By Alisa Craddock
I heard someone mention on talk radio the other day that, though el Rushbo (Rush Limbaugh) had not specifically suggested that conservatives not vote for McCain if he were the nominee, he had said that "it may take another Jimmy Carter to get another Ronald Reagan". Is he suggesting that we let the liberals have it to teach the party a lesson? What hubris.
That is a terrible risk to take. As one woman put it (I apologize that I was in my car and can't give credit for the statement, which I must also paraphrase) "what the Democrats will do in four years it will take 30 years to undo." Amen. And what about things like ENDA (the Employment Nondiscrimination Act) and the hate crimes laws to protect homosexuals from any criticism of their behavior, laws that will criminalize even religious preaching against the practice, and remove all discretion on the part of employers (including religious organizations) in hiring. These things, once in place, are not likely to be overturned by a subsequent administration, conservative or not, because they are globalist goals. Also, of course, once you give legitimacy to homosexual demands for homosexual rights, it would seem hateful to take them away. What about the effort in Congress to make abortion an untouchable right by force of law? Will subsequent administrations be able to undo that? And, of course, there are the judges. All four of the remaining justices could retire, assured of like-minded replacements in a Clinton or Obama administration. Can our nation afford such an eventuality?
In addition, this line of thinking does not take into consideration that most of the illegal immigrants who have come here, were they to be allowed to stay, are accustomed to living under leftist regimes, and tend to be Democrats, and the schools and universities are busily instilling atheist, socialist, secular humanist values in the next generation. Most of the young people who would be voting after four years of the "Carter-like" administration would probably think that "real progress" had been made, because they are being groomed to be citizens of the world, and to think in collectivist terms and environmental terms, and population control terms and peace through "diversity" (as opposed to charity)—to think of themselves as world citizens. They are decidedly not being encouraged to think in terms of the Constitution of the United States, and its framework for national security, peace and prosperity, and they are decidedly not being encouraged to value Judeo-Christian social values, or an America that is unified under the American ideal. On the contrary, they are being groomed to advance the global agenda in all respects, to the detriment of American republican (the institution, not the party) values. These are the people we expect to be suddenly enlightened after a disastrous four years of Hillary or Obama, who will then be ready to vote for the next Reagan. (Even Nancy isn't ready to vote for the next Reagan.)
The globalist agenda is the one thing that seems to have gotten buried in all this vitriolic party infighting, because both sides are invested in it. (Romney's stock went up in my book when he said that the U.N has been a failure and that we should create a new "coalition of the free nations of the world and bring those nations together so that we can act together". Hmmmph! I'm sure that went over well with our global overseers. Maybe that's why Romney's stock suddenly tanked.)
So here we are. It looks like it's going to be McCain. We had plenty of conservatives in the running, but it seems the (conservative) media, (who it seems to me were trying to engineer their own choice for president—Fred Thompson even complained outright that FOX News was sabotaging his campaign) one by one have caused the most conservative candidates to lose favor and drop out, leaving only McCain, who was himself the target of sabotage, but who has prevailed in any case. You might keep that in mind, because for all his "reaching across the aisle", McCain knows how to fight. And this may be the primary reason for getting behind him.
There are several reasons we should go ahead and support McCain. First, he knows how to get things done. His come from behind campaign proves it. Also his record in Congress. We don't always like what he gets done, but he gets it done.
Two, his honor is important to him. He's made public commitment to the ideals of American Conservatism that Conservatives are going to hold him to, as he jokingly admitted. It would not behoove him to lie. He has said that he will make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He didn't say he might. He said he would. We'll hold him to that. He has said he is pro-life. When it comes time to pick judges, we're going to be looking really close at the judge's past decisions to be sure they are not unelected legislators rather than constructionist interpreters of the law. Whatever else I believe about John McCain, he is a capable, cunning, and aggressive legislator who can get things done.
We are terrified that John McCain will be a liberal in the White House, using his bully pulpit to reshape the world according to his (not always conservative) viewpoint. Well, he might just fool us all, but if he makes Harry Reid's blood run cold, that definitely gives me cause for hope. In any case, we know what we're going to get with Hillary or Obama. Socialism, huge taxation, more moral decline (enshrined in law, with teeth to enforce it), more criminalization of first Amendment rights, especially attacks on religious freedom and free speech, wacky leftist justices and judges, more gun control, perhaps another Ruby Ridge or Waco, or another Elian Gonzales. More amnesty, no border control, and a United States of America that is flaccid, effeminate, and impotent on the world stage—an America ripe for overthrow from within and attack from without.
John McCain is a maverick. He's also a war hero, a man who endured years of torture and permanent physical harm on principle. And this man will take an oath to "Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, So Help Me God. There are those who call McCain a man of honor, a man who does what he says he will do, a man who keeps his promises. There are those who say he is a traitor to his party, too willing to compromise its principles with the likes of Ted Kennedy, a liar, petulant and vindictive. One thing we can say for sure, whatever he believes, it is not perverted like what the Democrats stand for. McCain has his own sense of honor, and, this above all, "to thine own self be true" – and that we can be sure of, for better or for worse.
It is hubris for Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson to tacitly encourage conservative voters to throw their country to the wolves in sheep's clothing by refusing to vote for McCain. The damage to our country would be incalculable. Are we going to turn the souls of our children over to these people? I might remind both gentlemen that while they are wealthy men who have enough money to insulate themselves from the social consequences of the far left's political and cultural agenda, most of us don't. I don't believe a John McCain presidency would be disastrous for the country. I do believe a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama presidency would be.
I will therefore vote for McCain, if in the end he is our nominee. John McCain may turn out to be a better president than we counted on or the worst disaster in our party's history. But it won't be a stand-still administration. Things will get done. Perhaps more than anyone, McCain will bring the "change" everyone talked about to Washington, if only in terms of actually doing something. There is something else to consider: however it came about, a majority of people voted for McCain. Whether they were liberals who changed party to influence our primaries, or Independent moderates, or seniors, more people in our party voted for him than voted for the other, more conservative candidates. And only half as many Republicans bothered to vote at all compared with the Democrat primaries. We are in real trouble here, and I pray for the good of the nation that none of us decides to sit this one out.
Alisa Craddock is a columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. She may be contacted at alisa.craddock at hushmail.com.