a few key electoral facts: Southern white backlash was most heated in the 1960s, especially in the Deep South. It was then and there that the GOP finally broke through in the South, on the strength of Goldwater’s appeals to states’ rights. Democrats never again won the votes of most Southern whites. So Goldwater is said to have provided the electoral model for the GOP.
But hidden within these aggregate results are patterns that make no sense if white solidarity really was the basis for the GOP’s advance. These patterns concern which Southern votes the GOP attracted, and when. How did the GOP’s Southern advance actually unfold? We can distinguish between two sub-regions. The Peripheral South—Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas—contained many growing, urbanizing “New South” areas and much smaller black populations. Race loomed less large in its politics. In the more rural, and poorer, Deep South—Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana —black communities were much larger, and racial conflict was much more acute in the 1950s and ’60s. Tellingly, the presidential campaigns of Strom Thurmond, Goldwater, and Wallace all won a majority of white votes in the Deep South but lost the white vote in the Peripheral South.
The myth that links the GOP with racism leads us to expect that the GOP should have advanced first and most strongly where and when the politics of white solidarity were most intense. The GOP should have entrenched itself first among Deep South whites and only later in the Periphery. The GOP should have appealed at least as much, if not more, therefore, to the less educated, working-class whites who were not its natural voters elsewhere in the country but who were George Wallace’s base. The GOP should have received more support from native white Southerners raised on the region’s traditional racism than from white immigrants to the region from the Midwest and elsewhere. And as the Southern electorate aged over the ensuing decades, older voters should have identified as Republicans at higher rates than younger ones raised in a less racist era.
Each prediction is wrong. The evidence suggests that the GOP advanced in the South because it attracted much the same upwardly mobile (and non-union) economic and religious conservatives that it did elsewhere in the country.
Take presidential voting. Under FDR, the Democrats successfully assembled a daunting, cross-regional coalition of presidential voters. To compete, the GOP had to develop a broader national outreach of its own, which meant adding a Southern strategy to its arsenal. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower took his campaign as national hero southward. He, like Nixon in 1960, polled badly among Deep South whites. But Ike won four states in the Peripheral South. This marked their lasting realignment in presidential voting. From 1952 to the Clinton years, Virginia reverted to the Democrats only once, Florida and Tennessee twice, and Texas—except when native-son LBJ was on the ballot—only twice, narrowly. Additionally, since 1952, North Carolina has consistently either gone Republican or come within a few percentage points of doing so.
In other words, states representing over half the South’s electoral votes at the time have been consistently in play from 1952 on—since before Brown v. Board of Education, before Goldwater, before busing, and when the Republicans were the mainstay of civil rights bills. It was this which dramatically changed the GOP’s presidential prospects. The GOP’s breakthrough came in the least racially polarized part of the South. And its strongest supporters most years were “New South” urban and suburban middle- and upper-income voters. In 1964, as we’ve seen, Goldwater did the opposite: winning in the Deep South but losing the Peripheral South. But the pre-Goldwater pattern re-emerged soon afterward. When given the option in 1968, Deep South whites strongly preferred Wallace, and Nixon became president by winning most of the Peripheral South instead. From 1972 on, GOP presidential candidates won white voters at roughly even rates in the two sub-regions, sometimes slightly more in the Deep South, sometimes not. But by then, the Deep South had only about one-third of the South’s total electoral votes; so it has been the Periphery, throughout, that provided the bulk of the GOP’s Southern presidential support.
The GOP’s congressional gains followed the same pattern. Of course, it was harder for Republicans to win in Deep South states where Democratic-leaning black electorates were larger. But even when we account for that, the GOP became the dominant party of white voters much earlier in the Periphery than it did in the Deep South. Before Goldwater, the GOP’s few Southern House seats were almost all in the Periphery (as was its sole Senator—John Tower of Texas). Several Deep South House members were elected with Goldwater but proved ephemeral, as Black and Black note: “Republicans lost ground and stalled in the Deep South for the rest of the decade,” while in the Periphery they “continued to make incremental gains.” In the 1960s and ’70s, nearly three-quarters of GOP House victories were in the Peripheral rather than the Deep South, with the GOP winning twice as often in urban as rural districts. And six of the eight different Southern Republican Senators elected from 1961 to 1980 were from the Peripheral South. GOP candidates tended consistently to draw their strongest support from the more educated, middle- and upper-income white voters in small cities and suburbs. In fact, Goldwater in 1964—at least his Deep South performance, which is all that was controversial in this regard—was an aberration, not a model for the GOP.
Writers who vilify the GOP’s Southern strategy might be surprised to find that all of this was evident, at least in broad brush-strokes, to the strategy’s early proponents. In his well-known book, Kevin Phillips drew the lesson that a strong appeal in the Deep South, on the model of 1964, had already entailed and would entail defeat for the GOP everywhere else, including in what he termed the Outer South. He therefore rejected such an approach. He emphasized that Ike and Nixon did far better in the Peripheral South. He saw huge opportunities in the “youthful middle-class” of Texas, Florida, and other rapidly growing and changing Sun Belt states, where what he called “acutely Negrophobe politics” was weakest, not strongest. He thus endorsed “evolutionary success in the Outer South” as the basis of the GOP’s “principal party strategy” for the region, concluding that this would bring the Deep South along in time, but emphatically on the national GOP’s terms, not the segregationists’.
The tension between the myth and voting data escalates if we consider change across time. Starting in the 1950s, the South attracted millions of Midwesterners, Northeasterners, and other transplants. These “immigrants” identified themselves as Republicans at higher rates than native whites. In the 1980s, up to a quarter of self-declared Republicans in Texas appear to have been such immigrants. Furthermore, research consistently shows that identification with the GOP is stronger among the South’s younger rather than older white voters, and that each cohort has also became more Republican with time. Do we really believe immigrants (like George H.W. Bush, who moved with his family to Texas) were more racist than native Southerners, and that younger Southerners identified more with white solidarity than did their elders, and that all cohorts did so more by the 1980s and ’90s than they had earlier?
In sum, the GOP’s Southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the most stagnant parts of the Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, younger, non-native-Southern, and concentrated in the growth-points that were, so to speak, the least “Southern” parts of the South. This is a very strange way to reincarnate George Wallace’s movement.
The Decline of Racism
Timing may provide the greatest gap between the myth and the actual unfolding of events. Only in the 1980s did more white Southerners self-identify as Republicans than as Democrats, and only in the mid-1990s did Republicans win most Southern House seats and become competitive in most state legislatures. So if the GOP’s strength in the South only recently reached its zenith, and if its appeal were primarily racial in nature, then the white Southern electorate (or at least most of it) would have to be as racist as ever. But surely one of the most important events in Southern political history is the long-term decline of racism among whites. The fact that these (and many other) books suggest otherwise shows that the myth is ultimately based on a demonization not of the GOP but of Southerners, who are indeed assumed to have Confederate flags in their hearts if not on their pickups. This view lends The Rise of Southern Republicans a schizophrenic nature: it charts numerous changes in the South, but its organizing categories are predicated on the unsustainable assumption that racial views remain intact.
What’s more, the trend away from confident beliefs in white supremacy may have begun earlier than we often think. David Chappell, a historian of religion, argues that during the height of the civil rights struggle, segregationists were denied the crucial prop of religious legitimacy. Large numbers of pastors of diverse denominations concluded that there was no Biblical foundation for either segregation or white superiority. Although many pastors remained segregationist anyway, the official shift was startling: “Before the Supreme Court’s [Brown v. Board] decision of 1954, the southern Presbyterians. . . and, shortly after the decision, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) overwhelmingly passed resolutions supporting desegregation and calling on all to comply with it peacefully. . . . By 1958 all SBC seminaries accepted black applicants.” With considerable understatement, Chappell notes that “people—even historians—are surprised to hear this.” Billy Graham, the most prominent Southern preacher, was openly integrationist.
