« More Atheist Evangelism | Main | So Help Me, I'm Grateful »
November 21, 2006
Rudy Giuliani's Damascus Road?
In the November 19 New York Times, a symposium of political strategists are asked to advise former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani about his upcoming presidential candidacy. Mark Halperin and Rich Galen advise His Honor to emphasize his "big tent" niche, including his support for abortion-rights. More interesting, and disturbing, is the counsel from Republican operative Mary Matalin and former Bill Clinton aide Paul Begala. The advice: surrender on abortion.
Matalin writes:
On liberal social positions: carefully evolve, but don't be a phony. Social conservatives are conviction voters. And social moderates will reject political opportunism. Indicate your respect for conservative convictions and try to 'refine' your own. A late-life reversal on late-term abortion is entirely plausible and mandatory. Try to keep focus on constitutionalist judges.
Begala is even more explicit:
You can't switch on everything. So surrender to the far right on one issue: abortion. But the only way to do is whole hog. Use your trump card: 9/11. Tell them the death you saw on that day gave you a greater appreciation for the sanctity of human life. You're Saul on the road to Damascus. Praise the Lord and pass the delegates.
My first inclination is to chalk this up to two battle-weary and cynical political operatives: one who was able to advise Bill Clinton and one who is able to be married to James Carville. But I fear this counsel is quite telling, and often repeated.
How often have we seen just this strategy? Surrender on abortion. Evolve, with a wink and a nod to the Country Club crowd. Appease the pro-life voting bloc, and then legislate or govern with almost no concern for the unborn except a symbolic action here and there. How many of these Damascus Roads will we see before we have one of our own?
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 10:21 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834c8011f53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rudy Giuliani's Damascus Road?:
Comments
I lived in New York during the Giuliani years and was glad that he had cleaned things up nicely, but there's no way I'll be voting for him for President.
Posted by: David Deavel | Nov 21, 2006 11:07:27 AM
One of the saddest parts is that they really think we're that stupid...and our (conservative voters) record gives them some evidence in that direction.
Think I'll "get out my guitar and play, just like yesterday - then I'll get on my knees and pray..."
Everybody now:
"We won't be fooled again!!"
Posted by: Joe Long | Nov 21, 2006 11:13:14 AM
I read an article on Newt yesterday, in which he is shown as second or third to Giuliani (either just behind or just ahead of McCain). The top three in the GOP are (1) a man who doesn't share our belief in the sanctity of life and whom, if he does "surrender on abortion," we have no reason to believe is sincere, (2) a (by election day) 72-year-old unpredictable maverick who would be 80 before a second term expires, and (3) a man who is twice divorced, having left his first wife when she was dying of cancer and his second for a much younger woman who worked for him.
In the other party, there is no one who shares our beliefs as to the sanctity of life and the two front runners are (1) a man who I saw just last night advocate, for all intense and purposes, surrender in the face of hardship, leaving to the wolves those who put their trust in us (Obama) and (2) Ms. Rodham (need I say more).
Joe, may I "get on my knees and pray" with you?
Posted by: GL | Nov 21, 2006 11:51:23 AM
"We won't be fooled again!!"
We may not, but most, I suspect, will.
Posted by: Bill R | Nov 21, 2006 11:58:43 AM
Care for a Mormon, anyone?
Posted by: Brian John Schuettler | Nov 21, 2006 12:43:26 PM
Mitt will do nicely.
Posted by: Joe Long | Nov 21, 2006 12:47:37 PM
I think Mitt may be our best alternative, though I have read that Sam Brownback might put his hat in the ring. He would be my first choice at this point should he decide to do so.
Unfortunately, neither of them have much support right now. I have seen some polls in which Romney does register in the single digits and others in which he does not register except as part of "others." Brownback does not register on any poll I have seen. It is early, but each of them have a lot of work to do if they are going to be on top of the ballot in November 2008.
Posted by: GL | Nov 21, 2006 12:53:57 PM
What kind of lie are these guys trying pull over us? That is worse than kuo writing about GWBush.
Posted by: Debbie wimmers | Nov 21, 2006 12:55:33 PM
"Care for a Mormon, anyone?"
If you mean Mitt, I raise my hand. And after all, any Republican who can be elected as governor of a very blue state deserves our serious consideration. (I might also note that I grew up in a part of the country where Mormons were either the majority or a great plurality. On social and cultural issues, we have no better allies.)
