Urban Republican Candidates: Will a “GOP Purity Resolution” Kill Them?
By HHR | December 3rd, 2009 | Category: Campaigns, Featured, General, HHR Publisher |
By Richard Ivory:
Recently a group of RNC members began a move to force the RNC to endorse what can only be construed as a set of official litmus test. According to the New York Times, the resolution will punish any “Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues- in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire. They would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement”.
According to Frum-Forum, “The GOP purity test resolution has obtained the necessary co-sponsors to bypass the RNC’s resolutions committee and bring the proposal forward for an eventual vote”.
Here is the resolution’s list:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
It is my sincere belief that if the Republican Party is genuinely serious about an urban Republican emergence, it must reject such a move. The test, if implemented, would deny much-needed funds to candidates campaigning in inner-city areas. Urban Republican candidates do not generally face the same problems as rural or suburban candidates and thus need more flexibility in shaping their message. Often times, their constituents are low-income and receive government benefits. Any inner-city Republican candidate running on a platform that says “I want your vote because I want smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill” will loose. Again, this language may play rather nicely in many areas around the nation, but not in major urban settings. The better argument for urban Republican candidates is an emphasis on personal and community empowerment, and a focus on efficient and, where possible, limited government. The public policy agenda should be one centered on finding metrics to determine if services are empowering recipients or hindering them. The overall goal, over time, by introducing metrics of accountability is to have an informed and empowered voter. This, however, as any person living in an urban setting realizes takes time. Any litmus tests that forces a candidate to choose between getting funds and the overall tailoring of his message is undemocratic and a chilling violation of free speech and is a sure bet to loosing.
Case in point: Joseph Cao, the current U.S. Representative from Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District. Perhaps, he more than any other Republican candidate knows the complications inner-city Republican candidates can face when walking a fine line between party loyalty and practical politics. These past few weeks have been a doozie for Congressman Cao.
Cao’s troubles started a few weeks back when he voted for the Health Bill, making him the only Republican to do so. Since then, some conservatives within the party have been calling him everything from a traitor to a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Only a few months back, Cao was being praised as proof that the Party was competitive in urban areas. Nevertheless, alas, who has time to recall long-ago memories of a competitive party when you are “hunting rhinos”? Of course, it’s easy to point fingers and call names, but when your district is 70 percent African -American you must do what your constituents mandate.
It is easy to be for smaller government when your entire voter base agrees with you. What if, however, you represent Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District? Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District is an area affected by Hurricane Katrina. It is, consequently, a place of poverty and of lost dreams where only a few years ago the streets were covered by a flood. The area to date has only one hospital for all its residents. It is easy to say “I don’t want the governments help” when your house is up. What if, however, a flood of water destroys your house? How many conservatives States each year ask the government for help when hurricane season approaches?
Congressman Cao’s District, more than any other, needs help! This is why, no doubt, he supported The Healthcare Bill. While the new congressional representative may have had problems with the bill, he was dealing with his political reality. Not to mention that he’s up for reelection next year. While many may not agree with Joseph Cao, we can all certainly agree that he is dealing with a set of cards, which many Republicans have never had to play.
Recently, Cao’s spokesperson, named Princella Smith, put it this way while defending Cao from attacks: “He thinks for himself and works on behalf of his district. That doesn’t mean that he’s not a Republican. It means he’s doing his job. One vote is not going to change that. That’s why the GOP leaders respect him. Consequently, if there is any Republican - any official - who can win LA-02 in 2010, it is Joseph Cao.”
Any policy requiring urban candidates to follow a litmus test before they can receive funding will undermine all sincere efforts to promote a civil Republican message in inner-city and urban areas. After looking over the list, I’m not sure Lincoln himself would be eligible for funding and that’s scary folks!
So, let’s just look at what may happen if an inner-city candidate ran on these issues:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
In rhetoric and theory, there is nothing wrong with this except that to run on this as a campaign slogan in order to get funds is nutty. Most voters (and that’s what you need to win) would see that as opposing money to help them. Any Republican running against a Democrat is going to loose if they follow this.
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care
Again, if Cao had opposed Obama’s healthcare plan he would have lost hands down!