The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region’s dominant party in the least racist phase of the South’s entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region’s growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth’s shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers’.
Entrepreneurs: The Real “Peace Prize” Winners
Mises Daily: Monday, November 2, 2009 by Chris Brown
We live in ludicrous times of rewarding good appearance for evil action. President Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while his war efforts intensify. But those who are true promoters of peace need attention, for they will never likely receive such ostentatious recognition for their noble efforts. Such individuals are those who take risks in a world of uncertainty, and who save or borrow capital to start a business. Such entrepreneurs promote peace by serving the customer better than the next entrepreneur through voluntary transactions in the market, rather than commanding bureaucracy in government.
As part of my entrepreneurship courses, I have students who want to start their own business listen to new entrepreneurs discuss their background, their reasons for starting the business, and of their effort to establish the business. Students usually find these speakers fascinating and inspiring, but also come away with a sense of the enormous amount of effort, capital, risk, and uncertainty that is involved in starting a business. Many of these students decide they no longer want to start their own business. They realize that entrepreneurs, too, have a boss: the customer. Mises put it this way: “Ownership of the means of production is not a privilege, but a social liability.”
One speaker, a recent founder of a small Mexican restaurant (which are not common in Australia), saved his money over 20 years and then took out a bank loan of AU$1 million dollars, with his house and car as collateral. It took him over a year to write a business plan, find a suitable location, develop a menu, hire employees, and create marketing materials before he could open to the public.
Some of this time was wasted dealing with local-council–government officials, to whom he had to pay AU$25,000 just to open his restaurant. Delays in approval by government bureaucrats meant paying rent of AU$7,000 a month for several months on an empty restaurant. This entrepreneur said dealing with local government was the most difficult and discouraging battle he had to face. (Getting credit from banks, he said, was not a problem.)
This entrepreneur still works seven days a week, from morning until evening, to get the business established. After six months, and still not at a break-even point, he realized his business is only as good as the next day’s sales. As Mises said, “There is no security and no such thing as a right to preserve any position acquired in the past.” (Human Action, p. 311)
He knows he has to continually innovate through better quality products and services, better management of operations and resources, and more accurate pricing. He also realizes his competitors next door are trying to do the same.
Students inevitably ask him if he would do it again, knowing how difficult it is to establish a business, and after having some of the myths surrounding entrepreneurship contradicted by the founder’s experience. “Definitely,” he confidently responds, “… if you see the risk perhaps you shouldn’t start the business. I was so passionate about Mexican food I saw an opportunity.” This founder is passionate about serving customers Mexican food — an action so simple, so peaceful, and so far removed from force and war.
Such efforts, in my opinion, are not merely bordering on heroic, but are no doubt worthy of a peace prize. I cannot help but point out how absurd it is — in contrast to the voluntary, coordinating, and peaceful actions of entrepreneurs — for virtually any political bureaucrat to receive an award that has anything to do with peace. It is the seemingly small efforts of millions of hardworking, passionate entrepreneurs who make it difficult to understand why a peace prize still goes to someone who lives off the fruits of entrepreneurs’ efforts. Not only does President Obama depend on the force of taxes for his position, but he also decides how much and what to spend on with others’ money. Government merely consumes the efforts and capital of individuals. To award a political bureaucrat for this is to add insult to injury.
President Obama is not only engaged in foreign wars with some nations; he is engaged in economic wars with nearly every nation, including his own, through trade barriers and inflation, which often lead to actual war. Ludwig von Mises provided great insight on this issue. Mises realized the link between foreign trade wars and foreign wars. When countries are trading freely and frequently there is less need to protect them with soldiers and go to war over resources. When entrepreneurs are allowed to engage in production and exchange, the economic incentives to initiate war and conquest are minimized. Mises put this idea succinctly when he wrote: “War is the alternative to freedom of foreign investment as realized by the international capital market.” (Human Action, p. 502)
Murray Rothbard also recognized the likely outcomes of political intervention versus the market process:
It would be almost inevitable for such an autistic world [exchange involving coercion without receiving anything in return] to be strongly marked by violence and perpetual war. Since each man could gain from his fellows only at their expense, violence would be prevalent, and it seems highly likely that feelings of mutual hostility would be dominant. (Man, Economy, and State, p. 101)
Contrast this with the individual sovereignty found in the marketplace. Entrepreneurs only reap profits by offering something that individuals will buy voluntarily. They obviously cannot force anyone to buy their product. If they knew ex ante that their product had guaranteed demand, there would be little risk. And if entrepreneurs do not satisfy the consumer, they take a loss. Sustained losses (without government support) lead to the entrepreneur shutting down unprofitable operations. Government, paradoxically, rewards its losses with more funding and more labor.
In contrast, about the likely social outcomes of the market process Rothbard wrote,
On the other hand, in a world of voluntary social cooperation through mutually beneficial exchanges, where one man’s gain is another man’s gain, it is obvious that great scope is provided for the development of social sympathy and human friendships. It is the peaceful, cooperative society that creates favorable conditions for feelings of friendship among men. (Man, Economy, and State, p. 101)
The more entrepreneurs can engage in peaceful and coordinating actions that try to satisfy demands of consumers, the less likely war is made. Surely, noble entrepreneurs who contribute to the peaceful and voluntary exchange of property as part of the coordinating market process are worthy of peace awards. Political bureaucrats, who act as parasites on the rewards of such entrepreneurs, should be disqualified by their very nature.
_________________________
Chris Brown is a lecturer at the Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship at Swinburne University. He also centrally plans the Austro-libertarian blog. Send him mail. See Chris Brown’s article archives. Comment on the blog.
Voting and Christian Citizenship
Written by Byron Barlowe
Summary
It is both a sacred duty and privilege for Christians to serve as citizens who salt (preserve) and light (illumine) our culture. Americans have inherited a government system based solidly on a biblical worldview, but one that also tolerates and protects other viewpoints. Truly humble, tolerant political engagement does not equal spiritual compromise. Christians found out how seductive political power can be in the 1980s and need to resist the pull of compromise. God doesn’t take sides; we need to make sure we’re on His side.
Although a strongly biblical candidate may be ideal, that’s not often a realistic option. Instead, we must use our sanctified minds to prayerfully choose between imperfect candidates—who are not, after all, seeking pastoral positions. Believers have a duty to vote our values. How else would we vote? Our calling: not to force those values on others in a free society, but to honor the privileges of citizenship, including legitimate political influence, and to vote our convictions.
Christian Citizenship: A Duty and Privilege
One pundit wrote fifteen months before the 2008 election, “If you’re not already weary of the 2008 presidential campaign . . . you must be living in a cave…. The campaign began the day after the 2004 election, making this the first non-stop presidential campaign in history. The media, desperate to sustain interest in the horse race, pursue such earth-shattering stories as: ‘Which candidate owns the most pets?’”{1}
Then, a new kind of Internet-age debate featured Democratic presidential candidates responding to home-grown videos posted to YouTube.com by members of the public. Among them: two Tennesseans dressed like hillbillies and a snowman, ostensibly concerned about global warming!
Hard to take politics seriously given all of the theater, isn’t it? But political engagement—including voting—is a God-given, blood-bought right that Christians must take seriously. We are called by the Lord Jesus to be preserving salt and illuminating light in our culture. And it’s not just presidential races that matter.
Kerby Anderson, in an article entitled “Politics and Religion,” wrote, “Christian obedience goes beyond calling for spiritual renewal. We have often failed to ask the question, ‘What do we do if hearts are not changed?’ Because government is ordained of God, we need to consider ways to legitimately use governmental power. Christians have a high stake in making sure government acts justly and makes decisions that provide maximum freedom for the furtherance of the gospel.”{2} Some believe we have a cultural mandate to redeem not only men’s souls, but the works of culture including politics.
