Skip to main content
Ever since I embraced conservative political thought, it seemed very important to dissociate legitimate policy discussion from the baser inclinations of man. That is, it's not hard to arrive at a decidedly non-liberal issue position from a bad motive. Have you ever talked with someone who agreed with you for all the wrong reasons? That's upsetting. But I still think that a robust conservatism can embody all the good things we can envision. That's why it pains me to write what will soon follow. But first, let me heap a pile of scorn onto those candidates who tried to downplay/weasel out of their support for the Iraq war. The candidate I am about to mention is no exception.
Even so, the painful reality is this: Lt. Gov. Michael Steele lost the Maryland Senate race because he is black. Mr. Barone of Fox News did faithfully report that Steele was dramatically underperforming in Republican strongholds across Maryland. It cannot be said that the "Democratic year" was responsible, because GOP candidates lost moderates in this last cycle. There was not, in my view, a fall-off of committed supporters nationwide. But Democrats simply closed the gaps on perceived weaknesses, winning Bush moderates.
I'm more than prepared to vote for a nonwhite candidate who shares my views. The GOP to a man and woman will say that it's ready, pointing to every nonwhite Republican officeholder in existence when prompted. I've done this myself:) But how many Maryland Republicans hesitated? Are we ready for the day when the party's symbols are people of color? If we truly believed half the stuff we say about the universal applicability of conservative principles, we'd be ready now.
Don't hear what I'm not saying. I'm not saying the GOP should have more people of color for its own sake. But what I am saying is this: If racism was not the cause of this, what was? Who the heck is Ben Cardin? If the governor of that state can survive that bad night as a Republican, why not Steele?
Feel free to send any thoughts to jasonkettinger@hotmail.com.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...