There is an interesting debate taking place in the right wing blogosphere in the US right now. It concerns one Christine O'Donnell who won the Republican primary to be a US Senate candidate for Delaware. She defeated a Republican career politician who is a Rino (Republican in Name Only).
Now, the Republican Party has always been a broad tent party. The liberal left-wing of the party is indistinguishable from the centre-left of the Democratic Party. There are plenty of Republicans who believe they, being superior human beings, have a divine right to be in government. They are "good folks" as they say in the States. Whatever ideology or political views they hold is irrelevant: because they are "good folks" the fact that they might, say, promote pro-abortion legislation is fine because, well, they are "good folks". And if they hold positions which the majority of their constituents don't, well, that's OK, because they are smarter than the average bear and know better, as self-righteous "good folks" always do.
We have plenty of politicians like this in New Zealand as well. Well call them El Nino's--National in Name Only (National is the ostensibly conservative party. As we have reminded readers many times in the past, some of the biggest expansions of government power in this country have been the love-child of Nino's. In many critical ways, the National Party and successive National Governments have been a curse upon our country.
Christine O'Donnell unexpectedly defeated the Rino candidate in the primary. She is a limited government, Tea Party candidate. She is a Christian. She is not a career politician. The Republican political pros have derided her candidacy and her election. She is so far to the right of the Delaware electorate that she is unelectable, they opine. They may well be right.
It was conservative pundit, the late William F Buckley who espoused the tactical principle that the most electable conservative candidate should always be selected, and thus conservatives should be happy with Rino candidates when they are the only ones who stand a chance in liberal electorates. All this sounds eerily familiar to us in NZ, where we have the exact same debates (on both the right and the left). National's John Key had to move to the centre, we have been told over and over, in order to get elected.
To us, this is a debate between tactics and strategy. Tactics are focused on short-term advantages. Strategy is focused on longer term realities. Christians should always be more focused upon long term strategy than tactics. Whenever Christians get besotted with short term tactical plays they inevitably end up in ungodly compromise because they must make common-cause with Unbelief.
Instead, we would argue this way: the people of Delaware need a choice--a clear choice between the idolatry of soft-despotic statism and the Christian faith. Christine O'Donnell provides that choice. If the people of Delaware reject her and favour the very-left-of-centre Democratic candidate, so be it. They need to experience the consequences of their choice--and they will over time, just as long-liberal-dominated areas of the United States are now (Illinois, New York, California and so forth--states and municipalities that are now structurally bankrupt, and face long inevitable lingering decline).
And if the people as a whole continue to favour soft-despotic statism, then the nation as a whole will decline under the curses of the covenant. Christians, whilst taking no pleasure in it, should not be alarmed at this happening, for the experience of degradation and suffering are the very things that make a people long for God and His gracious rule. Idolatry always degrades man and destroys freedom. This is the way God works. Evil always integrates into a self-destructive void. But, if along the way, we Christians have compromised for sake of short-term political expediency, what then? There will be no light left, there will be no truth, no Gospel, and no hope for our nation. When our people turn to folly, our calling is not to turn with them (to be part of them, to be relevant, to be well thought of, etc.), but our calling is to suffer with them as the consequences of their folly fall upon us all--yet all the while standing apart for God and His truth.
And as for the Buckley principle of political pragmatism, we say this: when we are on the scaffold, it matters not whether he who pulls the trapdoor is black or white, rich or poor, National or Labour, Democrat or Republican. The result is the same.
It remains true that the previous Republican administration in the US (a Rino administration) did more to promote soft-despotic statism and left the country more indebted than ever before. And in our case, it remains true that El Nino administrations in New Zealand have brought the country to inevitable structural decline. The country is now virtually irretrievable: things will now get a whole lot worse before they get better. We don't feel any better because of that. In fact, we are entitled to be angrier because there is an element of betrayal involved. At least with the liberals and the progressives and the overt-secular humanists you get your poison straight.
Our hope remains in God and His omnipotent righteousness, not in man and gaining the Treasury benches. Here is our manifesto:
See, I have taught you statutes and judgments just as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do thus in the land where you are entering to possess it. So keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the people who will hear all these statutes and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' . . . Only give heed to yourself and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they deprt from your heart all the days of your life; but make them known to your sons and your grandsons. (Deuteronomy 4: 5--9)
No comments:
Post a Comment