I mentioned in an earlier post that I spent some time in a few American megalopolises last month. Frankly, I’ve never been a huge fan of cites. The high cost, congestion and crime aren’t exactly my cup of tea.

Among Christian bloggers that I read and my paleoconservative brethren there is a noticeable and discernible sympathy for agrarianism, both as a lifestyle and an ideology.

The Bible says that the first city was created by Cain (Gen. 4:17), the son of Adam who murdered his brother, Abel. Yet the book of Revelation describes heaven as a place where city and garden come together. Well functioning cities are necessary and vital for civic health.

Historically the city has represented common life and faith and an extended family. It was a place where culture and civilization could develop. Cities offered material and physical protection through mutual defense.

The problem with modern cities is that they have embraced humanism, egalitarianism, and a bastardized multiculturalism, none of which can bind man to man, and thus the city becomes a place of conflict and alienation. Likewise, in modern warfare, cities are the most exposed and vulnerable arenas of battle. In short, rather than being a beacon and oasis for civilized life, cities are frequently sources of barbarism and violence.

There are a number of sources of alienation in American cities. First, there is ever growing ethnic balkanization. Whites are now minorities in one-third of America’s most urbanized areas and mass immigration continues to transform the urban landscape.

In 1950, 90% of Americans were of European descent. By 2000, it was impossible to speak of a typical American. Texas recently became the fourth state with a non-white majority population, joining California, New Mexico, and Hawaii. Five other states have populations that are 40% or more non-white. Non-whites are also a majority in 10% of all 3,100 counties in the country.

Such a massive demographic transformation has political effects certainly, but there are also economic consequences. Wages of the least skilled are declining, with young black men being particularly hard hit. Restricting immigration would strengthen urban life dramatically by tightening the labor market, thereby raising wages of residents and at least providing an opportunity for people to support themselves.

Mass immigration and the diversity wrought thereby also produces social disaffection. Liberal academic Robert Putnam recently admitted that diversity undermines trust, which is foundational to a social, political, and economic order. In the face of diversity, people tend to “hunker down” and surround themselves entirely with the familiar. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us,” Putnam says.

Lest I take this too far, let me pull back for a moment to say that ethnic homogeneity alone by no means produces peaceful urban life. A second and more important source of disorder is the decline of religious unity, specifically Christianity which served as a common faith to hold men and communities together.

Polytheistic humanism is the order of the day in urban America. The proportion of professing Christians declined by roughly 10% during the 1990’s, confessing Protestants make up only one-half of the populace, unbelievers are now 15% of the population, and non-Western religions like Islam and Hinduism are spreading dramatically.

In truth, the situation is worse than the data would indicate as the number of Christians acting with a comprehensive Biblical worldview is significantly lower than those who might profess some abstract and mystical faith. Moreover, Christians have little or no willingness to impose cultural discipline.

To take one example, here is a quote from John Piper, a well-known Baptist pastor who is prominent among Reformed Baptists: “We express a passion for the supremacy of God… by making clear that God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order-not because pluralism is his ultimate ideal, but because in a fallen world, legal coercion will not produce the kingdom of God. Christians agree to make room for non-Christian faiths (including naturalistic, materialistic faiths), not because commitment to God’s supremacy is unimportant, but because it must be voluntary, or it is worthless. We have a God-centered ground for making room for atheism.”

But “making room” for the worldviews of atheism and pluralistic democracy has social consequences. The timidity of Christians has brought us to the point where we are sitting in the back of the proverbial bus culturally. The political and cultural polytheism that Piper seems to endorse leads to statism. A polytheistic faith is by definition limited, and man, naturally seeking order and unity, finds that order and unity in the state. As Americans syncretize race, culture, and religion, we became collectivists because pluralism can’t ultimately provide unity, and thus the state becomes, as Hegel said, god walking on earth.

Without the discipline and future orientation provided by a bold and comprehensive Christian faith, the city drowns in present-mindedness. Good cities are products of upper class mentalities with long time preferences and a future orientation. When a city becomes lower class oriented, it also becomes entertainment oriented and driven by consumption. In such places the enjoyment of the moment becomes the be-all and end-all of existence. In a lower class society, too, caste becomes increasingly important and lines of birth and color are hardened.

