Echoes in Eternity

I'm sure I am not the only one who notices that almost every survey, registration form, or government application now asks for one's ethnicity. A few weeks ago, Theodore Dalrymple discussed this issue and the related topic of taking quick offense to racist jokes or insults in society.

It is strange, is it not, how the more strenuously we deny the importance of race in human affairs, the more obsessed with it and the touchier on the subject we grow. Casual insults are turned into major incidents; people are, or claim to be, traumatised by less and less. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that they almost enjoy victimisation.

Far be it from me to sit in judgement on the question of whether or not the Indian cricketer really did recently call the only non-white member of the Australian team a monkey: an incident, or alleged incident, that almost brought a great sporting contest to a premature end.
...
The question of whether the Australians are themselves completely without racial prejudice, that is to say have been completely cleansed in mind and spirit by a few years of political correctness, is strictly irrelevant.

What struck me most forcibly about the affair was the way grown men, sportsmen at that, ran immediately to the authorities, as a child runs to his mother when his brother has pinched him or appropriated his toy. Good god, I thought, I've been called a lot worse things in my career, and (what is most galling) sometimes with justification. But a fragile ego maketh a glad authority.

Not long ago I received a letter from the General Medical Council asking me to tell them my ethnicity. The letter said that the GMC had this information on 30 per cent of doctors, but not on me. It was trying to increase the percentage.

My first inclination on receiving this outrageous and disgraceful enquiry (which would not be the less outrageous and disgraceful because of the good intentions of those who sent it) was to write a letter of protest. However, by now I could fill a pretty large volume with letters of complaint that I had never written, and of course my fury lapsed.

If I had written that letter, however, I would have pointed out that one of the reasons so high a proportion of Dutch Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust was because the Dutch kept such good records of people's religions. And one of the reasons the genocide in Rwanda was carried out so efficiently was that every citizen was forced to carry an identity card stating his ethnic group.

Of course, I do not wish to imply that the GMC has anything like this in mind.
...
But since prudence and an awareness of the worst that can happen seems to be the beginning of political wisdom, it seems to me that, at the very least, the collection of ethnic data should serve an extremely important end that might possibly offset the perils. What could these extremely important ends be?

The supposed purpose of ethnic monitoring is to bring about perfect racial equity in the division of society's spoils (if I may put it like that). This is to assume, of course, that the only possible explanation of differences in outcome between racial or any other groups is the operation of prejudice against some and in favour of others: in other words, that all tastes, ambitions, abilities and so forth are equally distributed among different groups. This is wildly improbable, indeed so wildly improbably that I doubt whether any of the organisations that have asked me for my ethnicity believe it themselves. The worthwhile end of ethnic monitoring must therefore be sought elsewhere.
...
I think one is forced to conclude that the most important end that weighs against the dangers of ethnic monitoring is the employment of people who do the ethnic monitoring. That is to say, ethnic monitoring is Keynesian demand management.

It is here that one sees the advantage to the government of inflamed sensitivities such as that displayed by the Australian cricketer. It needs the intervention of officialdom to calm them. The more such inflamed sensitivity there is in society, the greater the locus standi of those who seek, at least ostensibly, to assuage it.

The more complaints there are from the people whom administrators administer, the more there is for them to do and the greater their power over those people. That is why, in many public services, the definition of a racial incident is an incident that one party perceives (however unreasonably) to be racial, and bullying occurs whenever anyone feels bullied. It can be a full-time job sorting out these complaints.

I hasten to add, lest I be taken as being in favour of racial and other forms of abuse, that I prefer politeness to rudeness and good sportsmanship to bad. Politeness is a virtue that I myself practice with intermittent success; but the attempt to produce a virtuous population by administrative means appears to me to be destined to fail. And if we go running to the authorities every time someone calls us a name, it will in the end be our own freedom that we undermine. It is our social duty, within reason, to grin and bear insult.

I just happened across this incredible video snippet from (I think) a recent episode of ER. I'm amazed that something this brutally honest would be shown on network television.

The complaint about (and appeal of, I dare say) Barack Hussein Obama is that he only speaks in vacuous platitudes and rarely gives specifics on any of his policies. Well, here is a bill that he sponsored, which is currently getting fast tracked through the Senate.