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation
Okay sounds great but that’s probably not going to be a campaign slogan folks will pay attention to in most urban areas.
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
Okay, again sounds great except that Unions run most urban areas and to deliberately provoke them means millions of dollars being run against you. In addition, I seriously doubt the RNC will make up the difference!
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants
Okay, sounds great of all your neighbors are legal and citizens but what if there, thousands that aren’t but there “voting children” are?
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges
Hey, I am the biggest Neo Conservative there is but I would never run a pro war message while running for office in Harlem.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
Again, as most urban city dwellers will tell you there is an anti war thread running through the head of most inner-city voters, especially with minority women, who see there sons being blown to pieces. s and there the ones who vote in larger numbers in other words not an effective campaign strategy.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act
Therefore, by the time you’re campaign introduces itself to the public you will be blasted for being a homophobe by the end of the week. After this, the powerful urban GLBT community will pour millions of ads against you just to make you suffer. By the end, your opponent will look like the moderate and you the extremist. Moreover, voting patterns show that voters will always choose moderation over extremism. Again, running on this just to get a few bucks from the RNC is laughable and you will loose.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion.
Okay, so now you have offended the GLBT community you can move on now to have women and pro-choice groups attacking you. I mean you can’t make this up!
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
Sounds great on a farm in North Dakota but try to run that through Detroit or Harlem and see how far you get.
So, given all this, why would any one want to have a litmus test and why now after so many years? Politico the online political magazine provides a possible answer.
Politico the online political magazine provides a possible answer.
According to Politico:
“The primary goal of the purity resolution is to belittle and hamstring RNC Chairman Michael Steele. The resolution is made of key lieutenants behind the failed reelection campaign of Karl Rove’s RNC chairman, Mike Duncan. Steele ran as the outsider to reshape the national GOP purpose and opposed the get-along Republicans who squandered a dozen years of GOP “control.”
RNC Chairman Duncan’s reelection bid was particularly hurt by President George W. Bush’s staggering embrace of subsidizing the U.S. banking and auto industries in the waning days of his administration. Under Bush, government did not diminish. The RNC suffered massive alienation and loss of support from the grass roots, until Steele won an upset victory against Duncan in February. Steele went to work.
The back story is that the purity author, while undoubtedly a good lawyer, was also a close supporter of the defeated Duncan administration. He must have been good - for years, he billed and collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from the RNC, doing its legal work. In fact, he received more revenue from the RNC than all other 163 members combined. His firm’s contract with the RNC was cut off after Steele’s election. Losing a valuable client is always tough. But mixing one’s politics with personal business interests always raised a conflict problem.
Steele is having a blowout year. The grass roots responded with record-breaking donations, even overwhelming the Obama Democratic National Committee machine. The RNC is now out of debt with millions more for next year’s political wars. The gubernatorial victories by Chris Christie in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell in Virginia have cemented Steele’s reputation. He personally directed the largest RNC funding to any state election in its history. He staked his reputation on those states, risking his chairmanship for underdog Christie and McDonnell.
In other words, this is pay back and the folks behind the resolution are the same ones who probably think Steele himself couldn’t pass the test. They probably hate Steele’s guts and decided to concoct tactics to cripple him given his recent success in winning elections and fundraising. Any person who lives in an urban area knows that a campaign like this is a recipe for disaster. It doesn’t take a genius to see that such a direction in the longer-term will undermine the Party’s chances of winning elections and remaining politically relevant. This purge would also push out moderates, and even Conservatives like Huckabee & Ron Paul. Such a litmus test like the one being proposed will accomplish only one thing cementing the party’s image as a rural and mostly Southern Party.
But hey, maybe that’s just what the sponsors wanted.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Richard Ivory is the Publisher and Founder, of Hip-HopRepublican.com, a blog that delves into urban issues from a centrist perspective. Mr. Ivory is a political consultant who has worked on over a dozen political campaigns around the country. He has worked for both the Republican National Committee and was the College outreach director for Republican Youth Majority. He is the founder of The John Langston Forum and is at present the College outreach director for Republicans for Black Empowerment.
