Geek spin:

Some people spend all their time watching and thinking about politics. I watched the debate on TIVO, because I was spending a great class talking about Timaeus. What a delight my students are! But that is the point. People spinning the debate actually watched all of it. Most people don’t. They walk in and out of the room. . . they TIVO to the best parts. They fall asleep on their couch.

I think much of this was hopelessly dull. Bush invaded Iraq and removed Sadaam. Kerry would not. Bush thinks we are winning. Kerry thinks we are losing. What more is there to it? Most people are glad Sadaam is gone and hate hearing we have lost.

Ignore debate geeks.

Don’t trust the pundits who see Kerry as “wise” and the “best debater.” Tonight Kerry was Eyore. In the gloom and doom, he so clearly sees, Eyore runs hard to be President of the Hundred Acre Country. It is evening in Iraq. We are losing. It is a mess. All is bad. And this always sounds true, because doom will always be portrayed by the modern sophisticate as clever. But Eyore can do nothing, plan nothing, he can only carp and criticize.

No one wants to be led by Eyore, which is why Kerry, the smartest boy in his class will lose.

Blog: “I wonder if he’s even heard that there’s a 100 percent pro-life candidate who actually believes ‘No King But King Jesus!’”

I refuse to vote for Kerry by voting for anyone but Bush. I imagine that I love the values of most people voting to the right of Bush. I just think they are wrong in a very harmful way.

Here is my response to the third party insanity that I wrote for the California governor’s race, now modified for the race for President:

What was a Tsarist to do?

It had to be living hell to be a traditionalist in Russia in 1917. The only viable people to lead the national government were all socialists. Russia was losing a war to Germany and a great many people wanted to sell the country out literally giving a huge swath of land to the enemy. An Orthodox Christian must have been in torment. The choices seemed so bad.

Alexander Kerensky was the titular leader of the central government. He was a tiresome man with inflated notions of his own rhetorical powers, but he was at least a patriot willing to fight the Germans. He also had a soft spot for tradition, trying to save the lives of at least the women in the Imperial family. He favored economic policies that were destructive and dangerous, but he did not even dream of building a gulag archipelago.

Much more attractive to traditionalists was General Kornilov. He favored the death penalty for treason on the front lines. He looked much more the traditional leader of Orthodox Russia. The problem was that he lacked any support in the country side. Of course, there was also Lenin. Shipped back to Russia in a sealed train by the Germans, this monster waited to seize power and unleash the Red Terror. However, Lenin lacked the strength to seize power.

Too many traditionalists decided to put their money on Kornilov. Instead of supporting Kerensky, the one man with a chance to preserve something of Old Russia, they went for victory when victory was impossible. Kornilov and his coup fizzled, but in the panic Kerensky armed Lenin’s bully boys. Lenin never looked back, seized the cities, and instituted a regime that would kill uncounted millions. The churches would be closed and priests sent to camps. The royal family would be butchered in a basement in Siberia. Someone should have considered the fact that colorless social democracy was better than Lenin. Helping Kornilov gave Lenin power. One need not have died on the barricades for Kerensky, an unworthy man for the supreme sacrifice. A good man could have told Kornilov to keep his troops in the barracks and waited for a better time.

Compromise is sometimes called the language of the devil. Good people despise politicians, because they seem ready to compromise for personal gain and power. If that is not the devil’s work, then nothing is. For that kind of Judas, one need have not sympathy.

However, there is a second kind of compromise that is a form of sacrifice. A man can sacrifice a cherished belief today in order to save another belief. He can give up his own life in order to save the life of another. He can allow a man he dislikes to triumph so that a worse man will not destroy all he holds dear. He can weep and put down his weapons so that his sons can live to fight another day. This is not the path of the weak man, but of the strong. It is sometimes harder to do nothing to allow for a hopeful future, then to die.

Pride is the diction of the devil. It is the tone of the unbending, inflexible self-righteous. It dares to say that every battle should be turned into Armageddon. Pride refuses to accept that victory sometimes comes in small steps.

Defeat to a worthy foe can be preferable to destruction by an evil one. The proud man cannot hear this. He will allow great evil to avoid appearing to soil his hands. My grandfather described this attitude well when he said, “There are some people so straight, they lean a little.”

These men who will not bend are like the Russian tsarists in exile. Slowly growing older in Paris and other great cities of Europe while battling for control of irrelevant factions. Fighting amongst each other, splitting and splitting again to avoid compromise with anyone. Engaging in ever more obscure arguments about who lost Russia while becoming less and less relevant to the actual men and women of the dying Soviet Union. This is sad, not noble. Better to have had some power for good, even as a loyal opposition, in a Russia controlled by social democrats. Better not to have become so straight that they went mad.