A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
...
In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I just read a column yesterday in the City Journal about the Millenium Project, which is the idea behind this Senate bill. The piece describes in detail how bad the "paternalistic" ideology is for the world.

Paternalism was supposed to be finished. The belief that grown men and women are childlike creatures who can thrive in the world only if they submit to the guardianship of benevolent mandarins underlay more than a century’s worth of welfare-state social policy, beginning with Otto von Bismarck’s first Wohlfahrtsstaat experiments in nineteenth-century Germany. But paternalism’s centrally directed systems of subsidies failed to raise up submerged classes, and by the end of the twentieth century even many liberals, surveying the cultural wreckage left behind by the Great Society, had abandoned their faith in the welfare state.

Yet in one area, foreign aid, the paternalist spirit is far from dead. A new generation of economists and activists is calling for a “big push” in Africa to expand programs that in practice institutionalize poverty rather than end it. The Africrats’ enthusiasm for the failed policies of the past threatens to turn a struggling continent into a permanent ghetto—and to block the progress of ideas that really can liberate Africa’s oppressed populations.
...
Paternalism persists as a psychology precisely because it satisfies the cravings of vanity in a way that real reform doesn’t. (Where people have learned to save themselves, they do not need saviors.) So potent are paternalism’s pleasures that it has beguiled even those who theoretically oppose it.
...
Paternalism’s most astute defenders have always worked to disguise its coercive qualities by framing their efforts as an attempt to save the little people—as yet unspoiled by the cruel ethos of capitalism—from the evils of freedom. Some paternalists, like the socialists of the 1920s and 1930s, romanticized alienated proletarians and made a fetish of their innocence; others, like the “radical chic” philanthropists whom Tom Wolfe satirized in the 1960s, found their noble savages in the urban ghetto. Like their predecessors, the Africrats, too, romanticize their exotic pets. In doing so, they have worked out a new bucolic aesthetic to justify their disillusionment with capitalism, even as they promote policies that promise to keep their wards in a Rousseauian state of primitive innocence.

If the prosperous nations really want to help Africa, they need to resist the seductions of paternalism. They need to promote, not policies that will ensure that the continent remains a collection of fiefdoms dependent on subsidies and celebrity pity, but wealth-generating entrepreneurial efforts. They need to export, not a dated philosophy of mandarinism, but ideas that really can lift peoples and nations out of the lower depths—the ideas of Bacon, Hayek, de Soto, and The Wealth of Nations.

Regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments, a blogger has written a witty little poem in the vein of Chaucer. Enjoy.

Last week, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave a lecture in which he stated his belief that it seems likely that English law will have to incorporate some parts of Islamic sharia law in the near future. The maelstrom that has followed those comments has been quite fierce, with many people demanding the Archbishop's resignation. Christopher Hitchens replied sharply yesterday:

Picture the life of a young Urdu-speaking woman brought to Yorkshire from Pakistan to marry a man... whom she has never met. He takes her dowry, beats her, and abuses the children he forces her to bear. She is not allowed to leave the house unless in the company of a male relative and unless she is submissively covered from head to toe. Suppose that she is able to contact one of the few support groups that now exist for the many women in Britain who share her plight. What she ought to be able to say is, "I need the police, and I need the law to be enforced." But what she will often be told is, "Your problem is better handled within the community." And those words, almost a death sentence, have now been endorsed and underwritten—and even advocated—by the country's official spiritual authority.
...
And just look at how casually this sheep-faced English cleric throws away the work of centuries of civilization:

[A]n approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts"—I think that's a bit of a danger.

In the midst of this dismal verbiage and euphemism, the plain statement—"There's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said"—still stands out like a diamond in a dunghill. It stands out precisely because it is said simply, and because its essential grandeur is intelligible to everybody. Its principles ought to be just as intelligible and accessible to those who don't yet speak English, in just the same way as the great Lord Mansfield once ruled that, wherever someone might have been born, and whatever he had been through, he could not be subject to slavery once he had set foot on English soil. Simple enough? For the women who are the principal prey of the sharia system, it is often only when they are shipped or flown to Britain that their true miseries begin. This modern disgrace is deepened and extended by a fatuous cleric who, presiding over an increasingly emaciated and schismatic and irrelevant church, nonetheless maintains that any faith is better than none at all.