HHR Note: HHR Blog is asking fellow urban Republicans to promote as a rational alternative The DC Republican Committee (DCRC) suggestions. This vibrant urban Republican agenda can be found on the website of The DC Republican Committee (DCRC) which created a document entitled “A Republican Urban Agenda”. Many urban Republicans and Hip-Hop Republicans can support this document. We believe that this document can be a start in implementing an effective strategy that Republicans can use nationwide. If the Republican Party is going to take its fight to urban American, it must be prepared and it must be in sync with the people it seeks to empower.
As a former candidate who ran here in Detroit a few years back I agree 100%.
First, I have to say that I think this litmus test is a bad one because it is too focused on short-term objectives. The litmus test should be one that focuses on one question: In office, have you acted for increased personal freedom and responsibility, or for increased government leverage over and control of the lives of Americans (which means decreased personal freedom and responsibility)? The Republicans started as the anti-Slavery party that believed in personal freedom and responsibility for everyone. The Republicans should emphasize that, because on voting day who really wants to be anything but free?
That said, the problem I have with this rejection is that it seems you have rejected the conservative and freedom-loving principles that power the Republican party. Do you believe that the Republican party is based on timeless principles that unite people, or do you think it should be focused completely on power? Should Republicans buy into every single one of the Democrat talking points? Is there any difference between a Democrat and a Republican of the sort you advocate? I wonder, if Republicans are nothing other than imitation Democrats, why anyone would want to vote for them. Wouldn’t voters choose the authentic believer in big government control of our lives over the one who isn’t serious about it?
I believe that Republicans can win even in the 9th Ward of New Orleans by running on conservative principles if those principles are communicated in a plain language with an obvious attitude of faith, hope, and God’s love. Will you be with principled Republicans on that at least? If we can start with some solid ground, then we can rebuild the foundations of individual freedom and empowerment in America and emerge from the current Depression even better than ever.
Before I make my statements, I’d like to say that I’m an observer. I live far and away from Urban America, am White and live in a predominately white community. However, I am in a mixed marriage and have two babies to think about. I only state this to show my perspective.
On your thread. Your eyes are obviously open and you make many solid points. I’m not there so I can’t argue. Additionally, I’m not in politics nor do I intend to so, my view is twice removed.
One of my biggest problems with the politicians of today is the mystery that surrounds where they stand. There is no line in the sand it seems. They have to keep moving it to get re-elected. What do they really believe in? Most seem like hollow shells of people pretending to be something they’re not in order to get what they want. Thus is life.
So, by the statements you made above, to get elected in the urban environment, you have can’t stand for anything controversal?
“(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care
Again if Cao had opposed Obama’s healthcare plan he would have lost hands down!”
Do the people in Urban Americans not get it? There is no example of a country with a government run program that is working as intended. (Canada failing. Going broke. They also have a fraction of our population.) Beaurocrats are not business people and every agency they’ve created is in the red.
Do people choose to ignore history? Even China has opened up to a free market society. Look where it’s got them?
Ever go to the DMV? To DHS? I had to collect Medicaid for the birth of my first kid. Man, I’m greatful! But good lord! I missed many half days of work, spent hours in line and dealt with many incompetent and unhappy employees of the State. They were under paid, working under HUGE amounts of stress, under staffed and poorly trained. The silver lining was the director. She was truly amazing. There were a few great ones….a few. From what I hear, it’s the same everywhere.
So, you want these people to handle your appointments? Tell you what proceedures you can qualify for? Are you kidding? I pay $450 month for my insurance for the family. However, when I go to the Doc, I don’t wait long in the waiting room, I sit in a very nice environment, people know me, are happy to see me and I get the best medical care available. You think this will last with a Govt option? (Oh, they also take Medicaid, Medicare, Tri-care and such. They also do probono work. Let’s squash that before it begins)
“(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation
Okay sounds great but that’s probably not going to be a campaign slogan folks will pay attention to in most urban areas.”
Pure economics. If the manufacturers pay more, are taxxed more then the consumers will pay more. If the manufacturers are taxxed more, that’s fewer dollars allotted for payroll. That means fewer jobs created, lower wage offerings and reviews/audits of current positions. I’ve yet to see a candidate treat us like intelligent people and accurately quantify that.