Posted by: Bill R | Nov 21, 2006 12:55:43 PM
I met Guiliani in February, was extremely impressed, and have a distant hope he will turn out to be a man of surprising principle and moral stamina, if not earning every checkmark from the Republican base.
Perhaps we could keep watching, and be leery of media material that poisons him prematurely with those of good will before the primaries. Salting the primaries to edge out a candidate strong with the entire electorate is the dream of opponents everywhere. The Pope himself as President would not have the power to outlaw abortion. The issue, legally, is more indirect than that and intricately interconnected with other strengths. Let us be a prayerful prudent constituency, not hair-trigger and credulous. There is a danger of being misled by sleight-of-hand messages, in our zeal to avoid being disappointed. Only if we put our trust in princes AKA oafs will we be finally betrayed.
Posted by: dilys | Nov 21, 2006 1:19:07 PM
"Only if we put our trust in princes AKA oafs will we be finally betrayed."
Sound advice, Dilys. If we can't get a firmly pro-life President, the next best thing is a candidate who will keep his mouth shut on the issue, i.e., not give encouragement to the pro-abortion crowd either. I can live with that. As one of my favorite college professors was fond of saying, "You don't have to have an opinion about everything."
Posted by: Bill R | Nov 21, 2006 1:41:07 PM
Actually we may be betrayed whether we trusted in the oafs or not; the difference is in the disappointment level!
I cannot support Giuliani, especially now that he's been professionally advised to undergo an "England is worth a Mass" issue conversion. I have no doubt he is a man with some admirable qualities, and I regret he's taken the other side of the culture war - but he has, and I wouldn't trust him as an apparent turncoat.
Posted by: Joe Long | Nov 21, 2006 1:46:32 PM
Let's hear it for Dilys! When it comes to elections, every voter shares a small but real responsibility for the entire country. He becomes a civil authority, and assumes a father's obligation to make the best possible provision for his family -- in this case, the country. Only very rarely, in the most do-or-die situations, is a father warranted to stand on principle no matter the consequences for his family. Instead, in politics as in domestic headship, he must weight prudential matters very carefully.
Posted by: DGP | Nov 21, 2006 1:47:55 PM
The father, however, is the very one who must put his foot down at some point; around my house we quote Reb Tevya from "Fiddler On the Roof" when "There IS no other hand!"
There will be no prochoice Republican Presidential candidate; that would be a dealbreaker, for me and for the nation's conservatives who are already disenchanted with the GOP. And in my important primary state of South Carolina, we will stop that gun-grabbin', free-lovin' Northeastern liberal cold - and if we fail, he will lose spectacularly in the fall, to whatever even-worse candidate the Democrats come up with. Let the GOP establishment weigh that, carefully.
Posted by: Joe Long | Nov 21, 2006 2:15:03 PM
DGP said: "in politics as in domestic headship, he must weight prudential matters very carefully."
I tend to agree that this is necessary. A candidate's character, record of service and position on the issues all contribute to the evaluation that a voter must make when deciding how to cast a vote.
It bothers me though, that possible candidates are being told what postion to take on issues based primarily on the goal of winning. How can they take this kind of advice and not be considered a phony? Is it impossible to stand on your own principles as a candidate and win an election?
Aren't individuals that give this kind of advice corrupting the process? I am trying to think how I would advise a candidate for office of leadership (not that anyone has ever asked!). I think that standing for what you belive in with a willingness to honestly work with those that disagree with you would be a start.
What are the Biblical principles that would apply to our choice of leadership?
Posted by: William Wilcox | Nov 21, 2006 2:39:14 PM
If it is Rudy vs. Hillary, I will almost certainly vote for Rudy. I hope to do my little part to prevent that being the choice with which we are faced. Hopefully, Romney or Brownback or some other solidly pro-life alternative will make that choice unnecessary.
Whatever happens, however, as Dilys has already noted, our trust is not to be placed in princes, but in the Prince.
Posted by: GL | Nov 21, 2006 3:18:36 PM
Hey, Gore was pro-life before it was bad for his political career, so he switched. About time someone went the other way.
