In a somewhat surprising move, Ron Paul has chosen to buck his libertarian roots and endorse the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin for President. In a long, very personal and very revealing piece, Paul makes a couple of observations about this decision and his run at the White House. This one stuck out:
Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.
Paul, like many of us Christians who deeply lament the unbiblical support from our brothers and sisters of offensive war, murder, lying and blasphemy - and those who have sold themselves out to John McCain’s “evil” because it is “less evil” than Barack Obama’s “evil” has decided to embrace a genuinely Christian candidate in Chuck Baldwin. From the pastor himself:
For one thing, a sizeable number of believers allowed President George W. Bush to redefine their Christian principles almost out of existence. They willingly looked the other way while Bush betrayed his word (not to mention the Constitution) and catapulted conservative principles into outer darkness. To the point, that they can now even support someone as liberal as John McCain and still call him a “conservative.”
I will say it straight out: any Christian or conservative who supports John McCain has no principles left worth defending!
…How could Christians sacrifice their principles and convictions so easily? How could they be so willing to surrender their loyalties–both to Christ as the organic Sovereign of this land, and to constitutional government, which is, itself, built on Biblical principles?
…
There it is: countless millions of professing Christians will eagerly abandon their commitment to constitutional government and Biblical principles in order to accommodate a Republican Presidential candidate. In the minds of many Christians, the Republican Party is more important than the U.S. Constitution. It is more important than conservative principles or even Biblical injunctions. In essence, the Republican Party has become an IDOL in the hearts and minds of many professing believers.
So, how can we ask God to bless America when God’s children have set up the groves of idolatry in their hearts? How can we expect God to heal our land when Christian pastors, Sunday School teachers, deacons, ushers, and faithful church members place more loyalty and allegiance in a political party than they do in the very Word and principles of God?
As surely as the pagans of the Old Testament worshipped before the gods of Baal and Ashteroth, many Christians worship before the GOP. They are willing to sacrifice their children to the policies and practices of unscrupulous, evil politicians–as long as they have an “R” behind their names.
We have a major problem in the church, let alone the conservative political movement when so many claim they agree with the authority of Christ and the bible and yet, out of ignorance or stubborn human-centered pride, support policies that are so blatantly and radically unbiblical and unchristian. There is probably more hope with the left’s base, who though dead wrong on principle, at least seem to understand the concept of principle. It may be easier to convince them that their motives, while correct, are not carried out through socialism, wealth-redistribution, pluralism and so called religious and cultural “tolerance.”
The Christian “right” has gone full-circle this decade. What started as an effort to align one of the major parties with a God-fearing agenda has turned into a power struggle to align God-fearing people with a major party agenda. Paul sees that the mainstream of political Christianity has been so caught up in what these false prophets, teachers and experts are proclaiming that it is time to “evangelize” the left.
Realistically, Paul’s positions have generally been closer to the Constitution Party that the hard-line of the Libertarian Party. Paul’s emphasis on Rothbardian/Austrian economics and his opposition to the drug war makes him friends with the Libertarians, but his views on immigration, Christianity and abortion align him more with the Old Right and Constitution Party.
With this endorsement Paul has shown his true colours, even though it will not make a lot of sense to those who supported him from the left. Once again, he has chosen to follow his principles over politics, and pick a hard-core Christian “libertarian-esque” candidate who emphasises those principles which Paul finds most important.
Here is Paul and Baldwin talking in 2007 about Christian/conservative issues.
“The Christian “right” has gone full-circle this decade. What started as an effort to align one of the major parties with a God-fearing agenda has turned into a power struggle to align God-fearing people with a major party agenda.”
This is exactly right. And I think Chuck Baldwin probably has a greater grasp of this than anyone since he was part of Falwell’s Moral Majority. He has seen the Christian Conservative movement evolve from its inception. He knows where they started and how they’ve ended up.
When I think about many of the Christian leaders today - many of whom I have a great deal of respect and affection for - I see how they have been corrupted by the polarization in American politics. This is evidenced by the staunch Christian Zionism propaganda and pro-war stuff they spew out. And when they are not overtly outspoken about their allegiance to the Party, they talk about the president being the leader of the nation and how we should not speak against him, yada yada yada. Basically they are curbing dissent by making it taboo to say anything about the country being destroyed, lest we haply mention the name of His Holiness. Funny thing is I can’t imagine them sticking up for president Clinton like that. But, after all, he was the devil.
