Tag Archive for 'election'

Debra Medina’s Loss and The Ron Paul Effect

Published by Colin March 3, 2010 in Politics and Current Events. 12 Comments

Debra Medina will not be governor of Texas.

However while it is easy to focus on what is immediately in front of us, we must remember the bigger picture here. As Medina said in a sort-of concession speech:

We are winning across this state the hearts and minds of fellow Texans.

There is no question that with just under 20% of the vote she has shown her ideas to be popular enough to effect an election.

That was all Ron Paul needed, less then that in fact, in order to catapult himself to amazing opportunities over these past couple of years. Yes, Ron Paul lost the 2008 election, but his popularity (and the popularity of his ideas) signalled a pottential sea-change. He may have lost the election, but he is still winning the battle for hearts and minds.

That is what I call the “Ron Paul Effect” which is the seeming paradox of influence and power that comes when a grassroots candidate loses an election. I believe this happens if the candidate awakes a substantial philosophical change in voters, not merely convincing them to vote for them in the short-term, but convincing them to adopt a set of principles and beliefs for the long-term.

Medina is likely to benefit from this effect, as her issues, like Paul’s, are philosophical. She is not an austro-libertarian like Paul, but her brand of conservatism is still a set of time honoured traditions and principles.

Debra Medina has stood up and made herself the leader of a bloc of people in Texas who support less taxes, less spending, nullifying federal mandates, constitutionalism and principled gun ownership. That is no small task - and it represents a furthering shift of some of these more “radical” ideas from the fringes of politics into a cohesive force to affect change in a meaningful way.

The great deception in American politics is that pragmatic voting is all that matters - the polls, the media all say that X candidate “can’t win” so better to vote the lesser of two evils. I’m sorry - but this isn’t really about the political process. Elections are a sideshow in the great festival of ideas. Characters like Medina and Paul, while losing elections, are winning over masses of people with ideas.

Sustainable, long-lasting, fundamental change is not won in elections. Certainly not in one election. Advocates of principled libertarianism must continue to see the forest through the trees. Yes, we put a lot of work in on elections. We donate a lot of money. But the electoral process is a means, not an end.

Ron Paul, often ridiculed, mocked and ignored - obtained a majority of cosponsors on a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. Think about that for a moment. That single act is more significant then having Ron Paul in an office where no one understands, supports or believes him.

Medina, from the haggard look in this video, is understandably disappointed in the election result. I am as well. But now is not the time for mourning over things that didn’t really matter. The election served it’s purpose - Medina’s ideas are now more well known and understood then they ever were. Time to shake off the dust, get back up, and win more hearts and minds.

Christianity and Covenants: Husbands and Wives

Published by Colin November 3, 2009 in Religion and Theology. 36 Comments

This is the second article in a multi-part series on Christianity and covenants. Other topics are:

Husbands and Wives
It is an incredible thing that many churches will sometimes spend valuable sermon time preaching on the evils of homosexuality, pre-marital sex or general “left-wing” debauchery, and yet often ignore fundamental aspects of the marriage relationship as layed out in scripture and deduced in Christian theology. Many Christians view this as a “defense of marriage” against encroaching secular humanism or (leftist) moral relativism. Some even go to the polls or to protests against gay marriage as part of the purely “defensive” effort.

Ironically, these highly visible, yet “defensively” dubious activities, have no ability whatsoever to “save” or “protect” the sanctity of marriage - rather, husbands and wives loving and submitting to one another in light of the gospel is where the power is.

Marriage does not exist as a political tool for the government to use to promote family values or even reproduction. Marriage also is not just any relationship between two people who “love” each other. Marriage is, first and foremost, an image, a covenant that is a representation of Christ’s relationship with the church (Ephesians 5:22-33).

The Marriage Covenant
A marriage is not a contract. The husband does not agree to love the wife if she submits to him. The wife does not agree to submit to the husband if he loves her. In fact, the marriage relationship is actually two separate covenants that are acknowledged before God.