Let’s use this example. I’m in transportation for a fortune 500 company. Robert Allen Mansfield and I have had discussions on how the PA turn pike tolls effect cost to the consumers. If my company has to charge Proctor and Gamble more to deliver paper towels to Wal-Mart, guess who’s footing the bill? You are. Everyone that buys the product. Keep in mind that EVERY thing in your house, was once on an 18wheeler and most likely traveled on a toll road and, as a result, cost just a little more. Still feel good about it? Sound like a good idea?
“(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
Again, as most urban city dwellers will tell you there is an anti war thread running through the head of most inner-city voters, especially with minority women who see there sons being blown to pieces and there teh ones who vote in larger numbers..in other words not an effective campaign strategy.”
Amen! I have friends over in the Middle East. I pray often. we need to be “in it to win it” or get the hell out and bring our folks home! However, we can’t let them bring it to our shores. To me, they’ve made it clear that they will/would if given the chance. It would be much much worse if the fighting were on US soil.
“(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act
So, by the time youre campiagn introduces itself to the public you will be blasted for being a hatemonger and a homophobe by the end of the week. After this the powerful urban GLBT community will pour millions of ads againts you just to make you suffer. By the end your opponent will look like teh moderate and you the extremist. And voting patterns show that voters will always choose moderatoon over extremism. Again, running on this just to get a few bucks from the RNC is laughable and you will loose.”
Yeah, that’s a generation thing amongts conservatives. Talking to my father in law on this is an effort in futility. He pulls the “Love the sinner but hate the sin” card on me. Meaning that he feels guilty for having such strong, negative feelings towards people and he doesn’t understand the choice.
Good luck getting the Southern Conservatives to get right on this one. “He who cast the first stone…”
“(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion.
Okay, so now you have offended teh GLBT community you can move on now to have women and pro-choice groups and voters attacking you. I mean you can’t make this up!”
Core value here man. I will NEVER vote for a candidate that forces insurance coverage of abortions. Government mandates are a HUGE contributor to the over all costs of insurance. You can review them on a state and Federal level. It’s public information. If you’re paying for health insurance, you’re paying for services you’ll never need or want. To me, it’s like going to a mechanic for an oil change then being told by my State representative that I am required to also pay for brake service and new tires. (whether I get them or not) Who are they to tell me what I need?
“(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.”
Silliness. Fact is, the guns are out there. If you make it where it’s illegal to have them, and the market is already flooded, you’re going to create an underground market for them and a even larger problem than we have now. (See Mexico. The bad people have them. The good people can’t get them) I had a friend from Cleveland, OH back in my younger wilder days. He would go up there, buy 15-20 pistols and come back to Arkansas and sell them to local yocals. (idiots…) He was the sort that you didn’t want to introduce to your family…..follow? (again, younger, dumber and wilder)
Better regulation, steeper penalties for breaking the rules and better technology to indentify and track them would be better served.
While I am aware we don’t agree on everything, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss and learn. I read these forums a lot. I’m out of touch with the urban world. This is my effort to peek in and try to understand. We’re not so different really. Part of who we are was formed by different circumstances.
Good article, God bless!
Cburk
http://mises.org/books/TRTS/
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Booker T. Washington and D. R. Tucker, Boyd Rutherford. Boyd Rutherford said: RT @BookerRising:R.Ivory:"GOP 'Purity Resolution' Will Hurt Urban Rep Candidates…&That's Bad" http://tinyurl.com/yzv7rth #gop #republicans [...]
CBurk,
1.Thanks for your response they were very well thought out and much appreciated.
Do the people in Urban Americans not get it? Lets start with that question.
How can they “get anything” when there entire world is dominated by voices saying just the opposite. How can they “get anything” when the Conservative movement is not even involved in day to day urban affairs? How can “they get it” “when there is no conservative or GOP outreach to the people explaining to them an alternative? This is what I mean when I say the GOP must take its message to urban America by being on the ground. You may assume that folks should “just get it” but in practice, it takes you actually being there and showing up and explaining the consequences of something. Until, Conservatives & Republicans come up with an agenda of “governance” that is both practical and empowering to urban individuals over the State, most of not all urban areas will continue to be dominated by one Party and the left. My suggestion is to promote an array of ideas similar to that of Charter Schools, a popular conservative idea of empowering parents. This is what I mean by conservative solutions that win over the people. The more controversial issues will not get a person elected but emphasizing charter schools will.