Yet, Christians remain on the sidelines in alarming numbers.
According to one poll before the 2004 elections, “only a third of evangelical Christians—those who ought to be most concerned with moral values—[said they would] actually vote.” But the Bible says a lot about believers’ duties as citizens. “When Moses commanded the Israelites to appoint God-fearing leaders, he wasn’t just talking to a handful of citizens who felt like getting involved…. And modern Christians are under the same obligation to choose leaders who love justice…. Today, in our modern democracy, free citizens act as God’s agents for choosing leaders, and we do it by voting.”{3}
As believers, we’re citizens of two kingdoms: one temporal and earthly, the other eternal and heavenly. We are called to participate in both the culture and politics of The City of Man, as this world was called by Augustine, while primarily focusing on the Kingdom of God.
The longevity and value of these dual kingdoms ought to serve as crucial guides to how invested we become in them. Eternal issues matter more than temporal ones. To allow politics and social issues to overtake our commitments to the everlasting is to risk idolatry, while losing ground in both realms.
Flipping the usual focus of candidates’ qualifications onto the electorate, one Christian columnist wrote, “Those who make critical decisions for America (its voters, I mean) should come up to some minimal standards before leaving the house on Election Day. Voters should be able to tell the difference between worldviews…. Voters should be free of regionalism and other types of ‘group-think’…. Vocations, unions, ethnic groups and age groups that vote in lockstep are not behaving as free people. Citizens whose consciences are ruled by others should not govern a free nation… Voters should value their vote, but not sell it.” {4}
It didn’t take Albert Einstein to say it, but he did say “It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs.”{5}
Chuck Colson, convicted Watergate felon, said, “All you have to do is lose the right to vote once, and you would never again find any excuse for not going into the voting booth…. Be a good citizen: Exercise the greatest right a free people have [sic].”{6}
God’s will and Kingdom will not be thwarted, and we cannot ultimately control outcomes, even as a voting bloc. As Christian citizens in America, we need to offer due diligence in voting and other political activities, trust God with the results, and keep spiritual concerns first.
Puritan Roots, Pluralism & Practical Politics
In 2007, for the first time a Hindu priest opened Senate deliberations with prayer. I asked a group of Christian homeschool parents gathered to discuss America’s political system if they could justify forbidding this, and no one could answer satisfactorily. Pluralism—when a culture supports various ethnic backgrounds, religions and political views—is a practical and, understood correctly, appropriate reality.
Americans—believers and non-believers alike—have inherited a system of governance based solidly on the Bible, but allowing for a plurality of beliefs or even unbelief. The Puritans who first colonized this land “saw themselves as the new Israel, an elect people.”{7}
The architects of our political arrangement, many of them professing Christians, were deeply influenced by the Puritan’s positive cultural impact and the Scriptures to which they appealed. Daniel Webster said, “Our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment.”{8} John Quincy Adams said, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” George Washington, a devoted Christian, left room for others: “While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.”{9}
Probe’s Mind Games curriculum points out the realism of the founders in mitigating the imperfections of people even as they self-rule. “Again, we can see the genius of the American system. Madison and others realized the futility of trying to remove passions (human sinfulness) from the population. Therefore, he proposed that human nature be set against human nature. This was done by separating various institutional power structures.”{10} This was based on a biblical understanding of man, a proper anthropology.
So, how can such a firmly entrenched Judeo-Christian political heritage be reconciled with a culture increasingly full of Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, humanists, and other unbelievers living alongside Christians?
The Constitution and Bill of Rights justly allows for religious and political diversity. Nineteenth-century theologian Charles Hodge of Princeton regarding immigrants said:
All are welcomed; all are admitted to equal rights and privileges. All are allowed to acquire property, whatever their religious feelings, and to vote in every election, made eligible to all offices and invested with equal influence in all public affairs. All are allowed to worship as they please, or not to worship at all, if they see fit…. No man is required to profess any form of faith…. More than this cannot reasonably be demanded.{11}
Theologian Richard J. Mouw explored the possibility of evangelical politics that doesn’t compromise and at the same is time highly tolerant of other views. Not “anything-goes relativism,” but rather confidence that comes from God’s guidebook for life, tempered by fair-minded ways of dealing with people. He wrote, “This humility does not exclude Christians advocating social and political policies that conflict with the views and practices of others. It does mean we should do so in a way that encourages reasonable dialogue and mutual respect.”{12}
Believers need to consider the words of Bernard Crick: “Politics is a way of ruling in divided societies without undue violence…. Politics is not just a necessary evil; it is a realistic good.” Kenyans victimized by recent mob killings that erupted after disputed elections could testify that when the political process fails it can be devastating.
The founders, even as they envisioned pluralism, did not themselves have to deal deeply with it. It requires a keen worldview for voting and activism in today’s truly pluralistic America. Our nation is based on an unmistakable Christian foundation, but that of course doesn’t mean you have to be a Christian or even believe in God to participate.
Political Might and the Religious Right: Does God Take Sides?
Ever since Jimmy Carter ran for President based partly on his evangelical faith in the 1970s, and then the Moral Majority took the nation by storm in the ‘80s, there has been a non-stop discussion in America surrounding faith and politics.
Political power’s seduction blinded believers, claim former movers and shakers like Ed Dobson. “One of the dangers,” he said, “of mixing politics and religion is that you begin to think the only way to transform culture is by passing another law. Most of what we did in the Moral Majority was aimed at getting the right people elected so that we would have enough votes to pass the right laws.”{13}
In those days, Christians seemed to believe they could legislate and administrate God’s kingdom into full flower. However, core issues like gay unions and abortion remain largely unchanged or even worse today.
“History has shown us we can’t rely totally on laws,” continued Dobson.{14} A good example is Prohibition. The harder the government cracked down on alcohol, the more ways people found to get around the law. One result was increased crime. Laws don’t change hearts; they are meant to restrain evil.
Sidling up to political power brokers even for commendable causes can prove disillusioning. Recently, conservative Christians hoped for fair and full consideration from the administration of the boldly evangelical George Bush. According to former White House deputy director for faith-based initiatives David Kuo, administration operators used and mocked evangelicals who were trying to do compassionate work partly funded through the government. But as Kuo asks, “What did they expect from politicos?” Good question for all of us. Jeremiah the prophet warned, “Cursed is the man who trusts in man.”{15} That would seem to include man’s politics.
Committed evangelical Bill Armstrong shared prophetically as a Senator back in 1983, “There is a danger when believers get deeply involved in political activity that they will try to put the mantle of Christ on their cause . . . to deify that cause and say, ‘Because I’m motivated to run for office for reasons [of] faith, a vote for me is a vote for Jesus’.”{16}
Ed Dobson often joked about God not being a Democrat or Republican—but certainly not a Democrat. But, he asked, “Is God the God of the religious and political left with its emphasis on the environment and the poor, or is he the God of the religious and political right with its emphasis on the unborn and the family? Both groups claim to speak for God.”{17}
The Lord appeared to Joshua before a battle. He discovered that the issue wasn’t whether God was on his side or his enemy’s, but whether the people were on God’s side. The religious and political Left casts itself as champion of the poor and the environment while the Right emphasizes the unborn and the family. Both say they speak for God. Seeking God’s priorities and using His wisdom for our particular times is critical. However, “God’s side” is not always easy to find.