When a man and woman take marriage vows, they each make a promise to unconditionally, and unilaterally fulfill a set of promises. It is the same kind of covenant that God makes with man. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) puts it perfectly:

[Husbands:] Your unconditional acceptance of your wife is not based upon her performance, but on her worth as God’s gift to you.

Ironically, even on the CBMW website, a bastion of complementarianism, it was difficult to find a corresponding statement for wives. This was the best I could do:

There are many situations where a husband is selfish, unreasonable, and hypocritical. This alone does not release a wife from her responsibility to respect and submit to him.

But really, the point is simple - the roles and structure in marriage is ordained by God. It is voluntarily entered into by husbands and wives, both of whom engage an unconditional set of vows to one another.

This is what makes marital love so special - it is a self-sacrificing love - a love that does not come from merit or profit. The best synonym I can think of for this kind of love is “commitment.” It means that spouses make a deliberate, intentional choice to overlook each other’s faults, to forgive one another and to commit to one another in the same way that God has done these things toward us.

Christ forgave us while we were still sinners - so we love our spouses, knowing that they have, do and will sin against us. Christ gave himself for us, so we too surrender our lives, our pride and our independence for the benefit of our spouse. Christ clothes us in his righteousness and has saved us - we protect, honour and affirm the role of our spouse and their worth as a child of God.

The marriage relationship comes back to the gospel. As it should - Paul already reminded us of this in Ephesians 5.

Perverting the Gospel
The feminist movement in the hearts of men and women has been the greatest modern assault on marriages. I worded that sentence carefully. It is not simply feminism - in the sense of certain intellectuals, books or even ideology. It is the fact that something other than biblical marriage has encroached upon the marriage covenant in the hearts of husbands and wives.

A quick way to survey these views, is to go back to Ephesians 5, and interpret them in the theology of marriage being an image of Christ and the Church.

Marriage is a 50/50 partnership:  If my salvation from sin were a 50/50 partnership with God, I’d be in big trouble. If Christ and I are both responsible for salvation, how can I expect that I maintain it in all of my continuing sin and falling short of God’s standards? What if Christ and I disagree on how best to save me?

Marriage is a give and take relationship: Imagine if the gospel were give and take. Maybe God should stop “taking” all the time and give me a little more leeway to indulge sin? But if I wanted to give to God, what can I bring that is worthy of a perfect, self-sufficient God?

Marriage roles are interchangeable: Perhaps it isn’t me who needs saving, it’s God! And I can save him just as well as he can save me.

Marriage is conditional: God only has to forgive me if I first apologise. God will only save me if I make a vow to praise him forever. What if Christ’s death and resurrection were only available to people of a certain pre-existing righteousness?

Now if marriage has less to do with the gospel, then more egalitarian, even feminist views on marriage are potentially compatible with marriage. However, scripture argues that marriage and the gospel go hand in hand.

This goes back to an earlier point. What is the best way to affirm and support the biblical view of marriage? It is not to attack feminism in others, or egalitarianism - but rather for us to have a deeper knowledge of the gospel. For us to continue to probe the love with which God has loved us and to meditate on the work of Christ on the cross. In doing this, we will have a better understanding and vision for loving our spouses.

Christianity And Covenants: God’s Covenant With Mankind

Published by Colin October 26, 2009 in Religion and Theology. 2 Comments

This is the first in a multi-part series on Christianity and covenants. Other topics are:

God and Man
This topic is one which, even in beginning to think about it, overwhelms me with gratitude towards God. This is because the contract between God and man is completely and utterly one sided - it is a unilateral contract initiated by God towards people who have wanted absolutely nothing to do with him and, in fact, have been openly hostile and at war with God.

But this is a difficult concept to grasp - especially in light of the fact that we see nothing like this in our world, in our church and even in ourselves. Each and every day, we hold grudges, remember wrongs, complain, gossip, slander one another and set up all kinds of conditions for our relationships. We love those whom we perceive as loving us and we scorn and dislike those who we believe (real or imagined) have wronged us. Our “love” is drowned with conditions and clauses - and all of these are rooted in sinful, selfish, self-righteous pride which is quick to condemn and slow to forgive.