Posted by: JohnH | Nov 21, 2006 3:29:48 PM
>>>I cannot support Giuliani, especially now that he's been professionally advised to undergo an "England is worth a Mass" issue conversion.<<<
Actually, it's "PARIS is worth a Mass", and Henri of Navarre, later Henri IV, turned out to be one of the great French monarchs, who returned peace and stability to that strife-ridden country through his Edict of Tolerations (aka the Edict of Nantes). Had Henri's moderate approach to religion been followed, France might have developed into a prosperous, pluralistic nation, instead of the bastion of Catholic intolerance it became under Louis XIV. The exodus of Hugenots to England and the Netherlands materially benefited both those countries, while their departure markedly impoverished France--and eventually led to the bankruptcy of France in the 18th century, the French Revolution (and all the misery that entailed), the rise of nationalism (the plague of the 19th and 20th centuries), and the various "isms" that killed hundreds of millions in the last century.
Sure, Henri IV was a skeptic and a raging cynic in religious matters. He was also stunningly competent as a ruler, and possessed a strategic vision that would have made France a much better place had it been sustained. Competent cynics will get my vote over inept idealists any day of the week.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 21, 2006 3:31:05 PM
Competent cynics will get my vote over inept idealists any day of the week.
I know that this is not where you are going, Stuart, but there are limits to how far one would want to extend that philosophy. Stalin was a competent cynic.
Posted by: GL | Nov 21, 2006 3:41:00 PM
Sorry for the misquote and I will take the historical example seriously. However, I don't think Romney fits the inept idealist category - nor, unfortunately, does Hillary (an "ept" idealist, with lamentable ideals).
Giuliani versus Hillary...brrr, I feel a chill. It would be a shame they couldn't both lose - and there's no way we could win. No, it's best we stop the Mayor here in the Southeast, and the Mormon's our best chance. As conservative governor of Massachusetts, I think he's got plenty of "wise as a serpent" experience by now.
Posted by: Joe Long | Nov 21, 2006 4:05:09 PM
Well, that settles it. We are all counting on Joe and his fellow South Carolinians to save the day.
Romney does kind of represent a mirror image of Clinton. The former was a Democrat able to win in the South. Romney is a Republican able to win in the Northeast. I am still more comfortable with Brownback, but conservatives will need to identify their candidate early and be unified in their support if we are to avoid Rudy or McCain. Surely Newt will fizzle early. Splitting our votes will give us a bad choice in November. If Romney is the one around whom it looks like support is gathering, he will be my candidate.
Posted by: GL | Nov 21, 2006 4:16:27 PM
Romney is not "solidly pro-life."
From 2002... “I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s. The truth is no candidate in the Governor’s race in either party would deny women abortion rights.”
From 2002... “On Abortion Rights. As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government’s.”
From 1994...“I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the RIGHT of a woman to make that CHOICE.”
Posted by: Doug | Nov 21, 2006 4:41:43 PM
>>>Stalin was a competent cynic.<<<
But sadly misunderstood. ;)
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Nov 21, 2006 5:12:02 PM
"Romney is not "solidly pro-life.""
This is news to me. Has he done a "reverse Al Gore?"
Posted by: Bill R | Nov 21, 2006 5:32:20 PM
Two words: Hillary Clinton. That's the GOP plan to unburden themselves of the ball-and-chain that the pro-lifers are. You'll vote even for Guiliani.
Posted by: Gintas | Nov 21, 2006 5:58:42 PM
>>>Stalin was a competent cynic.<<<
His competence only extended to his brutality. As for the rest of it--economic planner, social engineer, military strategist--competence is probably the last word I would use.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 21, 2006 6:01:24 PM
>>>But sadly misunderstood. ;)<<<
There's actually a book that seriously puts forward that hypothesis.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 21, 2006 6:02:39 PM
Because they don't understand ME, I am a barbarian...
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Nov 21, 2006 6:07:11 PM
Romney has undergone a change. I think it was over the issue of embryonic stem cells, which made him re-evaluate his view of life issues. Or he could have re-evaluated what is necessary to win election. But I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt, because he is not only pro-life and pro-marriage, but he is able to speak about these things eloquently and statesman-like. Here is what the Claremont Institute blog said about him today:
Romney Gets It
At Claremont we study statesmanship. One of the main elements of statesmanship in our republic is teaching. Great American statesman must educate the citizenry about the nature and purpose of republican government.
I have only begun to pay close attention to the race for the 2008 Republican nomination, but so far Romney seems to be the only one who might understand that.
Consider two recent comments. The first, thanks to Power Line is an exchange with a reporter:
A reporter from the Boston Globe asked Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney a rambling question about removing some tolls from the Mass. Turnpike. Eventually, Romney interrupted by joking, "Do you have a point of view on this?" The reporter responded, "I represent the people, governor." To which Romney said, "No, I represent the people, you represent the media."