There is a time for the last charge and the noble defeat. When backed into a corner, with freedom on the line, when there is no better amongst two evils, then it is time to make a stand so brave that it contains in itself the seeds of rebirth. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. But that time has not come when one can find a way to be left alone, to retreat tactically, to gather strength to fight another day. If one can get something, without personal compromise, then that something is worth getting. Some people see the time for last stands in every election and so doom their cause to the fringes. A lunatic cannot achieve nobility. Refusing to fight for the moment is not agreeing to never fight again.

Conservative Christians must decide soon whether they have reached the final conflict. If total victory is impossible, then have we reached the time when total defeat is the only option? One need not die for Kerensky in order to stop giving guns to Kornilov. Is it possible to keep from hurting Kerensky to avoid aiding Lenin? That is the right question for conservatives in convention in a bleeding America.

The best news is that George Bush is a great man and an evangelical. He is not perfect. He makes mistakes, like most of us. But this God-protected man was the first to ever nationally get a bill signed out lawing some abortions. He wants to defend marriage and the traditional home. He is the most conservative man who can be President in America today. This Rushmore leader, this God-fearing man of conviction, deserves our vote. He is better than his party and he deserves our support. Perhaps certain conservatives believe they know someone better, but that someone has no chance of winning the states needed to act. Christians must act like men of virtue and stop allowing the perfect to be the foe of the good. If you do not agree with me that Bush is great and very good, then you should still vote for him. He is the best you will ever get.

Do what the Russian traditionalists should have done. Toast the Tsar with a glass of your favorite vodka in private, but vote and work to save your nation. A true patriot with imperfections is infinitely better than the Boston Alcibiades who will betray his country in exchange for power. Sacrifice a little today, but be secure that tomorrow will come. If conservative values are true, then reality will vindicate conservative America. With confidence in our convictions, we can compromise, turn our weapons on the real foe, and take them up again in a better day.

HughHewitt.com: “Finally, marketer, Al Mohler, and JohnMarkReynolds are all mixing it up in the public square this week. “

Thanks to Hewitt (with Frank Pastore the best of talk radio today) for the nod.

Let me question one feature of the Mark Roberts commentary on the Church and politics. I would be honored if he would reply. It seems to me that in a country with many churches that his strategy is too broad. I prefer the early colonial days where pastors took the risk of commenting on the major issues of the day (the Revolution, elections) while attempting to use Biblical standards. People in the parish were free to disagree, but their spiritual father was also giving them a point of view to consider. This does not dilute the proclamation of the gospel. It allows people to see a thoughtful leader applying Biblical wisdom to real life. Pastors (and the pulpit) should not be kept apart from the rough and tumble of life or we run the risk of creating a false distinction between the “spiritual” and the “secular.” All of this cosmos, and every idea and decision in it, must bow the knee to Jesus as Lord. His ministers must do their best to make this application. What does Lord Jesus think of this God-fearing nation?

I don’t think a Christian can reasonably vote for John Kerry. John Kerry has openly defied the Church and two thousand years of settled Church doctrine. In fact, there is no reason to believe him anything but a secularist with fairly open disdain for the faith once delivered to the Apostles. Bush is not perfect, but his imperfections are less certain and more open to dispute. Social issues do not cut against both candidates with equal force. All Christians are called to help the poor. How to do so is open to dispute. What is not open to dispute is that John Kerry will advance abortion, a form of murder, and the homosexual agenda. As my friends in Canada are even now finding out such a defeat soon leads to restrictions on proclaiming the Gospel. I may be wrong, but at least my friends will have the benefit of whatever wisdom I possess. If I were leading a Church, my congregation would know were my stand. I would happy that if done in a manner that showed respect in the parish hall idea exchange. . . That they would agree to disagree. In my own Church, this is not a mere academic discussion.

My own Church has bishops who frequently take political positions (on Israel for example) that I believe to be wrong. However, I hope they keep giving me the benefit of their wisdom. They are my spiritual fathers living in this world of sin. They are part of this Christian commonwealth. When they give me their opinions, I dismiss them only with great care. They are much wiser than I and anointed by the Holy Spirit to lead. They govern our God-protected Church well. However, when they are wrong, as a free man with my own relationship to God, I must dissent and accept the consequences. This seems more wholesome to me than Bishops who never opine except on “spiritual” or “mere Biblical” topics. Like a natural father who tells his adult son what he believes is best, knowing his son has every right to disagree and do what he pleases, so my spiritual fathers owe me their best wisdom. My Bishops often help me see the world in a new way.