I can think of no better contrast then Ephesians 2:4-9 (NKJV). After laying out the pure and perfect wretchedness of mankind, Paul contrasts this with the great mercy and grace of God:

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

God, in order to demonstrate his grace and kindness, has chosen to save us - despite our being completely dead.

For the purposes of covenants, this is an apt image of a unilateral act - a corpse being raised to life. A corpse cannot make contracts - it is dead. There is no life in it. A dead thing, in order to act, must first be acted upon - it must be made alive. God, in his grace, made us alive, and thus enabled us to have faith and receive his grace.

Contrasting God and Man
As sinful people, what is it that we would do with our enemies? If we could avoid the consequences, we would see them made dead, not alive. We desire vengeance, justice (by our own hypocritical standards) and often enduring punishment through ostracism, exile and exclusion. When someone has wronged us, even as Christians who have experienced God’s grace, we find ourselves incapable of generating the godly characteristics to forgive - it is never our first response. This is because we are obsessed, by nature, with conditional covenants.

But God has instead chosen to act upon man, making promises to him about what he, as a sovereign free being, will do. Moreover he has followed through on those promises in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who provided the promised deliverance of sins. God made the promise and then did all of the work himself.

There is no greater example of a unilateral covenant.

The Benefits of a Unilateral Covenant
If God’s covenant with man is a unilateral covenant, then man can breathe a little easier. If salvation is dependent upon the grace of God, and not on conditional works of man, then salvation is held by God. The bible reveals that God is just, honest, forgiving, loving, unchanging and keeps his word - therefore, his promise and delivery of saving grace is not revocable by man. Those who have placed their faith in Christ are protected by Christ and “sealed” by God the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 1:22 and Ephesians 1:13, 4:30).

Another benefit of a unilateral covenant is a right perspective of sin. Knowing that it was God who saved us, and that our works and decisions are not conditions of grace, frees us from seeing our sin as putting us in jeopardy of breaking any covenants. Rather it stimulates us towards deeper worship, knowing that in spite of our sin, God has still graciously saved us. Our thanks to God is not tainted by any sense of accomplishment.

Moreover, it points us towards a sustainable and powerful solution for our sins - God himself, rather than our own initiative, methods and tricks to simply change our behaviour or external appearances. A lot of Christians go through cycles of guilt and and self-righteousness as they temporarily adjust their behaviour and put away some sin - and then it comes roaring back and the cycle starts again. But if we realise that it is only God who can completely deal with sin, then we acknowledge that our abilities are meaningless and we stop trying to simply change our behaviour and appearance of sin. We can go to God and petition him for his grace and ask him to change us from the inside out, as only he can.

Also, knowing this should trickle down to our relationships with each other. If grace is of God, then we need not compare ourselves to each other and seek to judge one another. We can be honest and open about our sin, and we can receive rebuke, encouragement and correction without being “hurt”, “exposed” or “wounded”(which is really just our pride and self-righteousness revealing itself). Knowing that our sin is not going to rob us of grace, allows us to be used by God to help one another confront and cut-away sin.

Summary
God’s covenant with man is one-sided. Unlike men, who are vengeful and unforgiving towards our enemies, God is forgiving and merciful to those who have wronged him. The bible says we are “dead” in transgressions, and therefore, we are the receivers of grace and cannot initiate or seek out a contract with God - rather, God seeks out us.

Being the recipient of God’s promises gives us a right view of sin, a deeper worship and provides complete and total assurance of our salvation. It also provides us the opportunity to have healthy and intimate relationships with other Christians where we can pursue holiness together.

Dear USA: Please Don’t Screw Up Iran

Published by Colin June 19, 2009 in Politics and Current Events. 77 Comments

Readers: please understand that I am using deliberately sarcastic and overdone language in a specific attempt to add some humour. I’ve been writing such serious stuff in the past two months that I thought it might be nice to have a little fun. Please read this piece with a sense of humour and humility. It is not my intent to be too offensive. 