Conservative groups will continue to fail in reaching urban and diverse populations as long as urban folks and minorities worry about getting a job and putting food on their tables. Republicans and Conservatives have all but disappeared in urban areas. Urban areas unlike some smaller areas tend to need more governance because of there large populations.
It goes without saying that if live in a city like Manhattan you tend to have more problems to solve. Crime increases thus more cops, homelessness is higher thus more shelters, and the list goes on.
People in urban areas want to be empowered they are seeking this not a handout it is this void (a testament to human ambition) is what the Left has offered as a gift to Conservatives. However instead of Conservatives taking that gift and using it to the advantage we prefer to look from afar and opine about “the state of affairs” in urban America. Conservatives need put there recourses and time into urban areas with a goal of empowering people over the State.
In other words until you can articulate an urban philosophy that makes sense to an urban audience we will never win. The reasons are simple “When the cupboards are bare, and the baby needs milk technical debates about the Austrian School of economics, stem cell research or gay marriage will rarely be a priority.
Research and study on the various theories on economics mean nothing to a person who feels disempowered. The truth is you must articulate on there level basic conservative principles, not the way you wish to tell them but in a way that makes practical sense to them. This is the failure of a litmus test like the one being proposed it is a litmus test of “assumed values” articulated in an “assumed tongue”.
Republican ideals on many issues are welcome in urban issues. In NYC the people know good economic stewardess but they also know social justice all of which they prize. When they vote for a Mayor, they are seeking a balance of both. The conservative message of simply economics alone comes off as harsh to an urban voting electorate. You must articulate these ideals in a way people can relate to. They may not agree with you but at least they know where you’re coming from.
The Conservative movement has failed to articulate such a message to the inner-city.
It does not matter what you or I think inner city people should think or feel what matters is how they are interacting the facts on the ground. Our goals should not be to see what problems are on the ground and then find Republican or Conservative solutions to them.
Saying you are opposed to spending does not explain how that will effect someone’s job.
If you truly feel that running a campaign on a States Rights mantra, in a city full of African-American and talking about slashing this and that and blasting illegal’s, and talking about abortion and gays is the way to winning elections in the inner city by all means be my guest. Again, in rural or suburban areas this may go over very well.
However, I believe our best chance is a greater emphasis on practical and accountable governance.
Perhaps the Republican congressional representatives Margaret Chase Smith who said, “My creed is that public service must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly, can best sum up the philosophy. It must be a complete dedication to the people and to the nation with full recognition that every human being is entitled to courtesy and consideration, that constructive criticism is not only to be expected but sought, that smears are not only to be expected but fought, that honor is to be earned but not bought.”
As Republicans, we must remember that people are the ones with the votes it is them to whom we owe our attention. We must win there hearts and minds do we become a competitive national party. Just because you have issues, you think are important there others how have other issues that are equally as important. The debate is how to do find compromise.
One candidate in Oregon might think the debate about abortion is his ticket to the Congress. He may have no problem supporting such a proposal. However if you are a pro life Republican in a socially liberal city you must not make that your issue. The two campaigns in Virginia and New Jersey show how candidates win. The proposal of a litmus test on these candidates takes away there flexibility to run there own campaigns without being micro managed by some people in DC. They have a right to market there campaigns the way they see fit.
Richard
Beaglescout -
I have not rejected conservative and freedom-loving principles that power the Republican Party, I am going a step further and demanding that the party remembrance its competitive spirit in urban areas. The way to do this is to govern on a solutions based platform not simply a limited government platform I believe when you provide accountable government in the end you will have limited government. When you submit where taxpayer money is going so all can see and critique in the end you have a truly freedom-loving society one that empower its people not hinders them. With that said, with regards “The Party” it should stand for it’s founding beliefs surrounding “governing” because that’s what a Party seeks to do…govern! You are confusing Conservatism with Republicanism. Republicanism is the “value system of governance” Conservatism, which is a school of thought within the Republican Party, is an ideological “focus on tradition, stability and continuity”. Governing means being practical, being able to moderate ones views. In other words, there is a difference in practical governing and ideological beliefs. A perfect example is when hurricane season approaches and hits Conservative states, ideologically, you should not want government help, but you adjust ideology for what is practical.