Finally, I think Roberts over estimates the diversity of opinion in the Church. One of my most beloved college professors was a Mennonite. Still the pacifist position is as “far out” in Church history as wearing head coverings in Church. Many of his examples of diversity come from allowing fairly minor sects (full of wonderful godly people) to influence his thinking. It is obvious why my Mennonite friends oppose the war in Iraq, but I see no reason to take it seriously in my own local parish. Liberal evangelicals may exist in the margins of the evangelical academic community or in half-way houses to main-stream churches on their way out, but I do not see them as numerically very significant. My bet is that eighty-percent of white evangelicals will vote for Bush. It is hard to imagine much more unity on any issue (including sadly theology.) Liberal friends are just going to have to accept that socialism has never been the friend of traditional Christianity. Christians understand this at the “gut” level. Where socialism and government have grown, Christianity has declined. In his own self-interest, I would suggest an evangelical pastor should proclaim the Biblical truth of free men and free markets as basic to human happiness!

Our founders said, “No King, but King Jesus!” Fair enough, but the King’s minister’s must act, even at risk of being sacked, or His rule will be wrongly limited.

I got this thoughtful disagreement (amongst other emails) today:

“Your logic is flawed. By it, Cardinal Egan should have invided Hitler so we could ‘hear his views.’”

I reply:

I do not think we should invite Kerry to “hear his views” for the purpose of learning something. However, we should hear Kerry in order to have a chance to counter his false beliefs and hopefully bring an erring child of God back to truth.

If Hitler had wanted to give a speech at a neutral forum and would have allowed a response from a Churchhill, then I would have let him rant. My hope? That before we had to kill him, I would have hoped Hitler might have repented, spared many innocent lives, and turned himself into the law. Once war is declared the time for such dialogue is past. Thank God we are not yet engaged in a civil war. God grant that such a time never comes.

Of course we know in the case of Hitler such an attempt would have been useless. . . but one cannot know the future at the time, or the depth of the wickedness to which that most base of men would sink. Christians must fight when we must, just wars are necessary, but should seek repentence when we can even from our foes. After all, Kerry is no Hitler and I still hold out hope for his soul.

HughHewitt.com: “The Al Smith Dinner has been a welcome respite from the necessarily knock-down nature of modern politics. It has been about humor.”

Hewitt is right. It appears the Roman Church, tired of catching flack on the right for general theological incoherence, has decided not to invite either presidential candidate to the Al Smith dinner. This tradition allowed major political figures to laugh at themselves. It took the focus, for just a moment, off party politics and shifted it to bigger things. Now the American Church needs a serious infusion of spine and morality, but this seems like an odd place to start. They might begin a revival by dealing with many abuses, but the Al Smith dinner guest list does not seem like one of the most pressing, if it is a problem at all.

This move reminds me of the narrow, crabby old man in the country who would give my grandfather magazines attacking Christmas right before the holiday. Even if his view about the so-called “pagan” holiday were correct, it was easy to see he had missed the main point of Christian love while worshipping the gnat-sized idea from his own theological speculation. Rome should stop honoring pro-choice politicians, but it does not have to stop listening to them. In fact, it should invite Kerry, hear him, and then try to persuade him with wit and wisdom.

My own church justifies discussions with liberal church groups by arguing that doing so is a witness to them. You cannot persuade people you ignore. If Kerry were attractive in any way, it might be tempting to avoid letting him speak for fear of having some innocent persuaded by him. However, there is no chance any innocents will attend a political dinner. In fact, Kerry is a living argument against the libertine lifestyle. (”Live with a soul killed by moral botox, always attempting to live in sixties of your youth, and you too can cease to have an inner core!”) Perhaps, college students in traditional Catholic schools could be invited to view him speak as a sort of memory of the bad old days of the Church. In any case, let the man talk.

Hearing Kerry make jokes may not be my idea of a good time, but perhaps over a glass of wine during the dinner someone can plant a seed that will take root and lead to his redemption. In fact, the bloodless martyrdom of listening to Kerry speak might do a great deal for the guests future sanctity! We must always have hope. As someone who was on the other side, I am glad that good folk kept talking to me.

This is not the same as honoring a pro-choice apostate like Kerry. Don’t invite him to give a commencement address. Don’t give him a humanitarian award for supporting the slaughter of the innocent. Don’t honor his free loading life. Honor his humanity.

From all that one can see from the outside, Kerry is a bad Catholic, but he is still a man created in the image of God. Hearing him and maintaining a relationship with him is good for his soul. And it is good for our own souls. We must love our foe, even the morally bankrupt and the close to invincibly ignorant.

America is already close to a Civil War over values. A few places where people can laugh and see the humanity of those who are wrong is good. Otherwise we will come to think that our political foes are less than human. History makes it plain that this is the pathway to all sorts of wickedness. Even the abortionist is still a man.

Here is hoping the Al Smith tradition is honored.

Never vote for any candidate more upset on a daily basis with Bush than Bin Laden.