Of Dishonesty and Politics (unabridged)

A Thorough Rebuttal of the Sioux City Journal Editorial Board’s Published Opinion against the Iowa Family Policy Center

Former Governor Branstad routinely touts himself to church-going Iowans as “a fellow evangelical” and that he is “pro-life”, yet he vigorously campaigned for Lamar Alexander, in 1999, a presidential contender who firmly stated that he “did not support” overturning Roe v. Wade, and adamantly opposed the Human Life Amendment.

Stephen Schmidt, Alexander’s campaign spokesman admitted, “the right to life issue is not on [Alexander’s] agenda.” [1] Prior to this, in September of 1995, Alexander declared he did not believe having a pro-life vice-president was a necessary consideration for his aspirations to lead the nation.

Branstad was a key player on Alexander’s team.

It isn’t surprising that Branstad was attracted to Alexander, when one considers that Branstad’s own Lieutenant Governor appointee, Joy Corning, was also pro-abortion. Corning served on the Board of Directors for Iowa’s chapter of Planned Parenthood and even led that organization’s fundraising drive in 2002. The fact remains that whether one describes the state or federal level of the American government, both a Vice President and/or a Lieutenant Governor remain no more than a heart-beat away from the chief executive position, and principled people who feel passionate about issues, in general (abortion, in particular), feel equally betrayed by the duplicity of such scenarios.

Clyde Barrow killed many people. Bonnie and the Methvin family helped hide Clyde.

So, of what value is one’s alleged “firm belief that abortion is wrong” when one tacitly supports those who clearly do not, with both time and money? Well, the answer is more than obvious. Truth be known, such behavior is a form of intellectual dishonesty that is all too typical for America these days. Principally, it’s no different than saying, “I am firmly against stealing! Stealing is immoral and wrong!” Then, on the next opportunity, offering a financial contribution, along with room and board, to “Bonnie and Clyde.” In the criminal justice world, this is referred to as “aiding and abetting.”

To further illustrate such dishonesty in the most understandable terms, let us imagine a pair of candidates, around 60 years ago – let’s say about 1932 – vying for political clout during the time of Adolf Hitler’s rise to popularity. (Yes, he was eventually chosen by throngs through democratic populism.) History shows us that it was the “lesser of two evils” doctrine, espoused by many in our own political world today, to which President Hindenburg reluctantly succumbed. The result of his personal lack of discretion, caving under the pressure of German business leaders who loved Adolf for his “financial savvy,” is history.

Moderate President Paul von Hindenburg of Germany

Imagine what German President Hindenburg’s rationale might have sounded like, after succumbing to pressure from the economic community, who insisted that Hindenburg appoint his formerly defeated political opponent as the nation’s “Chancellor.”

During Hindenburg and Hitler’s competitive campaigns, imagine strongly principled pro-life German Lutheran Pastors rising up in solidarity, pronouncing, “We won’t choose the lesser of two evils!” (Unfortunately, to the shame of the German church, no such thing happened.) Lastly, imagine some German paper publishing an Op-Ed, as the Sioux City Journal did, disparaging the Lutheran leaders as “single-issue voters,” stating, “We shake our heads in frustration and disagreement whenever anger over one specific issue drives members of any organization to say they aren’t interested in choosing between the “lesser of two evils.” [3]

He had “economic savvy” and was “good for German Business!”

This illustration provides an opportunity to evaluate the veracity of the Journal’s “lesser of two evils” doctrine. When President Hindenburg died in office, Hitler, borrowing credibility from the late and dearly-loved moderate president of Germany, was directly-elected by a whopping 84.6% of the population. Now, they didn’t elect Hitler because they hated Jews and wished for genocide! They elected him because their beloved president, who had defeated him in the elections, lent him credibility by appointing him to high office – an office eerily similar to an American Vice-Presidency or a Lieutenant Governor position. Moreover, they had adopted a shallow lens through which to judge all political issues, namely…economics.

Believing that it was the role of government to handle economics and personal welfare of the citizenry was Germany’s first error. Their second error was to be driven in popular rage by that same love of money, ignoring the trouncing of their own constitution by Hitler, and voting through a referendum, in popular madness, to anoint Hitler as supreme ruler.

The role of government in an ideal world should be little more than the provision of safety and order. It is understood that it costs money to provide safety and order, so government is allowed, in the form of a necessary evil, to tax those private businesses, run by individuals who create wealth. If government takes too much from the wealth-creating individuals, government is capable of destroying the very businesses necessary for its continuation. So, what remains is a question of how much we will LIMIT the destructive and parasitic acts of taxation which determine the private sector’s nationally realized economic success.

Germany didn’t get it. And while the American founders certainly did, it remains to be seen if we modern Americans… ever will again.

Apparently, the Sioux City Journal believes that the virtue of the sacred vote is either equal or superior to either the “virtue of being safely born without the threat of extermination” or the “virtue of marriage,” which remains the cornerstone of human civilization. Consider this: both life and marriage, the foundation upon which all other important issues rest (including economics), are described in one word: family.

To promote the goal of an ideal family, as God designed it, is no legitimate “put-down” to those who do not currently have one. To conclude that someone’s choice to correctly prioritize the necessary rejection of counterfeit marriage, over other, obviously less-important issues, like economics, is in any way degrading to “the ability to participate in an election” is a shabby and disrespectful assessment of the Iowa Family Policy Center, lacking understanding.

It is virtuous and intelligent for human beings to possess a sense of moral and ethical PRIORITIES in politics. What’s MANIACAL and DANGEROUS is to allow the fallen and lowest nature of man, his love for money, to constantly insist that it is exclusively the issue of economics that perpetually belongs in the number one position. What’s more bizarre is that some would pretend all political issues are on equal footing.