Here we see Romney reminding the reporter, and through him the people present, that in our democratic republic the only people who represent the people is those whom the people have chosen to do so. Any others who claim to represent the people are usurpers.
We see the same focus in the comments he delivered to a rally on the steps of the Massachusetts Statehouse, (via the The Corner):
This was the place where an astounding idea was born. It revolutionized America, it revolutionized the world.
The idea was this: our nation would be guided by the voice of the people.
This nation would trust the voice of the people rather than the wisdom of a king, or anyone else.
The idea was embodied in the first Constitution, written by John Adams, here in Massachusetts. It established how the voice of the people would be heard – through elections and votes, petitions and initiatives, representatives and senators.
Lincoln said that as elected leaders, we promise to follow the law, to follow the Constitution. He called this “America’s political religion.”
Last week, 109 legislators decided to reject the law, abandon the Constitution, and violate their oath of office.
For the Constitution plainly states that when a qualified petition is placed before them, the legislature “shall” vote. It does not say may vote, or vote if its procedures permit a vote, or vote if there are enough of the members in attendance. It says “shall” vote.
A decision not to vote is a decision to usurp the Constitution, to abandon democracy and substitute a form of what this nation’s founders called tyranny, that is, the imposition of the will of those in power, on the people.
Here again, Romney keeps his focus on the special character of our constitutional republic. I'm impressed.
Richard Samuelson | November 21, 2006 | 08:52 AM
Posted by: Judy Warner | Nov 21, 2006 6:26:41 PM
Judy, to your knowledge has Romney indicated what brought him to his change of mind (and, I hope, heart)?
Posted by: Bill R | Nov 21, 2006 6:30:26 PM
When I started reading the cynical advice, my first thought was MITT ROMNEY. The self-described pro-choice governor of the most leftist state in the nation is suddenly the favorite of social conservatives??? I am reminded of my own Congressman, whose one and only claim to fame is his passionate advocacy of the public display of the Ten Commandments. Asked by a skeptical interviewer to name those commandments, however, he drew a blank.
Posted by: ron chandonia | Nov 21, 2006 6:47:16 PM
Bill, this is from a Life News article at
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1488.html
In various interviews of the last several months, Romney has said that he no longer supports legal abortion and he has called himself "pro-life." Romney also vetoed a bill promoting embryonic stem cell research and said the measure forced him to take a new look at the beginning of human life...
Romney said his position his position ''evolved and deepened" because of the stem cell research debate.
''In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -- to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or commodity," Romney wrote.
Reaction to Romney's views has been mixed from pro-life advocates with some saying his change of heart on abortion is nothing more than an acknowledgment that he can't win the 2008 Republican presidential nomination with a pro-abortion view. Others say they hope Romney is for real.
“We're always happy to welcome converts to the pro-life movement," Carol Tobias, political director for the National Right to Life Committee, told LifeNews.com.
"But he said he would not impose his views on the 'pro-choice majority' of Massachusetts," she added. "If he believed that the country was pro-choice, does that mean he wouldn't work to stop abortion? I'm still skeptical."
Hadley Arkes, professor of political science at Amherst College and a leading pro-life advocate, told the Boston Globe, ''The people long seasoned in the movement will find very refined points where they'd want to either quibble with him or offer instruction to him as a newfound friend."
''But I think people would see here the clear signs of somebody who wants to say he shares their perspective and wants to move in their direction," Arkes added
Evelyn Reilly, director of public policy for the Massachusetts Family Institute, a pro-life group, is one of those who thinks Romney's shift on abortion may be legitimate.
''When you go through the thought processes on stem cell research, which forces you to think about what an embryo is, you have to be intellectually honest and say conception is the beginning of a human life, so this has solidified in his mind," Reilly told the Boston Globe.
''I think his understanding of the beginning of human life has grown and deepened, probably as a result of the stem-cell issue," Reilly added.
Also, if you want to read a variety of posts on attitudes about Mormons for president, the Corner blog at National Review online has yards of stuff today.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Nov 21, 2006 6:49:29 PM
Well, time will (presumably) tell, but the fact that Hadley Arkes thinks Romney's change is genuine is fairly persuasive for me.
Posted by: Bill R | Nov 21, 2006 6:54:21 PM
I just heard this evening that Romney plans to file a suit to force the legislature to fulfill their constitutional duty and vote on placing the proposed marriage amendment on the ballot. He may be doing all this because he is running for president, but he is doing it and not just talking about it.