[...] The following post by Richard Ivory originally appeared on Hip-Hop Republican.com. [...]
I do not find the idea of rules or laws that dictate what iw appropriate. I am a Conservative, a staunch supporter of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bauchman, Lt Col West.
I do not support the idea of a litmus test. All that is needed is getting the GOP to knock off their efforts to dictate who is acceptable, as they have been doing for years. Force openness upon them. Competition is what made America great and encouraging it, not limiting it is the way to go in my view.
I also don’t support all these attempts by R’s or who ever to sound Conservative. You may fool the public, but a Conservative will recognize another Conservative quite quickly. A person pretending they are Conservative rings hollow and impress only those easily impressed.
I support a litmus test just not this one!
What we need is a “MORAL VALUES” litmus test for anyone running for office. We need to make sure that candidates follow biblical principles. Conservatives can win if we focus on Christ and his teachings the bible at 2 Chronicles 7:14 says that if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. America is a Christian nation based on Christian values not Socialism what urban areas need is the Holy Ghost. The problem I have with this particular litmus test is that it does not focus more on moral issues. I do not believe the RNC should support any candidate that does not support and “live by” biblical principles. I hope that they will amend this one to include a stronger role for enforcing moral behavior.
Beverly Everson
(God said…) “Select capable men from all the people–men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain–and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. (Exod 18.21, NIV)
Sister Beverly: Though well intentioned I’m sure, with all due respect, your posting is wildly off the mark!! Moral Values litmus test?? please! there is no need for me to create a Litany of Sins and sinners from the Hypocrites in the Repuke party (party of familiy values?) they’ve been well chronicled in the media!
Your elequent posting makes a strong Scriptural case for Universal Healthcare it was a true delight: …(God said…) “Select capable men from all the people–men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain–and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. (Exod 18.21, NIV) Boy that is the strongest argument that can be made against the pernicious practice of the for profit LEECHES that run the Health Insurance Industry. I wonder what Jesus would say about denying health care to sick so they could fatten up their bottom line? or Denying access due to pre-existing conditions! that is DISHONEST GAIN to the umpteenth degree I would say, dont you agree sister?
Your posting leaves me sad however for its lack of the MOST IMPORTANT citation of all:
Saint John of the Cross, the great Spanish mystic and doctor of the Church, tells us that at “eventide”, that is, at the end of our lives, when we appear before God for the final judgment, we will be asked one question, and only one question by God. And that question is: “How did you love me?” Not, How many times did you miss Sunday Mass…but “How did you love me?” In the gospel it is clear that on that last day, many will say: “But Lord, when did we see you sick or you hungry or you in prison? The answer to this question is of course: “AMEN I SAY TO YOU, WHATEVER YOU DID FOR ONE OF THESE, THE LEAST OF MY BRETHERN, YOU DID FOR ME” (Matt. 25:40).
Every other “rich” nation in the world takes care of their “Least” by offering Universal Healthcare! Amen
Yes, the litmus test will kill urban candidates because what works in rural and suburban areas will not always work in urban areas. HHR, your last sentence was spot on with your response.
But apparently, some people think changing things to adjust to a situtation = becoming Democrat Lite (May I ask those people what makes Democrat Lite just because a Republican deviates on some issues like DeDe? She’s fiscally conservative, but socially liberal she can make a good case for being conservative.)
In other words, litmus test = FAIL in winning elections. It will continue to paint the party as regional.
Col. Kurtz, one of the greatest fallacies in politics is that the Bible endorses government caring for “the least of these.” Romans 13 defines precisely the role of government - force. It exists to keep order and punish wrongdoers; that is its core competency and the function for which it is best designed. George Washington understood the dangers of placing power in the hands of government when he declared, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Government is not an agent of compassion; it is an agent of fear.