I should point out that the Urdu-speaking woman example above is not some rare occurence or abstract idea; rather, as this report on Sunday revealed, tens of thousands of women in Britain are abused each year in "honor"-related violence. Even in this country, honor killings are becoming more common. Theodore Dalrymple also chimed in yesterday on the Archbishop's idea.

British intellectual life has long harbored a strain of militantly self-satisfied foolishness, and the present archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is a perfect exemplar of the tendency.
...
Rarely does philosophical inanity dovetail so neatly into total ignorance of concrete social realities: it is as though the archbishop were the product of the coupling of Goldilocks and Neville Chamberlain. Those more charitably inclined point out that the archbishop is an erudite man, a professor of theology who reads in eight languages and who was addressing a highly sophisticated audience, employing nuanced, subtle, caveat-laden arguments. He was not speaking in newspaper headlines, nor did he expect to make any headlines with his remarks.

Charity is a virtue, of course, but so is clarity: and it is the latter virtue that the archbishop so signally lacks. He assumes that the benevolence of his manner will disguise the weakness of his thought, and that his opacity will be mistaken for profundity. Here is a telling passage from the lecture:

Perhaps it helps to see the universalist vision of law as guaranteeing equal accountability and access primarily in a negative rather than a positive sense—that is, to see it as a mechanism whereby any human participant in a society is protected against the loss of certain elementary liberties of self-determination and guaranteed the freedom to demand reasons for any actions on the part of others for actions and policies that infringe self-determination.

Reading or hearing this, one wants to pull one’s hair out. Charity surely requires compassion not for Williams, but for the audience obliged to listen to him. The archbishop goes on for pages and pages in this vein:

Earlier on, I proposed that the criterion for recognising and collaborating with communal religious discipline should be connected with whether a communal jurisdiction actively interfered with liberties guaranteed by the wider society in such a way as definitively to block access to the exercise of those liberties; clearly the refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not, given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the community of access to that right.

There is only one word for a society in which such discourse can pass for intellectual subtlety and sophistication, and lead to career advancement: decadent.

So it appears that the likely Democratic nominee esteems Che Guevara. Isn't that nice, our (possibly) next president thinks highly of a murderous tyrant.

Tonight I wrote the following email to a friend of mine who generally supports Democrats. The email I've posted below is in response to her reply to my original question asking how she reconciles the Democratic Party's pro-abortion platform with her Christian faith. I asked this in as gracious of a tone as I could, and she gave an honest reply. In a nutshell, she said that while she thinks abortion is not necessarily right, she didn't feel it was the government's business to limit personal freedom, since it could lead to the loss of other freedoms, some of which we Christians hold dear. I've X'ed out her name, but would like any feedback you have as to other things I could say to her (or other Christian Democrats) to help convince her of the evil of abortion. And if I haven't been gracious somewhere in this response, please point it out.

Thanks for the candid response, XXX. I understand what you're saying, but would like to play the devil's advocate, if I may. :)
I agree that government should limit itself with regard to infringement on personal freedom. I just don't think murder is a "freedom." But if we assume for the sake of the argument that abortion is a human right, what makes it a right and where should government draw the line, if it should at all? For example, why is it legally okay to kill a child/baby/fetus in the womb yet not okay to kill it right after it is born? After all, the only difference between the two is location. Why can't mothers be allowed to kill their children if they become a hardship later in life or the mother changes her mind about wanting them? Why isn't that a "personal freedom?"

Now, obviously, we have to draw the line somewhere. So let's start with viability/survivability of the baby. A baby as early as 23 weeks (less than 6 months along) has survived premature birth. And as science and technology improve, smaller and smaller babies will be able to survive premature births. So making viability the "line" seems pretty arbitrary and subject to the whims and advances of science. So perhaps the ability to feel pain should be the line. However, we don't really know when that particular sense shows up in a fetus. Testing has shown that it is likely that babies can feel pain very early on in a pregnancy. So that's also probably not a good determining factor for when abortion is right.

So it would seem that we need a "line" that is not going to change as science improves and informs us that we were wrong before. That line is conception. If that isn't the line, then post-birth infanticide should be legal as well.