Posted by: GL | Nov 21, 2006 7:46:20 PM
>>>He may be doing all this because he is running for president, but he is doing it and not just talking about it.<<<
Robert Heinlein once wrote a lengthy digression in one of his novels about the virtues of the machine politician over the reformer. With the machine politician, you always know where he stands and what he is going to do. He is beholden to the machine which represents his constituency. On the other hand, the reformer is a force unto himself, acting on behalf of his own sense of right and wrong, and thus you never know where he stands or what he will do on any one issue.
In another place, Heinlein was more succinct, defining an honest politician as one who "Once bought, stays bought".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 21, 2006 7:52:19 PM
Had Robert Heinlein ever met John McCain?
Posted by: Judy Warner | Nov 21, 2006 7:55:10 PM
Stuart,
My point is not to get us yet again far removed from the topic of the original post by arguing the abilities of Stalin, but rather that competence is not the only criteria in selecting a president. Where they stand on the issues is of some importance as well.
Herod the Great was very competent, but also very cruel and sought to kill our Lord by killing a whole group of little boys. None of us, I hope, would choose him for president just because of his great abilities as a leader.
Again, I know that was not your point, but others (not necessarily posters to this thread) have intimated that we are placing too much emphasis on abortion and other issues on the social agenda. I disagree. They are not the only issues and one must balance all the issues, but these social issues are worthy of great weight and where a candidate stands of them matters a great deal. I would like a president who actually values the lives of humans from the point of conception to natural death and not someone who decides his positions based merely on the likelihood that his selected positions will help him get nominated and elected.
Posted by: GL | Nov 21, 2006 8:12:47 PM
What the candidate "values" is not the biggest consideration. Yes it's a factor, especially in so far as it helps one to ascertain what he might do, but the decisive factor has to be the voter's judgment as to how much (or how little) justice the candidate will bring to the practical exercise of governance. The candidate's real or stated positions are not so important as what will actually happen as a result of his election.
Once, arguing this point, an associated retorted, "No, we live in a representative democracy. It's our job to pick the best men, and their job to make the best decisions." Yes, I reply, but "best men" is not exactly the same as "best character," "best creed," or even "most virtuous." If we're faithful to our moral obligations as voters, best men has to be those whom we think will best serve justice. Admittedly, there are connections among knowledge, virtue, wisdom, and practice. But governance is first and finally about the practice of justice.
Posted by: DGP | Nov 21, 2006 9:46:16 PM
>>>My point is not to get us yet again far removed from the topic of the original post by arguing the abilities of Stalin, but rather that competence is not the only criteria in selecting a president. Where they stand on the issues is of some importance as well.<<<
If we want to return to the opinion of the Fathers, Madison and Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, insisted that character was the principal trait one ought to seek in the chief exectuive. They assumed competence was a given. Thus, in their minds, Washington was not only a good choice, but the best choice.
Unfortunately, since the founding, we have learned that competence cannot be taken as a given in the candidates put forward for President, nor can we assume that the votiers will be able to discern incompetence. Thus, Jefferson's presidency was marked by his own incompetence, particularly in the field of foreign policy (the Embargo Act, the Gunboat Navy, etc.). Of course, there are a number of people who would also point to Jefferson's lack of character, but more people are likely to dispute that than they are the facts that Jefferson just about ruined the U.S. economy and established the seeds of our defeat in the War of 1812.
So, there is a hierarchy of qualifications in national leadership.
Best--Competence and Character
Good--Competence and No Character
Bad--Incompetence and Character
Worst--Incompetence and No Character
Ideally, I could always vote for the first. However, we sometimes don't get the choice, and of the choices we do get, I would take Competence and No Character over Incompetence and Character, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 22, 2006 4:43:58 AM
>>>Had Robert Heinlein ever met John McCain?<<<
He knew McCain types. Served in the same Navy with McCain's daddy and grand-daddy, too. They were very different sorts of men.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 22, 2006 4:45:11 AM
>>>Herod the Great was very competent, but also very cruel and sought to kill our Lord by killing a whole group of little boys. None of us, I hope, would choose him for president just because of his great abilities as a leader.<<<
Who's my other choice?
