Redstate

By bluechiplaw Posted in Archived — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Institutions by their very nature grow more liberal as they grow older. I was recently reading a biography of Jonathan Edwards, the great theologian of Connecticutt, and the author noted that people murmured against Harvard becoming too liberal back in Edwards' day. Of course, liberal to them meant Harvard profs were becoming more Anglican and less Massachusetts Bay Puritan. My how times have changed.

In a religious setting being a Puritan has historically been quite dangerous. Seeking to change a religious institution from within (whether or not one agrees doctrinally with the Puritans is irrelevant to this post, by the way) threatens the priestly economy, and so it was with Huss and Luther with Rome as well as with their theological progeny in England when they were bucking the Anglican hierarchy.

Religious ideals have eternal consequences. Ardent believers of both the puritanical view as well as the status-quo both adhere to what they consider to be right and godly. As long as people believe their souls are dependent upon clinging to certain propositions about God while rejecting others the success of the Puritan is always a pipe dream. Therefore, in a religious context virtually all Puritans end up being separatists.

Over the past few months I've read and heard an uncomfortable number of people espouse political separatism from the Republican party. Because we have a number of porcine congressmen and a relatively liberal presidential nominee, heretofore faithful Republicans are contemplating jumping ship in favor of pathetic institutions such as the Constitution party. ("Pathetic" is not a description of their views, only their opportunity for political success.) They act as though the devil himself has tainted the party to the point of no return. They are political separatists, and they are myopic idealists.

Political ideals have temporal, not eternal, consequences. To use the religious metaphor, we don't need a Luther, we need an Erasmus.

I'm no fan of McCain on the whole. But think of the consequences of a third party. The third party would split the popular vote, win few or no states, and guarantee liberal victories at the federal and state level. The political Puritans brimming with confidence need to consider this: If we don't have the numbers to win our own party, how on earth could we win the broader electorate?

The balm for the pock-mark of liberalism currently speckling our political party is for all of us to work from the bottom up to change our party. Conservative city counsel members turn into conservative mayors, who turn into conservative state representatives, who turn into conservative governors, who turn into conservative federal representatives and senators, who turn into conservative presidents.

The motley crew of liberal Republicans who plague our party didn't just wake up one day and collectively decide to run for the senate. No, their rise to power has been marked by their desire to serve in government, a desire that dates back decades. This tells us what we already know, that it takes time, toil, and treasure to rise to power. We can't expect to just create a new party and bypass the work. Instead, we need to commit to enacting conservative principles by running for local political office and supporting and encouraging other conservatives to do the same.