Monday, September 29, 2008

Pardon the Political Interruption

Liberals, be they Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, or some other sort of tin-foil-hat-wearing goofballs are not operating with a Lutheran “world view”, shall we say?  By liberal, we mean those who seek to improve the attitudes of others through legislation and the threat of force.  For example, some believe that it is more “neighborly” or more “patriotic” on the part of selfish wealthy Americans to send more money in taxes to the government.  Forcing them to do so will not in fact make those people any more “neighborly” or “patriotic”.  It might make them more intent on finding creative ways to avoid paying taxes.  The root problems of greed and selfishness are not solved through legislation.  For a source more authoritative than a blog, please see St. Paul on this thought.  Actually, those root problems could be exacerbated by penalizing those who tend to be the ones hiring more workers and giving more money charitably, making them less apt to be neighborly to those around them in need what with the government promising to use their new tax gains to take care of the poor and needy, even those poor and needy individuals who make more cash per year than a half-dozen WELS pastors combined.  Yes, we should all give up and get on the gravy train that will soon be stopping in our respective small towns…well, at least those small towns that are accepting of abortion, socialism, and the mushy superficiality of the American generic religion of spirituality and not those which cling to their God and have guns at the ready for the first toaster-bearing bureaucrat who comes into sight.
We have heard the Ron Paul complainers who want to send a message to the Republican party this fall.  Guess what?  The party doesn’t care.  Ron Paul has some good points but is no Messiah either.  He’s lost.  Get over it.  Move on. 
Usually at this point we hear some high-pitched squealing about there being no lesser of two evils.  Kingdom of the left, folks!  Many times reason must decide between two evils.  You choose the lesser.  Use your God-given mental faculties to deal with the reality of the situation.  Whining about someone who is no longer in the race is unproductive loser talk.  (Hey, I understand.  I wanted the Law&Order guy.)
You say your state is bluer than Papa Smurf after accidentally whacking himself in the shins with a crowbar?  And your vote won’t matter anyway, so you’re going to throw it away on someone who is either not running or doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hades?  Not so fast, my disgruntled friend!  Even Illinois has closer polling numbers than would have been expected, so every vote has worth.  (A question for Illinoisans:  Does polling data in your state reflect the views of deceased likely voters, or do they only come out and make their voices heard on Election Day?)
Interruption ended.  Go in peace.


Father Hollywood said...

Great rant. Just one small correction: libertarians, by definition, don't fall into the category of "those who seek to improve the attitudes of others through legislation and the threat of force."

To group them (whatever your disagreements with them might be) in that category would be like saying that Communists are among those who favor personal property or that Baptists are among those who believe the pope is the head of the Church.

It's just an incorrect definition.

Anonymous said...

I have to respectfully disagree with you sir(s) on this. A strong third party candidate will send a message to the current 2 party system. If we don't fight the 2 party system it will go from Democratic to Republican and back again, over and over again.

Ron Paul is endorsing Chuck Baldwin a candidate I am considering. To me it is a matter of principle not to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Angry Lutherans said...

True, Fr. Hollywood. That was not meant to reflect the views of all Libertarians but those of my personal circle, who though still calling themselves Libertarian have really ceased to be so and have become more or less socialist.


Angry Lutherans said...


Good luck to you.


Anonymous said...

The first anonymous here wrote:
"A strong third party candidate will send a message to the current 2 party system."
Maybe, maybe not.
Ross Perot was a strong third party candidate. And there's some real debate as to whether his strong run actually helped bring out that balanced budget that we saw in the 90s.
On the other hand, Ross Perot gave President Clinton to the US.