Lower class and secular society becomes dominated by politics. If most men are incompetent in the basic task of planning, and unwilling to learn because they are captured by the present, the state will be given the function. State planning will replace individual and family planning. Statist planning is by definition political planning and politics, especially democratic politics, is geared toward the maintenance of power. The state therefore adds to the problem by reinforcing the emphasis on present-mindedness.

Moreover, this seeps into foreign policy and leads to imperialism and meddlesome intervenitonism. A lower class and politically-oriented country becomes imperialistic because statist and socialist regimes are unable to produce goods successfully and wind up expropriating from others. Awash in debt and enslaved to it, we nevertheless have lots of cool toys.

Yet another consequence associated with a present-orientation is the collapse of the birth rate. From the Straits of Gibralter to the Ural mountains only Islamic nations like Albania, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan are producing enough children to replace the existing population (the “replacement rate” is 2.1 children per woman). Unlike Christians, Muslims have a vision and eschatology of victory.

Even these numbers are deceptive. In nations like Sweden and France, the birthrates of the foreign born far outpace those of native populations. In short, the people of the West are being displaced. Having swallowed the presuppositions of the contraceptive mentality and the culture of death, awash in the consumerism and bread and circuses of our day, white Christians are in the midst of committing suicide as a people.

In the United States marriage and family have become as disposable as a Sony VCR. Thirty-four percent of all births are to unwed mothers and fully 43 percent of first marriages end in separation or divorce within 15 years and ultimately nearly ½ of marriages fail.

There are about 1.3 million abortions per year, nearly 674 abortions for every 1000 live births. Somewhere between1/2 and 1/3 of women alive today have had at least one abortion.

Why are there so many abortions? Because we want more–now! “You lust and do not have; so you commit murder” (James 4:2). More money, more security, more education, more job opportunities, more sex without consequences. We crave absolute autonomy and we want our stuff. And kids are just messy and get in the way.

While in San Francisco recently, I walked from one end of the city to the other. How many small children did I see? Two! The stench of death hangs over an otherwise beautiful city.

To make up for the alleged shortfall of workers created by our love affair with the culture of death, we do what? Naturally, we import workers from abroad, thereby reinforcing the entire cycle and getting back to where this discussion started.

A loss of faith produces a short-sightedness and infatuation with the present. Our “gods” become our bellys, our wants and desires unmoored from any concern for our posterity.

The breakdown of family wrought by this atomization leads to an ever burgeoning state as all mediating institutions between the individual and the state are plowed under by the interlocking institutions of the Big Market, Big Labor, Big Media and Big Education. All of whom are doing the bidding of the Big State.

And yet there is hope. Revival is breaking out across Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Liberal denominations are slowly dying off and religiously orthodox Christians continue to have more and more children. At my little church in Louisville the nursery is bursting at the seams with babes who will be brought up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The same is true at such churches across our land.

Moreover, there are Christians all around who are resisting the spirit of the age and rediscovering the importance of family life. The agrarian movement along with the dramatic rise in homeschooling and Christian schools is one outward manifestation of this revival.

God gave to the children of Israel a command: Conquer.

“Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them—to the Israelites. I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Great Sea on the west. No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you. “Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their forefathers to give them. Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful. Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.”

Likewise, God has given His Church the command to go forth, occupy in his name and conquer the nations. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

God does not leave His people without power. His Word, sharper than a two-edged sword, is empowered by His Spirit and given to His Church. Our theology must be one that resists evil rather than accommodates it.

Rather than wallowing in self-pity, a particularly dangerous temptation, we must pray for faith: “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

Ultimately, our faith must rest in our Sovereign Lord, for He shall deliver a victory for His people, through His Son who rules and reigns from the right hand of the Father. “I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill. I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

In the name of “non-discrimination” the British government has taken a foster child away from these good people.

Here is how the Daily Mail reports the story:

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council’s social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour’s new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

When the Mathericks objected, they were told they would be taken off the register of foster parents.

Fearing God rather than man, Mr. Matherick would not compromise his beliefs: “I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God.”

Let’s quickly analyze the spread of the civil rights mentality and its application to homosexuality.

