A Conservatarian at Large

Wednesday, December 25, 2019 5:45 pm Daniel J. Summers

As I stated in my last post, I have realigned my political affiliation. I set out to find previous posts I've written here which no longer reflect my opinions, and I didn't find much. Most of the things I would write differently if I were writing them today would differ in tone more than content. This confirms my suspicion that it wasn't me who changed as much as it was my party.

To be fair, I'm quite happy with many of the things the current administration has done. The Supreme Court has a nice balance now, regularly confounding people who expect party-line votes from what is supposed to be a non-partisan institution. There are now enough strict-constructionist justices that the Constitution is being followed much more closely. And, for as much scorn as I've heaped on “the resistance,” it's been nice to have a press that sees how unjust many of the things our government has been doing is. It's a shame they lose interest when it's discovered that prior administrations also did those things - or they choose to ignore that, acting like every shame is a new shame that should be borne solely by the current administration.

What changed (or what was revealed) is the character of those in the party, not just the guy at the top of the ticket. It is a perfectly defensible position to say that you agree with the political job that someone is doing, and still lament their character. Pro-life judges don't excuse callous mocking of deceased political opponents. Increasing religious freedom doesn't eliminate adultery and hush-money payments. Yet among the vocal Republican majority, it does. For the “character matters” warriors from the Clinton administration, this is hypocritical; among Christians, this is absolutely devastating to our witness.

(begin evangelical Christian-targeted rant)

Yes, King David was anointed by God to lead Israel; that doesn't mean his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah were fine, because he was “God's anointed.” For those making the “Trump is appointed by God” argument - you're not wrong, but I don't think that argument makes the point you think it does. I wrote on my devotional blog about Paul's writing to the Romans; his words in Romans 13 were written about Nero. Remember, too, that the only reason Israel had kings was due to their rejection of God as their ultimate ruler. King David is a terrible analogy to use if you're wanting to speak positively about our current President while ignoring his personal and professional misconduct; maybe you could draw a parallel about pride, but that's not really what I think you're wanting to highlight.

(end rant)

As a faithful Christian, I can no longer maintain a political affiliation with the Republican party. And, while I'm still part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” against Hillary Clinton (which, of course, is tongue-in-cheek; there is no such thing, as much as she'd like to blame them for her failures), that is no longer the best description of my views. So, the new tagline here is “Conservatarian at Large” (a nod to Jon Gabriel and Stephen Miller's podcast portmanteau), indicating both a conservative (AKA “classically liberal”) and libertarian viewpoint.

I will also unequivocally state that I do not think that Christians who make a different choice are somehow going against what God wants them to do. There are many different ways to parse our current nuanced environment. Those who believe just as I do may land on continued support for Donald Trump, and advocate for giving him 4 more years at the helm of the good ship USA. As long as they are not seemingly blind to his faults, in my view, they are following a path which they feel God has directed them. That's the nice thing about a proper view of God's sovereignty; He can make His followers have different viewpoints - sometimes to call others to change, and other times to cause them to think.

As for me and my conscience, though, I cannot continue with the GOP. As I alluded in my last post, I'll be exploring the relationship between conservative Christianity and libertarianism in the near future. That won't be the only thing about which I'll write here, but it will probably be the first thing (unless I find some time to resurrect the “good, bad, and ridiculous” thing for 2019).

Housekeeping-wise, the college football posts from 2012-2014 have been removed; those URLs will return a 404. If anyone misses them, you can turn this site's URL into an e-mail address and let me know.

The 10^th Annual Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post

Thursday, February 21, 2013 3:18 am Daniel J. Summers

Another American election year has come and gone. Four years ago, many thought our nation made a great stride in electing our first black president, and that we had eliminated racism. We didn't get very far into the following year before we realized that no, there was no substantive change; anyone who was opposed to the president's policies must be motivated by racism. Would 2012 bring any changes? I believe it did, and not the way we could have predicted at its start.

We are at a point in this country where the accusation of racism is a joke. (Read that closely - the accusation is the joke.) “I don't like my coffee black.” “RACIST!” (As it happens, I do, SO THERE!) There's even an entire meme based around it. More and more Americans are seeing these over-hyped charges of racism, looking at the actual thing accused, and realizing that the racism just isn't there. Noticing differences among ethnicities and cultures is not racist; in fact, if we don't notice these differences, how in the world are we going to incorporate them into the American melting pot/salad bowl?

Alfonzo Rachel, host of ZoNation, made an interesting point in his video released after the Republican National Convention in September. The whole thing's good, but the crazy part starts at 3:01.

If you can't watch the video, it's a clip of MSNBC's convention coverage, starting with a soliloquy from Touré.

But more to what I want to talk about - two main points. You know, he loves this line of “our rights come from God and nature” which is so offensive to so much of America, because for black people, Hispanic people, and women, our rights do not come from God or nature. They were not recognized by the natural order of America, they come from the government and from legislation that happened in relatively recent history in America. So that line just bothers me to my core.