Lliberty places upon us the responsibility for each other. The forces that buffet us in this life are varied and strong, and each one of us will have a time in our lives, or maybe more than one, where our circumstances will overwhelm us and we will need help. In those times, the community of free men and women needs to step forward and offer their assistance. To the extent our friends, neighbors, fellow church congregants or other social networks fail us, it provides the state with the rationale it needs to fill the void. While some applaud the government “safety net,” I know from first-hand observation that it is inefficient and marginally effective in comparison to the genuine compassion and gentle touch of your fellow citizens reaching out to rescue you. Let me illustrate.
Chesapeake Church in Huntingtown, Maryland, my church home, operates the county’s largest food pantry, staffed by volunteers and stocked by the generosity of the congregation and the local community. In 2008, we fed over 5,800 families in our small county of 88,223 people.
There are 31.8 million people in America on food stamps, and there are 3,141 counties or similar jurisdictions in the U.S. If every county fed 5,800 hungry families, over 18.2 million families - not individuals - would be cared for and with the average family size in America at 3.19, the more than 58 million people fed would dwarf the number of food stamp recipients.
Think of it another way; how much do you think it costs to put a dollar of aid into a needy person’s hands? In my food pantry illustration, my dollar would buy the groceries that are stocked and eventually distributed by volunteers. The church pays for the facility as an operating expense, so it costs me practically nothing to deliver a dollar of aid to a person in need.
That very same dollar taken from me in taxes has to pay for employees, facilities, technology, equipment, paperwork and all the other costs of operating a government agency. That doesn’t begin to take into account the fraud, waste and abuse that are endemic to our ponderous federal government. In other words, I will pay significantly more than a dollar in order to ensure a dollar of aid is delivered to a needy person.
A study by the Journal of Libertarian Studies found:
“Using government data…on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor…In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients.”
So many Americans have been convinced that government is the best or only way to deliver aid to the disadvantaged, and my illustration clearly demonstrates that’s not the case. It’s that very mindset that makes liberals among the stingiest of givers to private charity as I mentioned in the first chapter; they believe they’ve done their part by voting for politicians who will raise taxes and expand government aid programs.
Even liberal Christians fall into the trap of thinking that by promoting the funding of government aid programs, they are doing the Lord’s work. The only miracle of Jesus that appears in all four Gospels is the feeding of the 5,000, and I’ve always been struck by what he told the disciples when they suggested he send the crowd away to buy food in the nearby villages - “You give them something to eat.”
His words were a personal and immediate call to action. He didn’t tell them to go petition King Herod for a food aid program, nor did he lead a March on Poverty down the streets of Jerusalem. Just as His ministry to redeem us from our sins was personal, His intention for us is to care for our fellow man personally, not from a distance or through the heavy veil of government bureaucracy.
The early church of the Book of Acts is often cited by liberals as evidence of Christianity endorsing collective action to provide for the less fortunate. Acts 2:44-45 reads:
“All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.”
To interpret this passage as a divine directive for redistributive government, however, is either naive or self-serving. These were the voluntary acts of a church community serving one another, not a compulsory government aid program. These acts of community and the meeting of needs by family, friends and neighbors are characteristic of a faith that expects its followers to touch people lives directly. This intimacy not only meets a person’s physical needs, but also heals their soul.
Community aid is not only more efficient and effective, it’s personal. When you are looking into the eyes of a father who has lost his job and feels the shame of not being able to provide for his family, and you are offering him not only food but compassion, the value of that kind of human interaction is incalculable.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in U.S. history, while governments from the local to the federal level were embroiled in hearings, political posturing, name-calling and finger-pointing, private charities and private companies were hard at work restoring the Gulf Coast region, especially in New Orleans. In particular, faith-based charities made long-term commitments to the wellness of the city. Even churches in my county, including my own, sent people to New Orleans on multiple missions of mercy and love in the months following the disaster, helping to rebuild homes, churches and schools, and provide food, shelter, clothing and medical attention.
Evelyn Turner, a New Orleans resident who lost her home in the flood, found herself in a rebuilt home in her old neighborhood, a blessing made possible by faith-based charities. “The church poured into the city,” she said. “Here it is two years later, and who’s still coming? The church.” Local aid organizations won’t forget you or lose your file or treat you like a number; you’re not just a case to them. You’re a neighbor.