Is homosexuality a right? Given that not all sins are crimes, what does that imply about homosexuality and the responsibilities of the state?

First, we need to define civil rights, which can be done in a number of ways.

Civil rights may be freedom rights, whereby individuals are free to act without legal coercion or the interference of the state (examples include free assembly, free speech, etc.)

Civil rights may also be benefit rights, implying that a person has the “right” receive something from others. The alleged right of the disabled or elderly to welfare provisions or the “right” to health care or education will suffice as examples.

A third possibility is that civil rights may mean non-discrimination rights; that services can’t be denied to people based on a characteristic (e.g, you can’t discriminate in housing against Blacks).

The first and third understanding of civil rights are obviously connected. If you cannot legally discriminate that presupposes that the behavior is a freedom right. It would be contradictory for the law to protect (say in employment or housing) what it does not allow as a freedom.

The problem with granting non-discrimination status to homosexuals is that it deprives Christians, and many others, of their right to shun moral perversion.

Greg Bahnsen put the matter succinctly: “If someone feels that Christians are wrong to feel such aversion to practicing homosexuals and that, therefore, they must be compelled by civil law to refrain from discrimination, he will be imposing his own moral principle or conviction on them. Moreover, he will create a favored class of people who gain an unfair position in the job market, for by making his sexual perversion known the homosexual is likely to court with a discrimination suit.”

In short, there is no neutrality, and we will be governed either by the law of God or the word of man

A journalist from Jena who has actually taken time to do some reporting tells the story that you haven’t heard on MSNBC:

By now, almost everyone in America has heard of Jena, La., because they’ve all heard the story of the “Jena 6.” White students hanging nooses barely punished, a schoolyard fight, excessive punishment for the six black attackers, racist local officials, public outrage and protests – the outside media made sure everyone knew the basics.

There’s just one problem: The media got most of the basics wrong. In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism. Myths replaced facts, and journalists abdicated their solemn duty to investigate every claim because they were seduced by a powerfully appealing but false narrative of racial injustice.

Read the article in its entirety.

Mike Huckabee’s rise in the polls in Iowa and the fawning press coverage he continues to receive is finally producing a backlash. But there is a fair amount of substance to the critique and “conservatives” ought to take note.

Writing in The American Spectator, Quin Hillyer describes numerous ethical mis-steps made by Huck and his wife during his tenure as Arkansas governor. Hillyer writes:

Fourteen times, the ethics commission — a respected body, not a partisan witch-hunt group — investigated claims against Huckabee. Five of those times, it officially reprimanded him. And, as only MSNBC among the big national media has reported at any real length, there were lots of other mini-scandals and embarrassments along the way.

He used public money for family restaurant meals, boat expenses, and other personal uses. He tried to claim as his own some $70,000 of furniture donated to the governor’s mansion. He repeatedly, and obstinately, against the pleadings even from conservative columnists and editorials, refused to divulge the names of donors to a “charitable” organization he set up while lieutenant governor — an outfit whose main charitable purpose seemed to be to pay Huckabee to make speeches. Then, as a kicker, he misreported the income itself from the suspicious “charity.”

Huckabee has been criticized, reasonably so, for misusing the state airplane for personal reasons. And he and his wife, Janet, actually set up a “wedding gift registry” (they had already been married for years) to which people could donate as the Huckabees left the governorship, in order to furnish their new $525,000 home.

Huckabee also did a Dukakis impersonation, pardoning a serial rapist named Wayne Dumond, who upon release promptly sexually assaulted and murdered a woman in Missouri.

Writing at the WSJ, John Fund writes that Huckabee “is not the ‘consistent conservative’ he now claims to be.”

Admittedly, everything that comes from Fund’s mouth or oozes out of his pen must be carefully scrutinized, to say the least. But Fund isn’t alone. The head of the Eagle Forum in Arkansas says, “He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal. Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don’t be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office.”

Phyllis Schlafly goes one further saying, “He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles.” I’m sure that part of Schlafly’s critique has to do with Huck’s enthusiasm for immigration, which he is now trying to hide.