As an avid Ron Paul supporter, I cannot support Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution party for two reasons:
1. IMO truthers hurt his campaign more than any other thing, including lack of media exposure. On various Pro Paul websites, these truthers now support Chuck Baldwin. I will never support a candidate that has these kooky supporters again. They gave him a bad name and ironically Ron Paul does not agree with them. I will never “get in bed” with truthers again.
2. The second reason is because of the Constitution party itself. It certainly has a great name after all who can argue with the constitution?
But after further review, have you read their preamble:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble
“The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations”
Sorry I can’t support a party that in effect excludes non Christian members and I am a Christian.
Any One Is Better Than The Other Options Of Washington Insiders.
We Will See What Happens.
Anyone advocating a return toward the constitution is an ally. What is happening is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and has been for quite some time.
To assume benevolence is foolish. The predator is never nice to the prey.
Wish more people would have debated Ron Paul rather than dismissed him.
Debate Is The Distillation Of Reality.
I think it’s foolish for Ron Paul to endorse a candidate that isn’t running as a Republican. It’s fine if he doesn’t support John McCain, but I had hoped he wouldn’t go on record to officially support a third party candidate. I thought he was genuinely trying to bring change to the Republican Party through the primaries and so forth. By endorsing a different candidate he has damaged his credibility as a Republican and sabotaged any efforts at reforming the party. That makes me sad.
“I think it’s foolish for Ron Paul to endorse a candidate that isn’t running as a Republican. It’s fine if he doesn’t support John McCain, but I had hoped he wouldn’t go on record to officially support a third party candidate. I thought he was genuinely trying to bring change to the Republican Party through the primaries and so forth. By endorsing a different candidate he has damaged his credibility as a Republican and sabotaged any efforts at reforming the party. That makes me sad.”
One of the main reasons Paul has stated for not going third party is the difficulty of getting on the ballots - something he addressed in the recent third party press conference. Ron Paul has brought change to the Republican party, about as much change as any one person can ever hope to bring. But some things are beyond repair.
I can’t see how endorsing a candidate who campaigned for him, and who shares similar views damages his credibility at all. If there is anything that everyone can agree on, its that Ron Paul is a principled man. Principles trump party affiliation any day. Nobody wants to go down with the ship.
The Constitution Party is a misnomer.
They are the Christian Party.
Chris A wrote:
It damages his credibility as a Republican. It doesn’t damage his reputation as a man of principle. I was hoping he would keep on working to reform the Republican party, but this endorsement signifies that he’s moving beyond that. I think that’s a mistake. There is still hope for significant change in the Republican party. I’m not ready to abandon hope.
I for one am quite happy with Ron Paul’s endorsement. I had planned on voting for Chuck Baldwin anyway, despite the fact that I am not a Christian. I’m not overly fond of the CP’s platform, but Chuck Baldwin has caused some division in the CP by putting the Constituton first over his religious beliefs. That’s why Alan Keyes is on the ballot in California.
I agree that reforming the Republican party is of paramount importance. I think that is much more likely to happen if McCain loses. So voting third party is the obvious option this year for me. If they cannot win without our support, then they will have to change their tune to get it next time. Now is the time to punish the GOP for treating real conservatives like lepers.
I could cry. I worked my heart out trying to get that man elected. Now he supports a man who is against every principle I have. Either I was duped big time by a bigoted redneck, or Paul’s ego has been so damaged that he decided to pick a bigoted redneck just to get back at the libertarian party.
I don’t know what to say. I have officially lost all respect for the man and I feel so degraded, so tricked.
I love Ron Paul and voted for him in the primary as well as sent him money to the tune of 1400.00. Although he did not get the GOP nomination I feel this was money well spent. i will also support candidates from either party that Paul endoreses. He has my absolute trust but come Novemeber I will cast my vote for Obama. The risk of a McCain/Palin presidency is so scary and truly mindboggling.
Thanks for commenting, Andrea. It’s good to hear from a Ron Paul supporter. I sent him money and voted for him in the primary. I’m disappointed I can’t vote for him in the general election. I intend to vote Libertarian.