Remember in the presidential debates when everyone was screaming about how Iran was this huge threat to the world and we need to keep “all the options on the table?” Remember the axis of evil? Remember this article from two years ago explaining how leaving Iran alone might actually lead to a popular revolution and do our dirty work for us? …erm… sorry about that last one - it only got 4 diggs.

But nevertheless, I’m feeling another bout of “I told you so” coming on. Before we began really screwing with the middle east in 2003, Iran was about to go significantly more towards the pro-western side of the Islamic Republic spectrum. By now, we probably could have been travelling there on vacation - maybe even having some foreign exchange students waking us up at 5am doing yoga or whatever it is they do on our living room carpet?

But one of the unintended consequences of having a nut like George W. Bush at the helm is that people in the middle east are going to be scared. And people who are scared vote like, well, they freaking vote like people who are scared.

Remember what happened in our country when we got scared? We federalised airport security. We passed the PATRIOT act. We supported two undeclared wars. We re-elected GW for chrikey’s sake.

Iran of course got scared and elected their own nut:

And this guy was the Iranian equivalent of GW in a lot of ways - aggressive language and posturing and so on. And while I don’t speak Persian, I’m sure he’s probably said a few dumb things and had a few awkward moments.

Nevertheless, the people in Iran are about to kick this guy out. Moreover, it could result in more than that - perhaps some radical reforms in their system of government. All of this in spite of a bunch of old white men making juvenile threats to Iran (have I ever mentioned how much of demagogue Mike Huckabee is? And yes, for anyone who wants to accuse me of “changing” definitions or using them inappropriately, I mean the freaking dictionary definition of demagogue - “a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.”).

Anyway, fortunately Huckabee isn’t in federal office and US threats against Iran have been a little bit less overt in the past few months. This has led to problems for Islamic fundamentalists in Iran who have been able to maintain power, in part, because they can play on people’s fears of an aggressive US, thus, diverting pressure away from reform.

If we want the people of Iran to have the most success in reform, and also want to foster long-term stability - perhaps even future trade and diplomacy with Iran (but I ain’t hosting any exchange students - especially this guy) than our federal government should not do any of the following:

  • Issue official condemnations or supportive resolutions for one group or the other
  • Send in CIA boys to assassinate someone
  • Drop leaflets or other propaganda
  • Perform air strikes or other overt military action
  • Fight a proxy war
  • Try to win the “hearts and minds” of Iranians
  • Encourage or support Israel doing any of the above

For once in the last century, maybe the US can mind its own business. Perhaps our politicians will realise that the world doesn’t need Team America to play good cop / bad cop in every internal conflict and reform effort under the sun.

Let’s leave Iran alone for a little bit and let freedom and liberty do their thing.

A Quick Opinion On The Recent Events In The HOC

Published by gurr8 December 3, 2008 in Current Events. 3 Comments

The Conservatives have made a sudden reversal of their intention to cut public funding of political parties. While it’s off the table for now, the minority Conservatives made clear that they intend to pursue the issue at a later date. All attention has been on the coalition that is forming to take power in the House of Commons, but it is worth discussing the merits of the proposal that sparked this coalition.

Canada’s Political Financing System
Canada has tight political-contribution rules: in 2004, Jean Chrétien’s election financing reforms took effect, eliminating corporate/union contributions and limiting individual contributions to $5,000. Since then, the Conservatives have lowered that amount to $1,000. All political parties now get an annual subsidy of $1.95 for every vote that they received in the previous election. Putting this into real terms, for the Liberals this amounts to $6 million. For the Greens, $1.8 million.