Also try to remember that the Gospels deal with one small piece of Herod's reign, towards the end, when Herod was prone to paranoia and dementia. For most of the time that he ruled, Herod gave Judea good governance, prosperity, and a modicum of peace and stability that it had not known under the Maccabbees. He kept the Romans at arms length, and, unless you were one of his sons or wives, you lived a pretty good life for that time and place.
The Gospels were written by Jews and a gentile Christian with a particular point of view, one which cannot be expected to be objective concerning Herod or the Romans. Their history is eschatologically oriented. Our only other source for Herod's reign is Josephus, and as a Jew he had no liking for the Idumean upstart, but he was a bit more balanced about things.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 22, 2006 4:51:33 AM
"The Gospels were written by Jews and a gentile Christian with a particular point of view, one which cannot be expected to be objective concerning Herod or the Romans. Their history is eschatologically oriented."
I disagree strongly. If the authors of Scripture are truly inspired by the Holy Ghost, then their particular writings, while reflectiong their distinctive personalities, persepctives, and "Sitz in Leben," will nonetheless be preserved from tendentious prejudice and give us a truly objectively accurate portrait and perception of the character of figures such as Herod and the Romans. Spiritual evaluation outweighs suppsoed "pragmatic" considerations (though in fact nothing opposed to God is pragmatic at all); in that sense (and perhaps every sense), the eschatological orientation for history is ultimatley the only one that counts.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Nov 22, 2006 6:28:22 AM
He knew McCain types. Served in the same Navy with McCain's daddy and grand-daddy, too. They were very different sorts of men.
John McCain was a very different sort of man, too, when he was a prisoner. He was heroic beyond belief. He was offered early release. Although he was in very bad physical shape, he refused it and said he would go home only with his comrades. His torturers then removed the cast from his broken arm and twisted it unmercifully. This is why he can't use it much today. I have this story from a man who was in prison with him and who took care of him when he was at death's door. My husband, who was also in prison with McCain, has no use for his policies and grandstanding but will not impugn his character as a prisoner.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Nov 22, 2006 7:12:43 AM
Stuart said: "I would take Competence and No Character over Incompetence and Character,".
I am not sure what you mean by no character. For me, someone with no character could not be trusted. And if that person was competent they could be very dangerous. At least an incompetent person with character may be able to gather competent people to serve him.
But once again I ask, what are the Biblical principles that Christians should use when making decisions about leadership. I would appreciate some help understanding specifically where people receive their guidance in this matter.
Posted by: William Wilcox | Nov 22, 2006 7:37:58 AM
>>>I am not sure what you mean by no character. For me, someone with no character could not be trusted.<<<
Granted, but if you already know that, there are ways of ensuring that the slimeball keeps his word. Most such people can be assured of acting in line with their own self-interest; the secret is ensuring that their self-interest corresponds with that of the state.
>>>At least an incompetent person with character may be able to gather competent people to serve him.<<<
Such, alas, has not been the case according to the historical record. Either these well-intentioned idiots surround themselves with other idiots, or they naively surround themselves with sharks and get eaten.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 22, 2006 9:33:03 AM
>>>If the authors of Scripture are truly inspired by the Holy Ghost, then their particular writings, while reflectiong their distinctive personalities, persepctives, and "Sitz in Leben," will nonetheless be preserved from tendentious prejudice and give us a truly objectively accurate portrait and perception of the character of figures such as Herod and the Romans. Spiritual evaluation outweighs suppsoed "pragmatic" considerations (though in fact nothing opposed to God is pragmatic at all); in that sense (and perhaps every sense), the eschatological orientation for history is ultimatley the only one that counts.<<<
We have very different ideas about the meaning of divine inspiration.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 22, 2006 9:33:38 AM
>>>But once again I ask, what are the Biblical principles that Christians should use when making decisions about leadership. <<<
"Put not your trust in princes".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 22, 2006 9:34:10 AM
>>>Giuliani versus Hillary...brrr, I feel a chill.<<< Oh, cheer up, it could be worse. It could be Biden v. Giuliani.
This is just disgusting-and is adding to my mistrust of pro-life Republicn politicians; it seems like most Republicans who claim to be pro-life just say they are to get the pro-life vote, and never do much which is really pro-life. There are some exceptions (like Rick Santorum, who if he were to sell-out and become pro-choice really has the potential to become the moderates' sweetheart), but it seems like there are few. I think I'll write to Mr. Giuliani and tell him that his dishonesty and lack of character are driving me towards registering as a Democrat-and I'd finally made up my mind to register Republican, too. Grrr.