Anyway, I must respond to your comment about Baldwin. Chuck Baldwin is from Pensacola, Florida, which is hardly redneck territory. He grew up in La Porte, Indiana, which is a small town and may qualify as redneck territory depending on how broad your definition is. But he’s college- and seminary-educated, so he’s not exactly a ignorant rube.
Your “bigot” comment probably refers to his opposition to illegal immigration, his belief that the South was in the right in the Civil War, and his statements about Dr. Martin Luther King’s immoral lifestyle. None of those are bigoted opinions. It’s possible to support a restrictive immigration policy without being bigoted. Nor is it bigoted to admit that Lincoln and the North vastly overstepped their Constitutional authority in waging war to prevent the South from seceding. And I don’t think any Bible-believing Christian can in good conscience excuse what we now know about Dr. King’s lifestyle; the man was a pivotal figure in the Civil Rights movement, but he’s not an example of a righteous man.
I also will not cast a vote for any candidate from this Party. The two major parties have at least become more honest in their attempts to speed us headlong into a socialized hell. The CP by contrast claims that exclusion and prejudice are rooted in the teachings of Jesus, among other absurdities. It would do the Constitution Party well to read the document that is their namesake. The Party’s preamble contains deceptions intended to convince people of that which is patently false. An egregious example is:
“The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law…”
The Constitution established a Federal Republic with very few, and clearly specified powers. The Constitution is barren of any mention of a deity, let alone the superiority of one religion over another.
This logical fallacy of proof by verbosity, assumes first that the reader is ignorant of the Constitution, and secondly that no one unfamiliar will bother with verification. The oft-repeated claim that the United States was founded solely by Christians and on Christian principles is made no less false by the parroting of the opinion. There is not in our Constitution anything but a framework of a small government, and a careful separation of powers. Such deception falls neatly into the camp of bearing false witness, rendering this Party bitterly hypocritical, in this voter’s opinion.
Much of the platform of the CP lays out noble goals, such as the restoration of severely limited government, but other portions reveal a spiritual bigotry, and propensity for deliberate dishonesty.
“It damages his credibility as a Republican. It doesn’t damage his reputation as a man of principle. I was hoping he would keep on working to reform the Republican party, but this endorsement signifies that he’s moving beyond that. I think that’s a mistake. There is still hope for significant change in the Republican party. I’m not ready to abandon hope.”
I won’t say you don’t have a valid point, but from a non-partisan perspective I just disagree. The GOP did all they could to silence and discredit him. He wasn’t welcome at the convention, and they even tried to cancel his rally in St. Paul. Some “big tent”. So he’s supposed to reform the party now? I’m a man of faith, but forgive me for saying that is in the realm of pure fantasy. The people who would hear have heard. The change that could be made within the party has been made. I think the Ron Paul phenomenon is as much evidenced by the people he brought into the party as much as it is demonstrated by the number of traditional conservative Republicans that joined his camp. I think he internet popularity alone would seem to confirm that.
And you all thought that I demonized the other side… only in this case, he’s demonizing and belittling brothers and sisters in Christ.
Darius, I’m not sure what you just said.
I think I should mention that I will most likely be voting for Bob Barr. I actually prefer the more secular position of the libertarians, despite my own Christian beliefs. However, Baldwin himself is a class act in my opinion.
Sam, this is wisdom. The republican party still can be an agent for good (possibly, maybe, someday) but it also has crossed well over the boundaries by nominating John McCain, supporting GW and spending like drunken sailors. They need to be disciplined.
“Darius, I’m not sure what you just said.”
Yeah, me neither.
“…any Christian or conservative who supports John McCain has no principles left worth defending!”
That’s what I was referring to.
Yeah, statements like that don’t make me think happy thoughts about the Constitution Party. I’m not a fan of John McCain, but it’s foolish for Baldwin to think that no principled Christian can support McCain. There are plenty of reasons to vote for John McCain. I’m attracted by his steadfast support for pro-life principles, and for his opposition to the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. Those are good reasons to vote for McCain.
They’re not enough to win my vote, but that doesn’t mean a principled Christian conservative voter can’t vote for him.
Lots of specialists argue that personal loans help a lot of people to live their own way, because they can feel free to buy necessary things. Moreover, various banks offer financial loan for different persons.