So what’s a Christian citizen’s role? Armstrong and others believe Christians have been commanded by Christ to be involved. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” means more than paying taxes. Some basic biblical principles:
• All political power comes from God;
• Government has a God-ordained role to play in society;
• Christians have a God-ordained responsibility to that government: to pray, submit to and honor government leaders and, of course, to pay our taxes.{18}
The late Christian political activist, pastor, and author D. James Kennedy warned in the heady early days of “the Reagan Revolution” not to trust in the man Ronald Reagan but in God. “After victory,” he writes, “many people give up the struggle and later discover they had won only a battle, not the war. Are you working less, praying less, giving less, trusting less? Maybe there is a bit of the humanist in all of us.”{19} He continues, “The government . . . should be a means to godly ends. Ronald Reagan is but a stone in the sling, and you do not trust in stones; you trust in the living rock, Jesus Christ.”{20}
Thus, voters, campaigners and officeholders need to heed the humility of experience in a fallen world and the understanding of the Founders that power corrupts and should be divided up, placing final trust in the Almighty.
Should We Elect a Christian When Given the Chance?
Talk show host Larry King asked pastor and author Max Lucado if religion should matter in an election campaign. I love his answer: “Well, genuine religion has to matter. We elect character. We elect a person’s worldview. Faith can define that worldview…. [Within the] American population 85 percent of us say that religion matters to us. 72 percent of us say that the religion of a president matters.”{21} Polls show that Americans would sooner elect a Muslim or homosexual than an acknowledged atheist.{22}
Philosopher and early church father Augustine dealt with a culture war among the Romans. In his classic book The City of God he taught that “The City of Man is populated by those who love themselves and hold God in contempt, while the City of God is populated by those who love God and hold themselves in contempt. Augustine hoped to show that the citizens of the City of God were more beneficial to the interests of Rome than those who inhabit the City of Man.”{23} Of course, a Christian will want to vote for a citizen of God’s city if there is a clear choice between him and a rank sinner. That choice is seldom so clear in elections. But understanding this dual citizenship of the Christian voter herself in the City of Man and The City of God is essential to dissecting complicated, sometimes competing priorities.
In the tangled vines surrounding campaign messages, it’s not so simple to discern a candidate’s worldview and decide who best matches our own, but that’s what wisdom and good stewardship require (and as recent scandals like Senator Larry Craig’s alleged homosexual improprieties shows, a politician’s stated views and behavior don’t always match). Seems like the Christian citizen’s top priority, then, is to have a biblical worldview to start with (something that Probe can help with greatly).
Given that, how does the average Christian voter decide on parties, platforms, and candidates? They do it based on principles of biblical ethics, godly values, simple logic and a discerning ear.
Remember, America is a republic, not a democracy. And in a republic we are to elect representatives who will rise above the passions of the moment. They are to be men and women of character and virtue, who will act responsibly and even nobly as they carry out the best interests of the people. No, we don’t want leaders we can love because they remind us of our own darker side. We want leaders we can look up to and respect.{24}
Should we elect a person who claims to be a Christian, like former pastor Mike Huckabee? It depends. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney received a standing ovation when said, “We need a person of faith to lead the country.” A contributor to the blog run by Left-wing evangelical Jim Wallis responded, “But that statement is nearly meaningless, for even Sam Harris is a person of faith. Strident, angry, atheistic faith.”{25} Good point: all have faith, but faith in what or who?
On the other hand, former Senator Bill Armstrong states, “God was able to make sons of Abraham out of stone. Certainly that means he can make a good legislator out of somebody who isn’t necessarily a member of our church or maybe not even a Christian or maybe an atheist. So I don’t think we ought to limit God by saying ‘only Christians’ deserve our support politically.”{26}
The politically influential Dr. James Dobson caused a stir when he critiqued one candidate for not regularly attending church. Dr. Richard Land responded that this is not a deciding factor for him. He said that as a Baptist minister he would never have voted for the church-attending Jimmy Carter but did vote twice for the non-attending Ronald Reagan. This, like so many others, seems to be an issue of individual conscience for voters.
Evangelical Mark DeMoss writes in support of Romney, a devout Mormon. “For years, evangelicals have been keenly interested to know whether a candidate shared their faith. I am now more interested in knowing that a president represents my values than I am that he or she shares my theology.”{27} After all, we’ve worked together on issues like abortion, pornography, and gambling. Can’t we be governed well by someone who shares most of our values, he reasons? As columnist Cal Thomas says, I care less about where the ambulance driver worships than if he knows where the hospital is.
Taking the high road of choosing good candidates, not necessarily ones whose theology one agrees with all down the line, makes voting and party affiliation complex for believers. We’d prefer a clean, easy set of choices. But, it appears that even voting and civic engagement is under the “sweat of the brow” curse of Genesis—nothing comes easy.
Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias reminds us that we’re NOT electing a minister or church elder. He said:
I think as we elect, we go before God and [choose] out of the candidates who will be the best ones to represent [sanctity of life] values and at the same time be a good leader . . . whose first responsibility [is] to protect citizens.
What we want is a politician who will understand the basic Judeo-Christian worldview, and on the basis of that the moral laws of this nation are framed, and then run this country with the excellence of that which is recognized in a pluralistic society: the freedom to believe or to disbelieve, and the moral framework with which this was conducted: the sanctity of every individual life.{28}
Vote your conscience. Many issues are disputable matters, as the Apostle Paul put it. Avoid the temptation to unreflectively limit your view to a few pet issues. If over time you prayerfully believe that stewardship of the environment is critical, balanced against all considerations, vote accordingly. If sanctity of life issues like abortion and stem cell research are paramount to you, by all means vote that way. However, realize that trade-offs are inevitable; there won’t be a perfect candidate who falls in line on all our values and priorities.
Politics, Religion, and Values
As the old saw goes, “never talk about politics and religion.” That may be wise advice when Uncle Harry is over for Thanksgiving dinner. But as a rule of life, it breeds ignorance and passivity in self-government. “Only if we allow a biblical worldview and a biblically balanced agenda guide our concrete political work can we significantly improve the political order,” according to a statement by the National Association of Evangelicals.{29} That means dialogue, and that’s not easy.
Some prefer a public square where anything goes but religion. That would be wrong. Likewise, a so-called “sacred public square,” with religious values imposed on everyone, would be unfair. Christians should support a “civil public square” with open, respectful debate.{30}
But, you often hear people make statements like, “Christians shouldn’t try to legislate morality.” They might simply mean you can’t make people good by passing laws. Fair enough. But all law, divine and civil, involves imposing right and wrong. Prohibitions against murder and rape are judgments on good and bad. The question is not whether we should legislate morality but rather, “What kind of morality we should legislate?”{31}
Yet tragically, as iVoteValues.com discovered, “many believers don’t even consider their values when voting,” often choosing candidates whose positions are at odds with their own beliefs, convictions, and values. A Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life study found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say their faith has little to do with their voting decisions!{32} Many believers are missing a chance to be salt and light to the watching world.
What about when the field of candidates offers only “the lesser of two evils”? Like when only one candidate is anti-abortion yet she holds to other troubling positions? That requires thoughtful distinctions. If the reason you vote for candidate X is only to avoid the graver consequences of voting for candidate Y, you’re not formally cooperating with evil. In this case, whatever evil comes from the anti-abortion candidate you helped elect due to your convictions would be unintended. Same as if you were a bank teller and the robber demanded, “Give me all the money or I’ll blow this guy’s brains out.” You cooperate to avoid the greater evil, but your intent was not to enable the robbery.{33} It’s hard to argue against this reasoning in a fallen world where even God allows evil for greater purposes.
What about cases when the field of candidates offers only “the lesser of two evils”? For instance, you can’t decide between the more pro-abortion candidate who’s otherwise highly qualified and the anti-abortion person who has some real flaws.
Some believe that if you vote for the pro-abortion person for other important reasons, then you are not responsible for abortions that might result, as briefly illustrated above. Others see a necessary connection—vote for a “pro-abort” and you are guilty. Study and pray hard on such issues as God gives freedom of conscience.