Those “easily manipulated” Values Voters ought to beware, too. During the battle between conservative and moderate factions in the Southern Baptist Convention, Huckabee sided with the bad guys. According to Paul Pressler, Huck never appointed a conservative when he headed up the Arkansas Baptist Covention.

Huck was also a tax-and-spend machine as governor of Arkansas according to The Club For Growth (OK, another dubious source, but check it out anyway).

The survival of culture depends not merely on the necessary work of reproduction, but also upon the care and nurture of the young. Families are designed to be a culture—each with their own set of customs and traditions. “God has made the world in such a way that children who grow up in the culture of the family are to be shaped and molded by it,” says Doug Wilson.

As the industrial revolution socialized production and moved it from the home to the factory, the rise of educational factories, in the guise of compulsory state education, and the socializing of childrearing has likewise undermined family authority.

The school has appropriated familial functions and assumed the role of a surrogate parent. I have argued elsewhere that education is primarily the responsibility of the family. But statist schools have gone far beyond reading, writing, arithmetic and the teaching of basic facts. Functions as diverse as vocational training and the household arts, instruction in manners and morals and sex education—all this training and much, much more has been commandeered by the state and fills the days of America’s youth as they aimlessly wander the halls of our public schools.

Not frequently considered is the role played by mass immigration in the rise of compulsory education and the nattering Nanny State embodied in the helping professions.

It is commonly assumed that our 19th Century ancestors were backward rubes. But by 1840, prior to the rise of compulsory public education, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that 91% of the white population could read and write. In Massachusetts, home of Horace Mann, the literacy rate stood at an astounding 98% prior to the state’s compulsory education law. Barry Simpson writes, “Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the Northern States increased from 75% to 90%, and in Southern States from 60% to 81%.”

Starting around 1840 what had been a trickle of immigration became a flood. “The years from 1845 to 1854 saw the greatest proportionate influx of immigrants in American history,” writes historian George Tindall. Approximately three million immigrants entered the United States during this period, nearly 15% of the total population in 1845.

“Beginning with the Irish in the 1840’s,” writes Christopher Lasch, “the immigration of politically backward elements, as they were commonly regarded, sharpened the fear, already an undercurrent in American social thought, that the United States would regress to a hated old-world pattern of class conflict, hereditary poverty, and political despotism.”

Into the breech and eager to manipulate these legitimate anxieties were the likes of Horace Mann and Henry Barnard, who were able to receive a hearing for compulsory education. From that point on the need to acculturate and “Americanize” alien populations became central to the American educational regime. Education thus became a form of social control, and schools developed into institutions designed in part to initiate immigrants into American life and culture.

Fearful of surging Catholic immigration, some northern cities like Baltimore, New York and Philadelphia developed publicly-sponsored education for children. Massachusetts passed the first compulsory school attendance laws in 1852. New York followed closely behind in 1853. A tidal wave soon followed and compulsory education soon became the norm in American life.

Likewise, the rise of family therapists, social workers, and experts in “marriage and family life” arose in the 19th and 20th centuries to bring “salvation” to the family with the undergirding presupposition that families could not provide for their needs without assistance from the helping professions and beneficent state.

According to Lasch, these experts “distrusted the immigrant family and saw the parent-education movement as part of a wider effort to civilize the masses” by Americanizing immigrants. Mass immigration thus became a blunt instrument in the hands of the enemies of the family.

Much too often Americans are cowed by the canard that immigration is a symbolic representation of freedom; that our essential nature and identity as a free people is inextricably tied up in the “liberty” of those who wish to “become Americans.” Unfortunately it is often the case that mass immigration undermines trust and social cohesion thereby becoming an excuse and a tool used to limit the freedom of Americans by augmenting the power of the state to manage ethnic conflict.

This is just another throwaway political news story concerning who’s ahead in the big dog race — who’s wearing the Mantle of Inevitability in each of the two caucuses of the Corporatism and War Party. It’s depressing in a remarkable variety of ways.

Giuliani tops Republican funding
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has raised $11m (£5.5m) in the past three months, his campaign says, $1m more than rival Mitt Romney. Mr Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, also lent $8.5m to his own campaign. Arizona Senator John McCain will report raising $6m, aides said.Ron Paul, an anti-war congressman from Texas who has a big internet following but is low in the polls, raised $5.1m.