Unfortunately, we have witnessed in our nation an alarming diminution of personal commitment to the well-being of others because we have rationalized that “letting government do it” is equal in moral weight to personally giving of our time, talent and treasure to our neighbors. In effect, we are becoming moral couch potatoes because we are no longer encouraged to exercise our values individually in daily actions of diligence in our work, commitment to our families, devotion in our houses of worship, and charity in our communities.
The impact of this shift in our thinking on charitable giving has practical as well as moral consequences. Professor Arthur C. Brooks, whose study I referenced in a previous chapter, found that people who believe charity is an inherently governmental responsibility restrict or curtail their charitable giving even if there is only a promise of government assistance rather than an actual program in place or actual funds being disbursed. In effect, those who believe in forced redistribution of income through the government over charity are less likely to give to private charity regardless of whether or not the government is actually attempting to meet the need.
As private giving is suppressed, charities find themselves dependent on government grants which bring with them the burden of various rules and regulations on how they distribute the funds, how they advise their beneficiaries and even who they must hire. Moreover, government disbursements to charity are insufficient to replace the loss of private funds. The net effect is that the people most in need of charitable assistance are getting less of it.
Your insistence that the federal government is the only viable avenue through which Americans can show compassion toward their fellow human beings turns the entire notion of being one’s “brother’s keeper” upside down. If anything, we have witnessed an alarming diminution of personal commitment to the well-being of others because we have rationalized that “letting government do it” is equal in moral weight to personally giving of our time, talent and treasure to our neighbors.
The principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social teaching emphasizes the priority of family, the church and voluntary associations over central government in meeting the needs of society, and Christian doctrine teaches the value of personal engagement in the lives of the poor, the ill, the imprisoned and the lonely. In fact, Americans of faith are the most generous people on the planet whether it’s giving of their money, their skills and abilities, their time or even their blood.
If you believe the state taking responsibility for the care of its people so we as individuals are no longer responsible for one another represents the moral high ground, then you are entitled to your opinion.
Please do not question or impugn the morality of those who believe solidarity and love of neighbor begins with individuals reaching out to their fellow citizens for the common good. In the case of national health care reform, I trust a caring family member, friend, or neighbor with my life – or death – before I would trust a panel of so-called experts that lack any personal connection to me or my loved ones and who evaluate life in terms of policy rather than sanctity.
Forgive me - I left out the reference to Professor Brooks’ study:
In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, professor and author Arthur C. Brooks documented the results of ten years of research and analysis on charitable giving and concluded that conservatives are more generous than liberals when it comes to giving their money, their time or even their blood, regardless of income, education, religion, age, gender, marital status, or race. Other studies of charitable giving support Mr. Brooks’ conclusions. So what is the genesis of this perception of conservatives as heartless?
To Ron –
Would you honestly advice an urban Republican to run on campaign that says that they would remove welfare and government services in place of the church? In theory I understand the intellectual argument for community empowerment but how practical is this when you are running for office?
Also, just curious did you ever run for office in an urban area? Did you win or loose running on this platform?
Fantastic.
First, let me apologize for my comment. “Do the urban Americans not get it?” It was pretty insensetive. As I stated above, I’m from a different world that’s been recently shattered. (My perception has) Honestly, I’ve never cared much one way or another about political views in Urban US politics. Now, I don’t have that luxury. I need to understand.
I’m trying to learn and understand. Sometimes I think people want their fates decided for them and I don’t get it. This is the first forum I’ve found where I can ask a question and get an answer. You, and those that followed, have done much to help me understand. Thank you.
Reading is not living however.
God bless,
And Jesus said, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” (Luke, 22:36)
I, Andrew Honeycutt, the husband of Deborah, had recommended to her not to run for Congress in 2010 given the outright lies and distortions utilized by the Scott Campaign to defeat her in 2008. I especially despised her being referred to as a “B*tch” and a “hater” of African Americans – given her lifelong record of caring for African American Medicare and Medicaid patients.
However, after much prayer and meditation, I trust GOD will protect her. Consequently, I will encourage her to run once again in order to restore some sanity and traditional values to decisions made by the United States Congress. She is a strong person and she will not be intimated by lies put forth by self centered big government politicians and their supporters.
Andrew Honeycutt