Sometimes it comes down to choices we’d rather not make. Only rarely, perhaps, can we say that to abstain from voting is the only way. Notable Christian author Mark Noll believes this is such a time for him.{34}
Others warn that this only helps elect the candidates with unbiblical values. One commentator wrote, “Voters should not spend their franchise on empty gestures…. No successful politician is as strong on every issue as we would like. Our own pastors and parents can’t pass this test in their much smaller contexts. Rather than striking a blow for purity, we risk giving up our influence altogether when we follow a man with only one or two ‘perfect’ ideas.”{35}
Hold this kind of issue with an open hand. Many change their minds as they age and lose unrealistic youthful idealism. But if God gives a clear conviction, again, stick with that value or candidate. Only seek the difference between legalism and God’s leading.
Some more left-leaning evangelicals like Ron Sider and Jim Wallis value helping the poor and dispossessed through government, while critics claim that as the Church’s exclusive role. The retort: the Church is failing in its duty and it’s a fulfillment of the Church’s duty to advocate for government intervention. Others focus on sanctity of life issues not only as a higher priority, but as part of the government’s biblically mandated task of protecting its citizenry. What is your conviction? Best be deciding if you don’t know yet.
The purple ink-stained fingers of Iraqi citizens who voted at their own risk for the first time in decades testify to the precious privilege of voting in a free society. Americans gave blood and treasure to free them. Don’t let the same sacrifice made by our ancestors on our behalf go to waste. Inform yourself. “Study to show yourself approved” not only regarding Scripture, but as a citizen of The Cities of Man and of God.
Notes
1. Charles Colson with Anne Morse, “Promises, Promises: How to really build a ‘great society’,” Christianity Today (online), www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/august/11.64.html
2. Kerby Anderson, “Politics and Religion,” www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/pol-rel.html, 1991.
3. Chuck Colson, “A Sacred Duty: Why Christians Must Vote,” Breakpoint, breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=2429, May 13, 2004.
4. Gary Ledbetter, “Who should vote?” Baptist Press, www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=18923.
5. Albert Einstein, as quoted on Hillwatch.com, www.hillwatch.com/PPRC/Quotes/Politics_and_Politicians.aspx
6. Chuck Colson, “Pulling the Lever: Our First Civic Duty,” www.leaderu.com/common/colson-lever.html, 1998.
7. Richard J. Mouw, “Tolerance Without Compromise,” Christianity Today, July 15, 1996, 33.
8. Quoted in D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, How Would Jesus Vote? A Christian Perspective on the Issues, pre-release copy (Colo. Springs, CO: Waterbrook Press, 2008), 29. Note: book released the week of this radio broadcast (week of Jan. 14, 2008).
9. Ibid, page 28.
10. Probe Ministries, “A Christian View of Politics, Government, and Social Action,” Mind Games Survival Guide, VI:52.
11. Kennedy and Newcombe, How Would Jesus Vote? 30.
12. Mouw, “Tolerance,” 34-35.
13. Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can’t Save America (Grand Rapids, MI, : Zondervan, 1999), 69.
14. Ibid.
15. Jeremiah 17: 5-7 (NIV).
16. “Bill Armstrong: Senator and Christian,” Christianity Today, November 11, 1983, 20
17. Thomas and Dobson, 105.
18. Kennedy and Newcombe, How Would Jesus Vote? 106-119.
19. Ibid, 197.
20. Ibid, 201.
21. CNN Larry King Live, Politics and Religion, October 26, 2004 (as posted on Bible Bulletin Board: www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/mac-lkl5.htm).
22. Ross Douthat, “Crises of Faith,” The Atlantic, July/August, 2007.
23. Tim Garrett, “St. Augustine,” Probe Ministries, 2000; available online at worldview–philosophy/st.-augustine.html.
24. Ibid, Colson, “Pulling the Lever.”
25. Tony Jones, “Honest Questions About Mitt Romney,” http://tinyurl.com/3d8dm8, February 21, 2007.
26. Ibid, Thomas and Dobson, Blinded by Might, 204.
27. Mark DeMoss, “Why evangelicals could support this Mormon,” The Politico, April 24, 2007.
28. Paul Edwards, “Ravi Zacharias on a Mormon in the White House,” The God & Culture Blog, http://tinyurl.com/2mkj6u.
29. Ronald J. Siders and Diane Knippers, Toward an Evangelical Public Policy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005).
30. Anderson, “Politics and Religion.”
31. Ibid.
32. “How You Can Have Maximum Patriotic Impact-Brief,” iVoteValues.com, http://tinyurl.com/2uot68, see point #3.
33. J. Budziszewski, “Ballot Box Blues,” Boundless.org, www.boundless.org/regulars/office_hours/a0000958.html. See also an insightful application of this line of reasoning in Nathan Schlueter, “Drawing Pro-Life Lines,” First Things, October 2001, tinyurl.com/6godf.
34. For a defense of his personal decision to abstain from voting in the 2004 major election, see Mark Noll, “None of the above: why I won’t be voting for president,” Christian Century, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_19_121/ai_n6355192.
35. Gary Ledbetter, “Who should vote?”
© 2008 Probe Ministries
About the Author
Byron Barlowe is a research associate and Web coordinator with Probe Ministries. He earned a B.S. in Communications at Appalachian State University in gorgeous Boone, N.C. Byron served 20 years with Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC), eight years as editor and Webmaster of a major scholarly publishing site, Leadership University (LeaderU.com). In that role, he oversaw several sub-sites, including the Online Faculty Offices of Drs. William Lane Craig and William Dembski. His wife, Dianne, served 25 years with CCC and now homeschools their rambunctious pre-teen triplets.
What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3-minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.
Further information about Probe’s materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:
Probe Ministries
2001 W Plano Parkway, Suite 2000
Plano TX 75075
(972) 480-0240
info@probe.org
www.probe.org
Atheists and Their Fathers
Written by Kerby Anderson
Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person’s relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one’s belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?
After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world’s most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).
For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was “passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound.” Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a “strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father.” Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, “God is dead.” It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a “rejection of the weakness of his father.”
Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal’s father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal’s mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.
Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.
Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche’s fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was “passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound.”
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father’s Christianity. Nietzche’s major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of “life force.” The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a “rejection of the weakness of his father.”
Nietzche’s own philosophy placed an emphasis on the “superman” along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, “It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women.” He concludes that Nietzche had a “strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak.”
Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud’s Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of “his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father.” His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud’s rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.
Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.
Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell’s parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as “Deadly Nightshade.” She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell’s daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother’s joyless faith was “the only form of Christianity my father knew well.” This ascetic faith taught that “the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss.” She concluded, “My father threw this morbid belief out the window.”
Dr. Vitz points out that Russell’s only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was “inconsolable.” He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.
After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: “My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God.”
Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.
Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.
Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.
Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre’s real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, “You know what? God doesn’t exist.” Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that “his father’s absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life.”
Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire’s father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he “authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies.” Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.
Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig’s life must have been his father’s affair with the wife of one his father’s friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.
Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.
Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was “one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue.”
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: “We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers.” For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.
William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn “Amazing Grace.” Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton’s stories and sermons, “even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child.” Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.
As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal’s father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal’s mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.
I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.
©2002 Probe Ministries
About the Author
Kerby Anderson is National Director of Probe Ministries International. He holds masters degrees from Yale University (science) and from Georgetown University (government). He is the author of several books, including Christian Ethics in Plain Language, Genetic Engineering, Origin Science, Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope and Making the Most of Your Money in Tough Times. His new series with Harvest House Publishers includes: A Biblical Point of View on Islam, A Biblical Point of View on Homosexuality, A Biblical Point of View on Intelligent Design and A Biblical Point of View on Spiritual Warfare. He is the host of “Point of View” (USA Radio Network) and regular guest on “Prime Time America” (Moody Broadcasting Network) and “Fire Away” (American Family Radio). He produces a daily syndicated radio commentary and writes editorials that have appeared in papers such as the Dallas Morning News, the Miami Herald, the San Jose Mercury, and the Houston Post.