However, Democratic rivals raised much higher amounts over the same period.

Frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama raised $27m and $20m respectively, their campaigns reported.

The third quarter of the year is traditionally seen as a difficult period in terms of fundraising because it falls over the summer months when many people are on holiday.

But the candidates will now be keen to have as much in the bank as possible as they approach the primary elections starting in January.

Primaries are held to decide which candidate will represent each party in the full presidential election in November 2008.

‘Considerable progress’

Mr Giuliani, a former New York mayor, has a reported $16m in reserve for the final push to January’s vote.

Mr Giuliani’s high fundraising total was a sign that Republicans see him as the candidate most likely to win in November 2008, his campaign manager said.

Mr Romney’s latest contribution means he has now put $17.5m of his own money into his campaign this year. He has $9m left in hand for the remaining months.

He reported reaching 23,000 new donors in the third financial quarter, giving him a donor base of about 100,000.

“Our campaign made considerable progress this quarter, expanding Governor Romney’s support across the country,” said his spokesman, Kevin Madden.

Both candidates saw their fundraising fall from the second quarter, but still outpaced their Republican rivals.

Senator McCain’s campaign manager said that despite a drop in funds his candidate’s campaign was still on sound financial footing – and gaining momentum in states that vote early in the primary season.

The amount raised by Mr Paul, who has generated a strong buzz on social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, was more than double his second quarter tally.

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, who only formally announced his candidacy in early September, is expected to report raising over $8m in the past quarter.

All the candidates must officially report cash raised from July to September to the US Federal Election Commission by 15 October.

Consider what we’re reminded of here.First, the story’s about money — and rightly so. No one is going to be elected to the presidency of the Land of the Fleeced and the Home of the Tased based on his or her political philosophy, principles, integrity, or ability to reason. Oh, no. The ultimately-successful product will have been marketed, marketed, and marketed some more; this requires money, money, and more money. We, the government-miseducated consumers, will select the product in the same way we select our beer, prescription drugs, and motor vehicles: driven semiconciously by the rancid brew of fast-moving images and twenty-second (im)morality plays in which the telescreen marinates what’s left of our brains.

Secondly, since the cadaverous Fred Thompson is deemed to have fizzled, it certainly looks as if the GOP’s Mantle of Inevitability has been officially hung on Mr. Giuliani, the crossdressing tyrant to whom his unfortunate children do not speak. If Mr. Giuliani is to be believed (ha!), he’s not likely to be the person appointed to move our former country in the direction of strictly limited, small-R-republican virtue. No, I think it’s safe to say that Rudy G. is a friend to our poor deceased Constitution in much the same way that Michael Vick is a friend to losing pit bulls.

Thirdly, Mayor 9/11 isn’t going to be president anyway — because Mrs. Clinton is. Now, part of me wants to find some tiny scrap of comfort in this; if it’s clear that the next American Emperor is going to be a wearer of women’s clothing and cosmetics, it seems better somehow if this person is licensed by nature to do so. The rational part of me knows, though, that Mrs. Clinton is at least as warlike and authoritarian as anyone from the other caucus. I say “at least” because the only difference is that her sex will compel her to appear even more enthusiastic for mass killing than her (allegedly) male rivals, lest she be accused of softness or some other such disqualifying weakness. The reader may object that Mr. Obama may yet be nominated by the Donkey Caucus, and I concede the possibility, although it does seem to me that Mrs. Clinton has placed a credible claim on Inevitable status at this point. Mr. Obama’s nomination would cheer me not at all, though; his devotion to the Imperial consensus of world hegemony and management is also well-established.

To me, this simply underlines — yet again — the impossibility of the American national trajectory being changed to any significant degree by the existing political arrangement. Clearly, campaign reform is necessary. Such reform can hardly be expected to come from the various people and institutions that feed like maggots on the rotting corpse of America. Jefferson, I think, referred to the only way — short of direct divine intervention — in which things might improve substantially when he said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

In my last post, I wrote about the current divisions racking the GOP and how that discord plays into the hands of Ron Paul.

One constituency that hasn’t quite settled on a candidate is the leadership of the Religious Right.

