I understand why so many people are concerned about Donald Trump’s character. I am equally concerned about the character of Joe Biden. I am unable to look into the hearts of others, but a life lived—either well or not is like posting a golf score—it is up there for everybody to read. By the way if Joe Biden is a 6 or 8 handicap, I will contribute $10,000 to his campaign. Uncle Joe is just like many politicians who don’t tell the truth with any degree of frequency. But unlike most politicians, he doesn’t have the wisdom, virtue, or self-awareness to not lie about his golf handicap.
In a talk on April 15th at Hillsdale College, John Fonte reviewed the history of modern-day conservativism. He described several waves over the past 70 years, and I believe we are seeing these waves cross each other Nationally and, in our State.
Mr. Fonte opines: “This divergence can best be understood in the context of the history of modern American conservatism, which can be broken into several waves: the first wave, symbolized by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Ronald Reagan, lasted from the mid-1950s to the end of the Cold War; the second wave, symbolized by Paul Ryan and the two Bush presidencies, ran from the 1990s to roughly the second decade of this century; and the third wave, symbolized by Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump, is ongoing.”
I believe a critical element of this review however is missing. The first wave described above and championed by Barry Goldwater was what I would call the “Ayan Rand” conservatives. Secularist and libertarian in nature and grounded in Enlightenment “natural law theory”, its primary focus was on individual liberty and sovereignty.
After 1964 a new wave of conservativism began with the emergence of Ronald Regan. This new wave incorporated historically Biblical traditions within the conservative portfolio of ideas. Evangelicals and traditional Catholics became part of the Conservative coalition. Recognizing that “Natural Law Principles were in fact grounded in Biblical and Church theology and political ecclesiastical philosophy the concepts of individual “free will” became the bases of liberty. Virtue became the necessary prerequisite for the exercise of individual rights. Recognizing that before exercising those rights there were “duties” to each other and covenants to be kept between WE THE PEOPLE and HE who endowed us with those individual rights as described in our Great Declaration.
The next wave of conservatism was championed by the Bush’s—early on and Paul Ryan. Forgoing principles of the natural law and classical liberalism (conservatism) they embraced the fads of the day including globalism, “social justice”—very different than Biblical justice, and economic corporatism. They rejected lassi-faire and unfettered markets and most importantly ushered in a “neo- Federalism” that was the antithesis of the Tenth Amendment to our Constitution.
Donald Trump has put forth his own form of Conservativism. He very much is what I call a “Realistic Nationalist”. He recognizes that America First is a necessity because we can only secure our own National and individual sovereignty and rights and that we have little control over how others govern themselves—very different than Regan. He recognizes the “plank in our own eyes” and seeks to fix that first before trying to tell other nations how to conduct themselves. He recognizes that common interests are what hold people together both within our country and with other nations. He recognizes the only way to peace is through strength and that a strong military is a necessity, and that power is best projected economically and use of the military should be a last resort.
I hope and pray that we have another GREAT AWAKENING in our country before the November election. I pray that Mr. Trump can honestly project a posture of supplicant and humble himself in the same way that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington did publicly. I pray for all our leaders, including those who are “prochoice”. I also know that the “the spirit and body” of any human being of any age, race or nationality, especially the unborn is unique and worthy of our protection. Until we as a country can insist on that proposition, and fulfill our duty as Samaritans to each other, and can provide compassion to all including mothers and the unborn and those who look different than us or come from different backgrounds, we will never approach fulfilling our part of the Divine Covenant promised to us from Genesis to Our Great Declaration. Our responsibilities have always been in front of us. WE have the “free will” to make the right “choice”, remembering always that the “choice of convenience should never take precedent to the “duty” to protect.
This to me would be the fusion of all forms of “Conservatism”. Can we call it CHRISTIAN CONSERVATISM? WE NEED ANOTHER GREAT AWAKENING.
One reply on “Christian Conservatism”
THERE’S ONLY ONE WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTES TRUE CONSERVATISM!
Per the same standard, there’s no one cited in this article who was genuine conservative. Furthermore, the bulk of those today claiming to be conservatives (Republicans, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, etc.) are merely are, at best, merely right-leaning liberals. For one example, anyone who has sworn or who promotes the biblically seditious Constitution as the law of the land has any claim to being a conservative.
“In politics, everything revolves around the positioning of right, left, and center. You’re either rightwing, leftwing, or a centrist. Politicians and non-politicians alike employ all three terms as if there’s a consensus on the parameters for those designations. Even if this were true, who gets to determine what’s right, left, and center, and how are those determinations made? Over time, the parameters shift (always further to the left), so how is someone on the right to know he’s now a centrist or a centrist to know he’s now on the left?…
“There are no answers to these questions because there is no standard for these terms. The terms are completely arbitrary, defined at any given time by finite man and his fickle ethics rather than by Yahweh1 and His immutable morals. Although the following example doesn’t specifically address right and left, it illustrates the disparity between man’s ever-changing standard and Yahweh’s never-changing standard:
‘Two people could have walked down any U.S. street in 1930 – one with a bottle of whiskey under his arm and one with a bar of gold in his pocket, and the one with the whiskey would have been a criminal whereas the one with the bar of gold would have been considered a good law abiding citizen. If the same thing happened in any U.S. city in 1970, the one with the whiskey would be the law abiding citizen and the one with the gold bar would be the criminal.’2
“In a mere forty-year period, man’s standard had completely reversed itself. The same transposition of ethics has occurred innumerable times under all governments based upon the traditions of man.
‘Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12 declare that Yahweh is the exclusive legislator. There are no others, period! Anyone who claims the title of legislator (particularly when his “laws”—whether commandments, statutes, or judgments—are inconsonant with Yahweh’s) is a usurper and is perpetuating the sin begun by Adam and Eve. The same is true for any one of us who would modify Yahweh’s triune law….
“Any legislation antithetical to Yahweh’s turns evil to good and good to evil (Isaiah 5:20). When man rejects Yahweh’s standard of morality, it is inevitable he will make legal what Yahweh has made unlawful (e.g., infanticide and sodomy) and make illegal what Yahweh has made lawful (e.g., monotheistic Christianity outside the four walls of church buildings).
“Yahweh is the only lawgiver because as Creator He’s the only one with the authority to determine what is good and evil. His morals as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments determine what is right and left. Anything left of His right(eousness) is left, liberal, and ungodly….”
For more, see blog article “Right, Left, and Center: Who Gets to Decide?” at https://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/right-left-and-center-who-gets-to-decide/