What Do We Want?
Before we look at this issue any further, Canadians must make a decision: do we like our multi-party system of government? The fact is that with the Right now unified into a single party (from two), it seems more and more likely every year that we will see a unified Left created. Do we want to see our parliament reduced to a two-party system? What would be the result? Look at the example with our close cousins to the south: two parties will inevitably inch closer and closer to each other on the biggest political issues, leaving no real choice for the electorate. Compare that to a healthy multi-party parliament system where a minority government or a coalition government must appease many people/parties/interests. This constant negotiation process means no one person or party can make major changes or decisions (for example, budgeting a major deficit or starting a war) without a real mandate. Ruling parties must be far more concerned with the issues of those that did not vote for them, because the multi-party system leaves far less certainty that a party will be able to hold on to power. They cannot be concerned only with the issues of the people that voted for them. This level of compromise is the best form of government that we could have, given mankind’s inherent ability to screw things up.

Public Financing Of Dissent
In Canada, a “third party vote” (as our American readers would call it) is never wasted. Although the candidate you voted for may not get a seat to represent you, they will receive financing to continue to press forward the interests that concern you most. This is good news for supporters of the Green Party, for example, who represented 7% of the vote in the last election but have no seats in the House (in comparison, the Bloq received 10% of the vote but got 50 of 308 total seats). Strong financing of this party means that even though the Conservative Party managed a minority rule, they must keep in mind that there continues to function a party dedicated to environmental concerns.

Many ask why all fundraising shouldn’t be private. The fact is that political contributions gravitate to the likely winner(s). The less likely a party is to hold power after the next election, the less donations they are likely to receive. However, opposition parties (even small ones) have a great deal of value to the political process and governance in Canada; they should not be at an extreme disadvantage just because they aren’t likely to gain a majority in the next election. If a party is truly unpopular (say, the Kick Cute Little Puppies Party) then they will receive little in the way of donations and also little in the way of votes. The KCLPP will likely fold. The other sad fact is that the wealthy end up having a greater representation in government because they can afford to donate to the parties that will represent their interests. A party representing the poor has a group of supporters without much means, but this doesn’t mean that this party shouldn’t exist to voice their concerns.

This program costs Canada less than $30 million annually. A quick glance at the federal government’s 2007 budget demonstrates what a relatively small amount this is. It is well worth the money.

Ron Paul a Racist?

Published by Colin January 14, 2008 in Current Events. 84 Comments

The following is an editorial and represents the author’s opinion and not any views of this site, its other authors or contributors.

Both the left and right political establishment are salivating over a rare opportunity to knock around a man who has had no scandals, no marital issues, no political waffles, no changes of heart, no demagoguing and represents the most constitutional, conservative approach to enter the mainstream of politics since Senator Robert Taft. There has literally been no ammo whatsoever for the neo-socialist liberals or the big government conservatives who are terrified of what Ron Paul represents - a man of integrity, whose personal life and principles are nearly as pure as the gold standard which he advocates.

The best they could do up until this point were the logical fallacies of middle-school cliques: ad hominem attacks on him (he’s “crazy,” or a “kook”), his supporters (Ron Paul is supported by prostitutes and white supremacists, therefore he must be bad) or his ability to win (Ron Paul isn’t “electable” - therefore we don’t have to pay attention to the truth he speaks).

When Ron Paul began to actually gain traction, proving that he was no kook, his supporters are mostly normal, mainline Americans and that he was indeed electable - the establishment and their hacks stood in frozen panic for a couple of months. When he raised the most money in the fourth quarter of 2007, there was nary a whisper in the media.

The Blessing and Curse of Grassroots Support
Ron Paul has always been supported by a grassroots effort. The only inherent disadvantage of this is that supporters get a larger say in representing a candidate. If you have even one supporter who has radical, immoral or unethical views and gets his hand on the mic, then you have a moment of discomfort. However, if you happen to represent even a slightly credible threat to the establishment and the acolytes of the “lesser of two evils” then you will be the victim of muckraking.

And so the major media and blogosphere alike, especially those invested in the same old story of every other candidate, have jumped on the first so called “scandal” associated with Ron Paul. When Paul was out of office in the eighties and nineties, newsletters were published under his name, edited and written by supporters - but most of which the congressman never read, wrote or even really cared about.