Posted by: luthien | Nov 22, 2006 10:26:45 AM
Also try to remember that the Gospels deal with one small piece of Herod's reign, towards the end, when Herod was prone to paranoia and dementia. For most of the time that he ruled, Herod gave Judea good governance, prosperity, and a modicum of peace and stability that it had not known under the Maccabbees. He kept the Romans at arms length, and, unless you were one of his sons or wives, you lived a pretty good life for that time and place.
I don't dispute that Herod the Great was an immensely skilled and successful ruler, that's the reason I use him as an example of a competent, but cynical one. But let's not leave the impression that his cruelty was limited to the last few years of his life. He was always a cruel, cynical ruler. He emerged as the sole ruler of Palestine out of a snake pit. One of his first acts following the murder of his father was to arrange, with the permission of Cassius, to kill his father's murderer, Malichus. He did this by pretending to believe Malichus was innocent of his father's blood and having him stabbed as Malichus was coming to dine with Herod at the latters invitation. This act took place nearly 40 years before the birth of Christ.
Herod was not, of course, heir to the Hasmonean line. To take care of his lack of pedigree, he married Mariamme, granddaughter of Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, two of the last legitimate Hasmonean rulers. She was his second wife. He would marry a total of ten women. The children of these various women created a snake pit within his own house, where sons competed for priority in hopes of succeeding their father.
Herod played the Romans against each other like a master, but allying himself with Antony. He bribed Antony to have Antigonus, the rightful Hasmonean heir, killed. Antony's "love" interests, meanwhile, extended beyond Cleopatra (sorry to disillusion the romantics out there, and include his lust for Herod's wife Mariamme and her brother Arisobulus, going so far as asking Herod to send the later to him for sexual pleasure. Herod made an excuse and avoided doing so. Instead he appointed Aristobulus as high priest. However, when the later became very popular with the people, Herod arranged to have Aristobulus drowned. This took place more than 25 years before the birth of Christ.
Herod's mother-in-law, naturally angry about the murder of her son, wrote Cleopatra seeking revenge. She arranged for Antony to demand that Herod meet with him. Herod had no choice but to go. Before he left, however, he gave order to his uncle to kill Mariamme should something happen to him. When he returned, he discovered that his uncle had revealed these instructions to Mariamme and her mother. Herod took this as proof that his uncle had been intimate with Mariamme and had him killed. Herod considered killing Cleopatra, who tried to seduce him, but was dissuaded by fear of Antony's response.
When Octavian defeated Antony, this left Herod with a huge problem. He had supported the wrong side. He went to try to win Octavian over. Before leaving, he made arrangements to have Mariamme and her mother killed should his mission to Octavian fail. Somehow, he managed to persuade Octavian that he would be a loyal friend and gained, rather than lost, from the defeat and death of Antony. Upon returning home, however, Mariamme and her mother confronted him with his orders to have them killed should he not return. Again, he took this as evidence that Soemus, whom he had given the instruction, had had intercourse with Mariamme and had him killed. Again, this was all about 25 years before Christ was born. He also had Mariamme tried and executed.
I could go on as Herod had many other family members killed during his long reign, including Mariamme's mother, another of his brothers-in-law, and three of his sons. The latter acts caused Augustus to declare, "It is better to be Herod's pig than his son." On his death bed, he arranged for a group of Jewish leaders to be imprisoned with orders that they be slain upon his death so that the people of Jerusalem would mourn during his funeral, believing that his own passing would be cause for celebration not mourning. Salome wisely freed these Jewish leaders upon Herod's death.
Thus, Herod was not a good ruler who only turned cruel in his last few years. He was a cruel, vengeful and murderous man his entire adult life. I believe the short narrative in Scriptures paints a fair portrait of Herod the Great. An alternative would have to be grossly incompetent to prefer Herod to him.
Posted by: GL | Nov 22, 2006 10:31:16 AM
Just a question: it sounds like many of you are fine with voting for a man who claims to worship our Lord but who is in fact an open, practicing polytheist (Romney). He happens to be pro-life. Does that trump voting for an avowed pagan? Does voting for someone who bows to the Lordship of Jesus Christ not trump everything else? A pro-life position would certainly be one evidence that a man is bowing to the Lord. But voting for a man because he is pro-life while swallowing his worshipping idols in the name of Christ seems to put the sun in an orbit around the planet.
Posted by: David Bryant | Nov 22, 2006 10:58:52 AM