What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3-minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.
Further information about Probe’s materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:
Probe Ministries
2001 W Plano Parkway, Suite 2000
Plano TX 75075
(972) 480-0240
info@probe.org
www.probe.org
Comprehensive List of Taxes In House Democrat Health Bill
By Ryan Ellis
Americans for Tax Reform
H.R. 3962, the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” has been introduced–all 1990 pages of it. This gargantuan beast contains thirteen new tax hikes. Here they all are, with description and page number (PDF version):
***
Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).
Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.
Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).
Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)
Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.
Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.
Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.
Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act
Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.
Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.
Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.
Liberal Lies About National Health Care: Joes Wilson Edition
After President Barack Obama gave a speech to a joint session of Congress last week passionately defending his national health care plan, the Democrats were agog at the brilliance of the speech. Nancy Pelosi was so thrilled, her expression almost changed.
But as Obama ticked off one demonstrably false claim after another — eliciting 37 standing ovations from the Democrats in the audience — America’s greatest living statesman, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., yelled out, “You lie!” in response to Obama’s claim that the bill will not cover illegal aliens.
There are a number of theories about why America’s greatest living statesman shouted “You lie!” at that juncture, but mine is that Wilson said it because Obama told a big, fat stinking lie.
Every single American knows it’s a lie. But liberals take pleasure in repeating it — and then condescendingly accusing anyone who doesn’t accept their lie of being a toothless, illiterate racist.
Our politicians, media and courts have done everything they can to encourage illegal immigration, including obstinately refusing to enforce the border. While illegals streaming across the border generally aren’t prosecuted, U.S. border patrol agents who naively try to guard the border often are.
Wise (and pregnant) Latinas dash across the border just in time to give birth at American hospitals — medical services paid for by U.S. taxpayers — gaining instant citizenship for their children, thereby entitling them to the entire Chinese menu of American welfare programs.
In 2004, 42.6 percent of all babies born at taxpayer expense in California were born to illegal aliens, according to a state report on Medi-Cal-funded deliveries. In hospitals close to the Mexican border, the figure is closer to 80 percent. Remember: This is before health care becomes “free” to every U.S. resident.
Hospitals across the country are going bankrupt because the federal government forces them to provide free services to illegals. This situation appears to have angered some segment of the population, in particular, American citizens who pay taxes to support the hospitals, but then are forced to spend hours writhing in pain in hospital waiting rooms.
With Americans in a boiling cauldron of rage about the government’s impotent response to the tsunami of illegal immigrants, last year, both political parties ran candidates for president who favor amnesty for illegal immigrants.
And now Democrats have the audacity to tell us to our faces that national health care won’t cover illegals. Not only that, but they tell us we must not be able to read if we think it does.
The crystalline example of this sneering liberal pomposity came from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Monday night:
“Reading the House health care bill would show you that (the bill does not cover illegal aliens). But you know, sometimes reading is hard. Fortunately, in the case of the health reform bill, there is a way to get all of the information that’s in it without any of that pesky reading.
“It’s called HearTheBill.org. Volunteer voiceover actors have donated their time to read all 1,017 pages of the house health care reform bill, HR-3200, the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
“So if you don’t want to tire out your eyes, you could just listen to the thing that disproves (Rep. Wilson).”
Maddow then played an audio clip of Section 246 from the bill. This section, which liberals keep brandishing like a DNA-stained dress, states: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
In other words, illegal aliens are excluded from precisely one section of the thousand-page, goodie-laden health care bill: Section 246, which distributes taxpayer-funded “affordability credits” to people who can’t afford to pay for their own health care.
Even this minor restriction on taxpayer largesse to illegals will immediately be overturned by the courts. But the point is: Except for vouchers, the bill does not even pretend to exclude illegals from any part of national health care — including the taxpayer-funded health insurance plan.
Moreover, liberals won’t have to wait for some court to find that the words “nothing in this subtitle shall allow” means “this bill allows,” because the bill contains no mechanism to ensure that the health care vouchers aren’t going to illegal aliens. Nor does the bill prohibit the states from providing taxpayer-funded health care vouchers to illegals.
Democrats keep voting down Republican amendments that would insert these restrictions — just before dashing to a TV studio to denounce anyone who says the health care bill covers illegal aliens.
It’s as if we have a relative who shows up at every holiday gathering, gets bombed and totals the family car. At the 18th Christmas celebration, he’s not only demanding a drink, but also calling us liars for saying he’s already totaled 17 family cars. Gimme a gin and tonic and the car keys, you lying racist!
I think that’s why America’s greatest living statesman erupted with rage when Obama retailed this particular lie during his speech on health care.
It’s bad enough to be lied to, but to be lied to by people who accuse us of not being able to read when the problem is that we can read — and also can remember what happened at the last 17 family Christmases — is more than even Mother Teresa could bear without a quick heckle.
Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” ““How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless,” “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” and most recently, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America.
The Race Card
Dear Friends:
I fear that the accusations of racism against Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Officer Crowley and the participants of the Tea Party, are doing more harm to race relations in America than anything that I can think of in modern-day history.
Playing the “race card” has frustrated and angered both conservative and independent Whites as well as conservative African Americans who feel that these false accusations of racism will eventually have the same affect as the little boy, who consistently cried, “wolf.”
When attacked by the left, conservative whites often defend themselves by saying, “When it comes to people, I don’t see color.” Although I hear what they are saying and understand what they mean, these words will not stop the liberal left from playing the race card, nor will it bring us together as American citizens.
Before I address the issue of race card, let me say that the colors in God’s creation is one of the most beautiful things that we possess on earth, whether it is the vivid colors of the fall leaves, the variety of colors in the early spring or the diversity of colors of those whom God made in his image, every person should recognize, respect and appreciate the beauty and the diversity of colors no matter how it is displayed.
In my award-winning children’s storybook on race relations, the story ends with children of all colors embracing each other and singing:
We are all pat of one family,
It doesn’t matter what our color may be.
We may be red, yellow black or white,
We must live in peace and never fight.
We should help each other whenever we can
And treat one another as our fellow man.
It doesn’t matter what our color may be,
Because we are all part of one family.
Now back to the race card. Conservatives must not run away from the race issue. Instead they must stand strong and defend their track record in the area of Civil Rights. We must fight these accusations with truth – rather than with ineffective statements like: “I don’t see color.” The facts are on our side. According to congressional records and our nation’s renowned black and white historians, the founding fathers of today’s liberals were the progenitors of racism in this country.
It is time to expose the liberals and their racist history. It is time to tell Al Sharpton, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Barack Obama that it was their racist party, the Democratic Party that supported slavery, Jim Crow, Segregated Schools, lynchings, the Dred Scott Decision, Plessy v. Ferguson and every other racist institution in America; and as of this date, they have yet to issue an apology to African Americans for their past racist practices.
Attorney General Eric Holder says we need to have a dialogue on race. Well, if he really wants to have this dialogue, tell the liberals to bring plenty of salt and pepper, because we will make them eat their race card.
Rev. Wayne Perryman
We Need Watchmen to Sound the Alarm
by Valerie Head, Oct 19, 2009 American Vision
In recent months, I’ve been noticing how young families are taking action within their own circles of influence to return our nation to its founding principles. They’re learning that the place to start is in the home. They understand that to rebuild a nation a proper foundation must be laid. The leadership we have in Washington and in our state houses is a reflection of what we have in our homes. Change the family and you will change the nation. G. K. Chesterton said it well “The most extra extraordinary thing in the world is an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children.” So what do you think will happen when we have extraordinary men, women, and children? Last week I spoke at a gathering of concerned Christians who can no longer remain quiet and passive. The event was sponsored by Julian and Valerie Head of Franklin, Tennessee. Valerie opened the evening with a statement of her own. With her permission, I’ve reproduced it below.