James Dobson, who has been frequently criticized here in the past, is standing up and saying “No” to Giuliani and Thompson. It is interesting that he was blowing kisses to Newt Gingrich, but we’ll set that aside for another day. My concern with Dobson is that he has criticized Thompson, McCain, and Giuliani because he’ll wind up backing Mitt Romney. I hope that I’m being too cynical.

In any case, Dobson was criticized by his former underling, the diminutive neo-con Gary Bauer. Bauer said, “So I hope that we can, as a movement, be very wise about this, and not savage candidates that we may very well have to support in 2008 if they’re running against Hillary Clinton.”

Ah nothing like the specter of a Clinton ascending the throne to send Bauer into spasms. This is what John Lofton has rightly called “Boogie Man Politics.”

Meanwhile, the omnipresent Dr. Richard Land also criticized Dobson’s remarks as “harsh.” Land went on to compare Thompson to Saint Ronald, a sure sign of the direction he is leading.

I also noticed yesterday this essay by Land where he discourses on the “complexity” of ethical considerations when considering how to vote. Here is an excerpt:

But consider a much more complicated scenario in which voters with a particular worldview are facing a decision about which candidate to support in a field where there is Candidate Baker, with whom the voters have 100 percent agreement on moral issues; Candidate Jones, with whom the voters have 80 percent agreement on moral issues; and Candidate Smith, with whom the voters have 10 percent agreement on moral issues.

This slate of candidates does not provide a clear choice between two
starkly contrasting candidates. Instead, the voters are faced with a more complex choice among several candidates. In fact, the candidate the voter has the most in common with (Candidate Baker), may be the weakest candidate across all voting blocs.

Thus, you have a scenario in which the voters are faced with supporting a candidate they agree with 100 percent of the time while fully recognizing the fact that in supporting Candidate Baker, they will help ensure the success of another candidate they agree with on moral issues only 10 percent of the time (Candidate Smith), and the defeat of a candidate they agree with 80 percent of the time (Candidate Jones), as well as their “first choice” (Candidate Baker).

However, if they choose to vote prudentially for Candidate Jones (80
percent agreement), there is a very good chance that their support might ensure the defeat of Candidate Smith (10 percent agreement) and the victory of Candidate Jones (80 percent agreement).

If they know this and still vote for Candidate Baker, do they become
morally responsible, at least in part, for Candidate Smith’s win? Also, in the general election that follows, voters would be faced with the grim choice of not voting, voting for Candidate Smith (10% agreement), or voting for a candidate 100 percent opposed to their values.

In such a hypothetical scenario, if they choose to vote for candidate Jones in the primary, are they choosing the lesser evil — or the lesser good?

Is it more moral to choose prudentially to vote for the candidate who
agrees with them 80 percent of the time on moral issues (Candidate Jones), knowing their support will ensure that candidate’s victory, thus giving the nation a choice between someone they agree with 80 percent of the time and a person they don’t agree with at all?

OK, so I’m guessing that in our little allegory that candidate Baker is someone like Brownback or the Huckster, candidate Jones is Fred Thompson, and candidate Smith is Rudy. There is also a Boogie Man (Hillary) hiding out over the next ridge (November, 2008) whom we find no agreement with on any “values” issues.

What Land is arguing is the old canard that we have to choose the lesser of two evils even in primary elections, not merely in a general election campaign featuring Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

So what has the “lesser of two evils” politics practiced by religious conservatives wrought? Well, it has joined them at the hip with the Republican Party. How has that marriage fared?

Since 1968, GOP presidents have nominated 12 of 14 Supreme Court justices and Republican appointees now control 75% of federal appellate jurisdictions, too. Since 1968 abortion and sodomy laws have been struck down, affirmative action programs have expanded and the courts have blessed the theft of private property via eminent domain, to name just a few of the more egregious dictates of our “justice system.”

After controlling the White House for 20 of 28 years, when Bush II leaves office we will have the largest, most intrusive, debt-ridden, fiscally irresponsible, un-Constitutional government in history.

You want more of this? Then follow Dr. Land into the voting booth and pull a lever for Fred Thompson. Had enough? Send a check to Ron Paul.