The Muckrakers
In every election he’s ever ran in since, the remarks of those supporters became “breaking news” rehashed over and over again. The apologies from Ron Paul, for remarks he never wrote or read have been quick and proficient every time. The man has every right to come out swinging against the muckrakers who dig it out every election, but instead, like a true leader and ethical man of integrity, he apologizes again and again - despite having nothing to do with it except his name.

But this doesn’t stop so called conservatives (where the majority of the attacks come from) from acting like children and bored old women, suspending their high and mighty preaching about morals and values to churn out negative gossip-columns before even doing the most basic research on the issue.

Ron Paul has never been seen or heard saying anything racist. In fact, he has the most support among blacks in the Republican party. His individualist message is the most open and tolerant concerning issues of race, and has always been. There is no evidence whatsoever that he has any racist leanings - yet the witch hunt goes on.

The NAACP itself has come to Paul’s defense. Yesterday, Austin President Nelson Linder, who has known Paul for over 20 years, maintained that Paul was being attacked because he represents a threat to “the establishment.” He remarked further:

Knowing Ron Paul’s intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that….so I think it’s very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that’s what I’m hearing

The Real Kooks Reveal Themselves
Ironically, the major media have been the first to admit their mistakes in this whole joke of a story. Wolf Blitzer had Ron Paul on right away and finished his interview declaring, “You and I have talked a lot… and I was pretty shocked, because it certainly didn’t sound like the Ron Paul that I have come to know, and our viewers have come to know.” Fox News, who has been blatantly anti-Ron Paul, didn’t even bring it up in their most recent debate.

Tucker Carlson told the author of the story that it was “right over his head” when he accused Ron Paul of speaking in “racist code” as part of his covert racist agenda. Ironically, many of the conservatives who openly dismiss Paul as a “kook” are jumping on an anti-Ron Paul bandwagon driven by a man who thinks Paul is speaking in “racist code” as a “transmitter.” The author also admitted he “had no evidence” of Ron Paul actually saying racist things.

But the so called “conservative” under-media continue to revel in their hypocrisy. Like all self-righteous entities, they boldly proclaim themselves, their candidates and their causes moral and just - sounding the biblical trumpet of pride as thy announce their moral superiority - while simultaneously exposing their ignorance and unabashed hostility towards the closest embodiment of true conservative principles in the modern era. Many who use this example of yellow journalism will call Paul a kook, and base this accusation on a man who thinks Paul is a “neo-confederate transmitter” of “racist code.”

Even the left-leaning New York Times printed a retraction on a story from last year accusing Paul of being tied with white supremacists. It will be interesting to see if the conservative media and their followers will bear even a shred of the integrity the Times has, and retract their ungrounded accusations.

The Blowback Generation of Conservatives
The false conservatives publications, authors and pundits, many paying lip service to the free market, strong national defense and the constitution, have been revealing their true colors the past few elections. This incident has now proven that they are desperate and the era of big-government conservatism will likely not endure. The moral “majority” soon will have a choice - make the full transition to Huckabee and Hillary-style moral socialism, or repent and return to the way of freedom, limited government and individual responsibility.

Ron Paul will not win this election, but he if he maintains his status as a fund raising, conservative magnet, then the next election will move a little closer to the right. Politicians are predictably eager to go where the wind blows, and a significant gust is brewing in the form of Ron Paul republicans. For the first time in my lifetime, the mainstream media is broadly and openly questioning the federal reserve, the constitutionality of previously sacrosanct government programs and the war on drugs. Paul is educating and inspiring a new generation of conservatives, armed with the moral and political principles that the current generation has either forgot or abandoned. We will never vote for a faux conservative again. We are the generation of their blowback. And the siren song of their big-government pundits is wasted - gradually decreasing into baseless accusations, and the whining of a faded empire.

Recent Forum Topics

Archives

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'election' tag.

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'election' tag.

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'election' tag.