—Gary DeMar
We want to thank each of you for coming tonight, we are the Head Family. Standing with my husband, Julian, and me is our Posterity, Rose, Sonny and Andy. These are who our Constitution and Declaration of Independence were designed to protect and provide for. And that brings me to why we are here, because that protection and provision have ceased.
Nothing New is Under the Sun. The church is today, as it was in the days of Peter and John, held captive by the Romans, “allowing” us to practice our religion as long as it does not conflict with Rome’s teachings, as long as we conform to their education. We have been told they will not tolerate our intolerance. So, like the Sanhedrin, we have learned how to practice within their boundaries, not stirring their anger against us. From our pulpits we teach relativism that we all worship and serve the same god! That we should be tolerant, learn from one another, and that there is not one absolute truth!
We refrain from issues that might single us out as radical, judgmental, or intolerant, issues such as teaching a literal six-day creation, young Earth position and pointing out sinful practices and unjust laws practiced by our government and its leaders. We have been told we can’t have the Ten Commandments posted or speak the name of Jesus in any government building. Thank God HIS WORDS have been etched in stone all over the Nation’s Capitol because “IF THESE MEN ARE SILENT, THE VERY STONES WILL CRY OUT.”
I believe we need a “WARRIOR” mentality, willing to die for the cause of Christ, or at least be willing to suffer a little criticism. Second Timothy 3:12 says that ALL WHO DESIRE TO WALK WITH CHRIST, WILL BE PERSECUTED. Our Founding Fathers well understood that this was a battle that would require every generation to contend with it, in order to preserve our God-given Liberties. As in the War for Independence, this is not an offensive war; this is a defensive war. America did not fire the first shot then, nor have we today. Do not be deceived, this battle is of a spiritual nature; it has existed since the Garden of Eden. And let me be clear, this battle is NOT against the “institution of government” which is established by God but against those leaders who have themselves rebelled against God and have ceased to be “a minister of God,” serving God by promoting the good and punishing the evil and using “just weights and measures.”
We no longer hold weekly Sunday services in the U.S. Capitol. Some elected officials can even take their oath of office using the Koran. We invite Hindu Priests to pray over our congress. Will our new national motto be “In gods we trust”? Or will we sign our historical papers “in the Year of our lord Krishna?” Not on my watch. Lord forbid it!!! This country was founded by and for Christianity.
This Nation in two hundred years has outdistanced the world in discoveries and inventions in medicine, housing, education, power-energy, transportation, space, aircraft and agriculture. We’ve been the bread basket of the world; we have created more wealth than all the rest of the world combined. We have fought wars throughout the world in defense of freedom, asking nothing for our efforts and sacrificing the lives of loved ones in return. We have always been the first nation to provide relief in natural calamities, sometimes even providing aid to our enemies. We have given more dollars in aid and relief than most of the world nations combined. And in spite of our efforts, WE ARE THE TARGET OF THE HATE AND ENVY OF MANY IN THE REST OF THE WORLD. Why do you think we have been and acted differently than the rest of the world? Why do you think we are more despised than any other nation? It is because the Lord built this house, and we have allowed the enemy to plunder what He has given us. It is time that we acknowledge our duties and responsibilities of our citizenship. America’s future depends on us accepting and demonstrating God’s government!!!
We need watchmen on the wall to sound the alarm. The enemy has not only approached without warning but has entered our gates, having taught our children, having counseled our leaders and slipped irons on our ankles while we slumbered.
Tonight, our family raised this flag, that my daughter Rose, my little Betsy Ross made. She modeled it after the American Patriots of the Revolution who flew a similar flag over their Navy and Army service men who understood who they are accountable to. It is our family’s appeal to heaven and to God. May He Grant His servants Boldness, to speak the truth in opposition, even when it’s from the Sanhedrin, and May we approach God with sincerity seeking His aid and blessings.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO PROPOSES BUDGET CUTTING MEASURES
Last April, when Governor David Paterson and the New York City-controlled legislature adopted a New York State budget that carried a $13 billion increase in spending, I warned the Governor and his colleagues that there would be dire consequences for their actions. Now, NY faces a deficit of nearly $4 billion as a result of their actions.
Clearly, immediate and comprehensive action must be taken to address this massive deficit. That is why my Senate Republican colleagues and I have proposed a budget cutting plan that would close the deficit without raising taxes on our already overburdened New York State taxpayers . Our plan would eliminate over $3.4 billion in excessive spending.
The budget proposal put forward by my colleagues and I is the only savings plan that proposes specific spending reductions to help close the deficit. In cutting state spending, we cannot raise taxes on hardworking New Yorkers or impose costly unfunded mandates on local governments that would force them to raise property taxes. We must control state spending and reduce the tax burden if we want to create jobs and help stabilize the economy.
Specifically, my colleagues and I have proposed:
• Cutting back the $2.2 billion in general fund spending added to the 2009-10 budget by the New York City legislators who controlled the budget process;
• Cutting state agency non-personal services by ten percent to save $480 million;
• Freezing state purchases of recreational lands to save $78 million;
• Freezing planned Medicaid expansions to save $200 million;
• Reinstating welfare and Medicaid anti-fraud protections to save $34 million;
• Cutting Medicaid optional services to save $150 million; and
• Reducing state agency contract balances by five percent to save $300 million.
As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I will continue to oppose any effort to balance the budget on the backs of Upstate taxpayers just as I opposed the 2009-10 State budget last spring. We need to do more with less and cut government spending, not increase it.
My Senate Republican colleagues and I are fighting to return common sense to State government and enact these cost-saving measures to close the deficit without raising taxes. During these challenging times, New Yorkers all across our State have had to cut back. It is now time for State leadership to make the same tough decisions and comprehensively attack this budget deficit.
Sincerely,
Mike Nozzolio
Senator, 54th District
Senate Republican Recommendations For
Cost Cutting and Budget Savings
Review $2.2 billion in General Fund spending added to the 2009-10 Budget by the Legislature for possible reductions.
The SFY 2009-10 budget includes over $2.2 billion in General Fund spending that was added to Governor Paterson’s Executive budget proposal by the Democrat majorities in the Senate and Assembly. In other words, more than $2.2 billion in General Fund spending which was not originally proposed by Governor Paterson was included in the final adopted budget. All of this additional spending was discretionary and was not required under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Approximately $1.2 billion was used to restore reductions proposed by the Governor in his Executive budget and approximately $1 billion was used to finance new spending. All of these spending items should be immediately reviewed for potential reductions. Freezing all funds for new and increases to current spending programs alone would save hundreds of millions of dollars. In addition, the Democrats in both houses rejected many of Governor Paterson’s proposed legislative changes in the budget that would have saved over $100 million this year. Lastly Governor Paterson proposed $700 million in health care savings initiatives that were not included in the adopted budget which should be revisited.
10% Cut in State Agency Non-Personal Service – $480 million
Efficiency savings of 10% are assumed under this proposal. Selected categories include: equipment spending; employee travel; lease, maintenance and repairs; supplies and materials; telephone services; employee benefits and general state charges and utilities and centralized services. Potential actions include: Freeze all new vehicle purchases; Freeze all new equipment/furniture purchases; Suspend all unnecessary travel for State employees; Limit agency printing to essential services only; Limit agency mailings/postage expenses to essential services only; Eliminate all agency non emergency blackberry/cell phone usage; Turn down the heat in state buildings everyday and not just weekends; Freeze agency spending from state operation reappropriations; Freeze agency spending for employee training; Close agency regional offices; Reduce the size of agency public information offices; Freeze agency spending for conferences; Freeze all pending State rental agreements- new or renewal – to reduce space; Freeze all State agency advertising and marketing spending; Freeze all state agency public information office spending; Eliminate all State agency intern program spending; Freeze all new technology spending; Freeze equipment leases not executed; Freeze nonessential building repairs; Freeze all agency subscription service spending; Freeze agency membership payments for professional entities; Competitively bid State Employee medical/ hospital/ dental programs.