If the reader finds the recollection of old-world German “virtues” and political “priorities” offensive, it is a good thing. We should ALL be offended to know that the PRIMARY reason Adolf Hitler was elected to power was due to the German people’s preoccupation with their wallets; falsely believing that he possessed superior economic concepts through which Germany could be “restored to greatness.” The citizens of Iowa need to awaken to world history’s sordid, economic-driven political past and prove they are awake by remembering what Jesus warned was the “root of all evil!”

While the Sioux City Journal attempts to purvey proper political “morals” in their Op Ed entitled: Election for governor is about more than one issue, citing – first of all – the state of Iowa’s current economic disorder (ironically, economic issues are almost always the “single-issue” of secularists), the fact remains that over 40 million innocent babies have been killed and discarded in the name of convenience, since 1973.

Ben Nelson traded his alleged “pro-life” stand for the now famous “Cornhusker Kickback.” Terry Branstad donated money to his campaign.

Meanwhile, men like Branstad, and his friends Lamar Alexandar and Democrat Ben Nelson (at left), apparently remain content to do little more than talk against the evil (when and if the right audience is present). All talking aside, it is a matter of public record that the actual application of what each of these three men believe indirectly contributes to the furtherance of the very evil they decry with their mouths. Such behavior is simply this:  hypocrisy masquerading as “tolerance and acceptance.” They are staking out a position that is pro-life “enough” to attempt to secure some pro-life voters, yet not so pro-life as to alienate the pro-abortion wing of their respective parties. It’s old-fashioned dishonesty in its calculated and finest political disguise. In the end, it’s the innocent children who suffer from it the most.

If the application of the “lesser of two evils” doctrine to 1930s Germany wasn’t enough to convince you, consider imagining a pair of candidates, 2000 years ago…vying for political clout around the time when “Quirinius was Governor of Syria, and all went to be taxed…to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem…” How about the “Herod and Quirinius” ticket? You know, the same Herod that murdered thousands of Hebrew babies in an attempt to rid the world of the Christ child. Quirinius could have passionately informed all the congregants of the Synagogues in Bethlehem, “You know, I am personally opposed to infanticide!”

No one should understand the consequences of lending credibility to those who don’t deserve it, better than the people of Iowa. If Branstad, a self-proclaimed “evangelical” had possessed authentic conservative convictions, two of the three currently seated activist judges responsible for debasing our state to the level of an oligarchy, would not have been appointed to the bench in the first place, and his pro-abortion lieutenant governor might not have acquired the moxi necessary to conspire with those same judges in the usurpation of the role of the legislative body – ramming gay marriage down the throats of all Iowa citizens.

The problem is larger than guarding a sensible definition of marriage; it presents a question of whether or not we will preserve our republic, in preference to rewarding the fountainhead of the problem, by re-electing him to the position of Governor – for a fifth time, no less. The governor’s position is one he does NOT deserve, if for no other reason than his inability to say, “I’m so sorry. I’d like a chance to right my own wrongs by asking for another chance to rectify them.” No such words have yet escaped his impenitent lips.

If it is true that Republicans (and, apparently, even some Democrats) believe that Culver is a bad governor, then let them replace him with a man who is at least worthy of the office, much less more worthy. The Journal Editorial Board got it wrong when they claimed that refusing to reward intellectual dishonesty “diminishes the most basic of our fundamental rights.” The truth of the matter is this: Party-FIRST (principles-second) politics is the REAL source of ALL American problems. Ronald Reagan, in good humor, and meaning no disrespect for the sacred text, once invoked his own “11^th Commandment.” All humor aside, Republicans should be reminded that Reagan’s “11^th” must humbly bow before God’s 9^th, which says (in condensed form), “Thou shalt not deceive.”

Is there is a “golden-mean?” Sure there is. Halfway between cowardice and presumption lays courage. Halfway between stinginess and drunken frivolity lays generosity. But a “golden-mean” does NOT exist in the arena of politics. Halfway between stealing a pencil and robbing a bank is still… theft. Halfway between driving with a buzz and driving soused is still…drunk-driving. Would anyone like to explain the moderate position between monogamy and polygamy?

You see, political moderatism is little more than intellectual dishonesty, unworthy of any serious consideration. Those who espouse the position are either dishonest with others, themselves, unintelligent, or all of the above. The media at large has done a stellar job of vilifying both the “left” and the “right” by assigning the descriptive word “far.” But we need not be fooled by repetition. It would be a better moniker to call them “honest left” and “honest right.” It’s the folks stuck in between who are furthest from certainty. Either the government gives permission to the individual to exist, as espoused by the honest left, or the individual gives permission to the government to exist, as espoused by the honest right (in agreement with the founding fathers). The “moderate” position between these two points of reality is the untenable and silly notion that both could be true at the same time.

As I reflect upon the elections I have participated in since my 18^th birthday, I can honestly say that most every one of them was, on some level, a choice between the lesser of two or more evils. It’s when the lesser choice is barely a lesser choice, and the perceived evil is too great to bear, that the argument in favor of choosing one of the two fails to constitute good judgment. Moderatism has been hurting Iowans for a long time. I won’t be choosing a lesser choice this November. It’s time to punish moderatism in the State of Iowa.

May God bless the Iowa Family Policy Center and those with the courage to say “enough is enough! Bring us honest men!”

[1] Stephen Schmidt, interview with the Boston Globe, March 10^th, 1999.

[2] In April of 1933, President Hindenburg forced Hitler to amend the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service , protecting most Jews from losing their jobs.

[3] Opinion of the Sioux City Journal editorial board published on Sunday, February 21, 2010.