You want to talk about offensive lines, sir? You just dropped one. That has got to be some of the most ridiculous talk I have ever heard. It's almost like you believe that the Constitution created God! God-given rights are rights whether a government recognizes them or not, and this is not limited to America; our founders merely recognized these rights that are inherent to all humans.

Let's square that with Dr. King's famous speech:

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I've been to Georgia and Mississippi pretty recently, and I'm pretty sure I saw people of all races living, working, and playing together harmoniously. I don't see anything in that speech about government being the grantor of rights; in fact, it almost looks like he's referencing the white-guy-written Declaration of Independence as if it's a good thing. Huh. If Touré wants to stand on the shoulders of a legacy, it certainly isn't Dr. King's.

The race card has been overplayed, to the point where it has lost its value. That, I believe, is a good thing; the only people keeping racism alive in this country today are those who claim to see it lurking in the shadows of every conservative's innocent words. However, these continued accusations run the risk of causing a backlash, and becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. There's a guy I know who says “If I'm going to be accused of something, I want to be guilty;” if the innocent are going to be accused of racism, they may find little motivation to even try to be sensitive of those of other ethnicities or cultures. This could lead to the further coarsening of our societal debates, which would be a bad thing.

May modern-day racists continue to be exposed for the fools that they are, as the rest of us see Dr. King's dream lived out in our nation.

Akin, Get Out Now

Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:04 pm Daniel J. Summers

Last weekend, Claire McCaskill's (D) opponent in the Missouri Senate race, current Representative Todd Akin (R) went on a television show, and the discussion turned to his views regarding abortion. He is on record as not supporting a rape exception as part of an abortion ban. He explained himself thusly:

Charles Jaco, Interviewer: Okay, so if an abortion can be considered in the case of, say, tubal pregnancy or something like that, what about in the case of rape? Should it be legal or not?

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.): Well, you know, uh, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, “Well, how do you - how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question.” It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

To say that the middle sentence in his reply got a lot of attention would be the understatement of the week. As someone who shares his overall views, that sentence made me cringe. There are two ways to address the “what about a rape exemption” question, and neither one are that.

First off, he's wrong on the biology. What he wanted to say was that significant emotional distress can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, or can cause hormonal changes that can trigger a miscarriage; since rape is such an emotionally devastating event, the body may very well take care of it itself. This is something that I've heard anecdotally (from real people, not a website), but I'm not aware of any sort of study that can confirm that. Even if there is an increased likelihood that an egg fertilized during rape will not turn into a pregnancy, though, it in no way “shut(s) the whole thing down.” A risk factor is not the same as a bodily function.

Secondly, he's wrong on “legitimate” rape. One he knows what he meant by that; he's later clarified to say that he meant “forcible” (as opposed to statutory), but still - what a horrible choice of words! What is the world is a legitimate rape? I'd wager that all of them are illegitimate acts of violence against the other party. Some might excuse it as a slip-up, but this man has been a legislator for longer than Obama's been in politics - he should darn well know how to articulate his views without giving the left a Scooby snack! Rush Limbaugh, in his denunciation of these remarks and call for Akin to get out of the race, speculated that he surrounds himself by only those who agree with him, so he hasn't had to articulate it very much.

This gets to the crux of why he should remove himself from the race. Mr. Akin, you have misrepresented the position, discredited yourself and your party, and you're down over 10 points in Missouri polling. All Republican party groups, including the Romney/Ryan team, have distanced themselves from you and your remarks. I personally have learned to silently roll my eyes when the sneering liberals group me with what they call anti-science religious zealots, but I absolutely hate it when they're right. You have single-handedly dealt the pro-life cause a serious blow, and by continuing to stay in this race, you are doing little more than twisting the dagger. People of principle are loyal to the principle, not the person. You may be right on principle, but by continuing to force yourself as the leader of that cause, you are making it about you instead of the cause of life. No one wants you to go down with the ship; if you step aside and let another lead, the ship may not go down at all.

Tangent #1 He did hit the first way to address the “what about rape” question toward the end of the excerpt above; it's not the baby's fault. The other is an equally simple response; either all life is sacred, or it is not. If abortion is unacceptable because life is sacred, life created through violence is no less sacred, and should be afforded the same protections. He sort of hit that earlier in his interview when discussing tubal pregnancies, even using the term “optimize life.” That's a good way to put it, IMO.

Tangent #2 Mike Huckabee, you need to get out of this too. You lost to Mitt in 2008, and revisiting your grudge in 2012 is going to do nothing but give us 4 more years of Obama, with no chance of repealing that health care monstrosity. If that happens, public tax money will be used to fund abortions and abortofacients, and religious organizations will be forced to provide them against their convictions. I know you don't like the idea of voting for a Mormon, but the only rallying that needs to be done is the one that will drum Akin off the ballot.