Freeze State Purchases of Recreational Land – Savings $78 million
This proposal would freeze the purchase of additional recreational land by the State. Given the State Fiscal Year (SFY) 09-10 Executive proposal to renege on the State’s current local tax obligation on existing State owned lands, the State cannot continue to purchase land. Current cash balances for this purpose would be transferred from the Environmental Protection Fund.
Freeze Planned Medicaid Expansions – $200 million by 2011-12.
All initiatives to expand the State’s Medicaid program should be stopped immediately as the State cannot afford the current program which is the most expansive in the nation. The Paterson administration is seeking to expand eligibility for Family Health Plus (FHP) to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. FHP enrollment in New York is projected to grow by another 128,000 families over the next four years. Expansions in eligibility to the Child Health Plus program should also be reevaluated. Higher Medicaid enrollment and use will add $975 million to the state-taxpayers’ share of Medicaid costs by 2011-12, according to the governor’s financial plan. Meanwhile, federal stimulus aid is supposed to expire the year after next, which will leave New Yorkers to cover more than $3 billion a year now temporarily underwritten by federal stimulus aid.
Reinstitute Medicaid and Welfare Anti-Fraud / Taxpayer Protections – $34 million
The adopted budget includes an initiative to “streamline access to coverage”. This “streamlining” of the Medicaid and welfare application process works by eliminating mechanisms designed to protect the taxpayers from fraud, waste and abuse such as the requirement for face-to-face interviews, fingerprinting and asset tests for determining eligibility. All of these safeguards should remain in place to insure that those receiving Medicaid and welfare benefits are indeed eligible under the law.
Cut Medicaid Optional Services – $150 million
The New York State Medicaid program offers nearly 2 dozen optional services not required under the Federal Medicaid program. Reducing the number of optional services to those required by the Federal government would reduce costs. Eliminating all optional services would save the state $150 million.
Cut 5% from Select Agency Contract Balances – $300 million
As of September of 2009, the undisbursed balance of existing state contracts totals more than $129 Billion. This proposal excludes the following types of contracts: authority, revenue generating, repayments to state contracts, community project fund, construction, construction related, non general fund, Department of Health, State Ed, and contracts with zero balance. The proposal assumes a 5% reduction in all undisbursed balances, of which 1% would be General Fund savings.
Caught In Their Own Nets
by Bojidar Marinov, Oct 14, 2009 American Vision
No wonder Whoopi Goldberg said what she said. She can’t help it. She is a victim. She is a victim of the liberal propaganda she believes in. That same propaganda that is based on emptying the words of our language of any moral meaning. So when it comes to applying moral meaning to words, she is confused. “Rape-rape” or “just rape”?
“I don’t necessarily want my 13-year old to have sex with a 45-year old man.” What does that phrase mean? She probably wouldn’t be able to tell. Does she say that it is not “necessity” that tells her what to want or not? Or does she say she is not forced to want her 13-year old to have sex, she just wants it on her own accord?
Depends on what the definition of “sex” is, declared President Clinton. Again, he is acting on premises that exclude any moral meaning in language, and therefore excludes any possible absolute definitions, including his own.
President Obama is smarter: He uses a teleprompter. But the moment his eyes leave the teleprompter, he is forced to speak out of simple common sense, and says things that directly contradict all his policies and ideology.
These are all connected symptoms of the same sickness: Language emptied of moral meaning eventually turns against those who use it. The shrewd are caught in the nets of their own craftiness. The history of the US in the 20th century abounds with examples. My personal favorite is the trade unions’ accusation against the employers: “If you don’t give us more money, you are greedy!” Or the communist critique against fascism: “Fascism is an immoral dictatorial one-party rule with total control over the economy by the State and persecution of political opponents.” Or atheism’s basic tenet: “To believe in the existence of absolute moral standards is absolutely immoral.”
Language was created by God for a purpose: to convey the moral truths of God. It has first and foremost an ethical function, and then everything else. We inescapably talk morality every time we open our mouths, whether we are aware of it or not, whether we admit it or not. Created in the image of God, man is first and foremost a moral being, and his language necessarily must have moral content and meaning before everything else. Whether we talk about biology, math, entertainment, computer programs, art, or cleaning a house, we are declaring certain moral truths to the world, and we are declaring them on the basis of a worldview that has first and foremost an ethical foundation on which everything else stands. We can’t escape talking morality, and we can’t escape making moral judgments every time we open our mouths.
That’s why the liberal war against God in the 20th and 21st century is self-defeating. Based on moral relativism, it is trying to negate God by negating the very moral character of language, by emptying language of its moral meaning. Far from giving the liberals a weapon in the debate, it is in fact setting fire to their own intellectual house. Every definition now is dangerous because it turns against them, every statement becomes its logical negation—and by default, negation of the very liberal position it is designed to promote and defend. Therefore every definition needs multiple sub-definitions and sub-sub-definitions, until the very talk of the anti-Christian thinkers becomes completely meaningless even to themselves.
Cornelius Van Til informed us about the “epistemological maturing” in history of the two seeds. The epistemological maturing of the unbelievers will make them more and more irrelevant and helpless to use language as their tool and weapon against God. More and more every word they say will turn against them and will undermine their own position. No wonder there is no great philosophical thinker in the non-Christian world today; no wonder Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins pass for “thinkers” these days: the unbelieving world is becoming more and more epistemologically self-consistent with its own basic premise of meaninglessness.
The unbelieving world is in intellectual bankruptcy, and has been so for the last 60 years. It has tried to preach meaning while negating the very basis of meaning; it has been trying to moralize by negating morality; it has been trying to speak while defining its very language out of existence.
This is the time for Christians to wake up and see that the “giants” are in fact very small. There is no logical reasoning left in the world, there is no meaning, there is no purpose to live and exist. The expectation that a mythical “Antichrist” will rule the world is not Biblical, and is not realistic. Such a world ruler will have to overcome the very fruits of the anti-Christian ideology—the lack of meaning. Without meaning no one can rule themselves, let alone the whole world. No one gets excited about ultimate meaningless, and no one gets excited about an ideology that can’t even defend itself against its own inconsistencies. Meaning can be found only in Christ, and therefore Christianity is the only religion that can overcome the world in an active, aggressive sense of the word.
The supposed triumph of liberalism is non-existent. All the social, economic, legal and political “victories” of liberalism in the United States and abroad are only result of the cultural retreat of Christians. God catches His enemies in their own nets—like He does with Whoopi, Obama, Clinton and many others—and thus He gives us assurance for our victory in history. If we will only act.
About Us
The Republican Review of America is one of many conservative outlets that seeks to convey to the community that a moral and responsible citizenry and a capitalist free-market economy is what works best for America. Our country’s departure from classical education, morals and values in addition to adopting destructive views contrary to our US Constitution have placed our economy at great risk. The Republican Review of America is a voice and comfort to the truly God-fearing conservative who desire to see America flourish again as a patriotic, traditional family oriented, society that has within it competitive inhabitants that will contribute to a more powerful republic for which we stand.
Regards, Chaplain (Col) Tommy Davis, DDCS
“Though the fig does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior. The Sovereign Lord is my strength” (Habakkuk 3:17).
