Saturday, June 03, 2006

History and the Pull of Losers

History and the Pull of the Losers
I am afraid I have been reading for too much history lately. Today in my reading of Churchill, I learned how Joseph Kennedy supported Hitler until late in his career (at least as late as 1939). One of Joseph’s comments incited Churchill to an answer, in years which he was trying to bite his tongue. Of course there were many others during this period who supported Hitler, including Lindbergh and the “never say enough appeasement” Neville Chamberlain. All of which is to say nothing I suppose. But I have been fascinated with the way history has acted towards losers. May I point out that we elected the son of one, JFK, president?
I just read a great piece from Jimmy Carter, and it reminded me of all the reasons I respect him, as well as the all the reasons why he must remain a loser. You see though I have a great problem with Jimmy Carter, he loves the Lord, the same Lord which I love. I do not doubt that love for an instant, and I commend him for all of his forthright efforts to eradicate disease and help Africa to become better. I look forward to spending eternity with him, where I have no doubt whatsoever that we will stand shoulder to shoulder working in the labors which our Lord will give us.
BUT, as for the present world, he and I must have a very different view. In his article he correctly attributes the beginning of the great movement of Christians to the Republican Party to 1979. He has noticed that that is the year in which conservatives seemingly forever captured the heart and soul of the Southern Baptist Conference. I became a Christian in 1972, and at that time, I saw about an equal number of Democrats and Republicans in the church. He laments; I celebrate. Most Christian organizations have a history of being eaten by the world views that they are supposed to challenge. Consider the Methodists and the Presbyterians, and their early history with the United States. They were at one time considered the radicals, hated by their peer organizations, and yet today are the very staid churches which excite the least comment, let alone change to Jesus Christ. My own viewpoint is that the longer the church exists, the less chance it has to shine for Jesus. I thanked God for the Southern Baptists, although I am not one, that they fought the trend of history, and that they shined brightly for the One that they are called to represent.
The problem, as I see it, is that we are coming upon the time when the Greatest Deceiver of all time will live on the face of the earth. Pericles, Churchill, nor anyone else will convince the world of his evil until it is almost too late. At that moment, if I understand scripture aright, the Lord himself will rescue us from self-destruction. I do think, in large measure, the philosophy of Jimmy Carter will be put forever to rest. There is much enviable in that philosophy, its earnest efforts to help the needy notwithstanding, yet it must remain an ungrown fruit, destined to fall off the branch long before ripening, starved in its infancy, in the face of the Truth. It is based forever in humanitarianism without God.
I am sorry that Jimmy Carter does not see that; yet I pray that he will live to see the coming of our Lord, and the usher of the New Age.
Just so you know, at the age of 18, I registered non-partisan and in the intervening years I have remained forever so. Neither party have I ever endorsed, and I lament for the country that is told there are two answers for every problem, exactly two answers, only two answers, one good and one evil. I think such a system, though I know not a better one, has created much mischief in our pursuit of righteousness.

4 comments:

David Porta said...

Mr. D sez

//Neither party have I ever endorsed, and I lament for the country that is told there are two answers for every problem, exactly two answers, only two answers, one good and one evil. I think such a system, though I know not a better one, has created much mischief in our pursuit of righteousness.//

It is true that GOP and Dems are the Big Two in USA. The Green Party, Libertarian Party, American Independant Party, Conservative Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party, etc, are all fringe.

In western Europe, multi-party politics is common. Envision no single party commanding more than 15% of the electorate. More than just two answers for any problem. No need to lament for those countries that they are told there are only two answers for every problem. They have five, six, seven answers. And, under this multi-party situation, often there is difficulty in establishing a coalition of factions within government. One would expect little to get done by gov't under such circumstances. Small gov't. One would think. Yet western Europe is far Left of USA.

If USA moves away from two-party politics and toward multi-party politics, will it make it more difficult for gov't to act? Or will we have moved Leftward? Big tent politics moves the center to the Left. Factionalist politics (small-tent politics) favors adherance to the principles of one's faction, one's party. Big-tent GOP welcomes pro-choice politicians, and also welcomes big-gov't guys like Dole and Dubya. GOP is hardly conservative. Dems make pro-life politicians unwelcome. And if the election were held today ... Kerry would still lose.

Mr. D said...

One of the interesting things I am learning in studying Churchill is that the Left Labour party actually knew of their pull into the war and accepted it before did the conservatives. Neville Chamberlain remained blind almost to the end convinced that Hitler would do the reasonable thing.
Maybe what I am suggesting is that one party in control is always evil- we do need at least two to keep the other honest.
Pat

Deborah said...

I enjoy being non-partisan :) although I usually tell people I'm closer to Republican.

That newer Constitution party looks interesting, sort of Republican/Libertarian/fanaticalChristianity.

I'm reading a book by Sean Hannity right now -- he is skimming over WWII and the Cold War -- so so interesting how people have often supported the "losers," as you say. It was shocking to me to read all about the interactions between Reagan and Gorbachev, and then to read that TIME magazine made Gorbachev MAN OF THE DECADE...huh? what? weird.

At least all the reading about Reagan has made me feel better about George W. Bush. Too bad Bush doesn't have the charm of Ronald...it would probably help people to like him a bit more :)

Mr. D said...

Deb,
I lived that time, and thought Gorachev was far overblown. History has proven that Reagan stands significantly, and that Gorbachev was only part of a process to change.
What a man Reagan was! Oh, that we might see another in my lifetime.
Dad