Now you mentioned that you think that abortion (even in the case of rape) is wrong (or at least you are not sure that it is right). I agree. But, as I understand you, you don't believe the government should be in the business of limiting freedoms because it's a slippery slope that could lead to other freedoms being lost. Besides my opinion that this isn't a slippery slope, I guess I am wondering which freedoms are so important to us that 49 million babies had to die to keep them. I could definitely put up with some persecution if that meant that over a million babies each year were allowed to live.

Furthermore, government limits freedoms all the time, and they aren't all slippery slopes to religious persecution. Government limits our freedom to shoplift. It limits our freedom to drive wherever we want to. It also limits our freedom to kill whomever we want. Yet I think you and I both agree that those are good limitations on our freedom. If those limits didn't exist, we would have chaos. So why can't it limit our freedom to kill the most precious and innocent members of our society? Because they can't speak up for themselves?

You are right when you perceive a slippery slope with this issue, but it's slanted in the other direction. The ability to kill those who can't defend themselves has led to cases like Terri Schaivo, where a husband (and a complicit government) was able to kill a woman based solely on his word, nothing even in writing from Terri saying that it was her will to die. We can't even open up a bank account without a signature, but we can kill an unwanted woman with hearsay???? Wait, I take that back, she WAS wanted. Her parents offered to take care of her and the expenses. That is the slippery slope that Roe v Wade has wrought.

Ok, sorry about the length, but as you can probably tell, I'm pretty passionate about this issue. I'm not judging you in the least, but merely hoping I can help change your mind. We can use all the help we can get in the battle for the lives of the unborn!

Without further delay, here is Romney's concession speech at CPAC today. We will see you at the next election, Mitt.

(HT: Joe K.)

To all of you, thank you for caring enough about the future of America to show up, stand up and speak up for conservative principles.

As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future. I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century-still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower. And to me, that is unthinkable. Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq. "First," he said, "I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world." The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America!

And that is why we must rise to the occasion, as we have always done before, to confront the challenges ahead. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is the attack on the American culture.

Over the years, my business has taken me to many countries. I have been struck by the enormous differences in the wealth and well-being of people of different nations. I have read a number of scholarly explanations for the disparities. I found the most convincing was that written by David Landes, a professor emeritus from Harvard University. I presume he's a liberal--I guess that's redundant. His work traces the coming and going of great civilizations throughout history. After hundreds of pages of analysis, he concludes with this:
If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference.

What is it about American culture that has led us to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world? We believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity: almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity-opportunity is in our DNA. Americans love God, and those who don't have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves-a "Purpose Driven Life." And we sacrifice everything we have, even our lives, for our families, our freedoms and our country. The values and beliefs of the free American people are the source of our nation's strength and they always will be!

The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960's welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven't given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug-we have got to fight it like the poison it is!

The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography-even celebration of it-and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today's grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children. How much harder it is for these children to succeed in school-and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of a nation. I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history. It is time for the people of America to fortify marriage through constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it!

Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to America's vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength. And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture. We will always be honored to stand on principle and to stand for principle.
...
Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign." You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today... we are a nation at war.

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.
...
If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters... many of you right here in this room... have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

I will continue to stand for conservative principles; I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face evil extremism!!

It is the common task of each generation-and the burden of liberty-to preserve this country, expand its freedoms and renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.

To this task... accepting this burden... we are all dedicated, and I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed beyond our fondest hope. America must remain, as it has always been, the hope of the earth.

Thank you, and God bless America.

This is what the cultural aspect of the War on Terror is all about... unfortunately, rather than the West slowly overtaking Islamic intolerance, it's the reverse in most European countries, where sharia law is now tolerated as legitimate by many European courts. That is what happens when tolerance and post-modernism rule the day.

Now that Romney has "suspended" his campaign after Tuesday's poor showing (except in Minnesota, where he Romped), and Huckabee's Southern-only popularity, John McCain has become the de facto Republican nominee. One might rightly ask how it came to this point? How did the man who, over the last two decades, single-handedly undercut conservative principle after conservative principle (in doing so, ceded the debate to liberals) come to be the Republican nominee? Unfortunately, I think party pragmatism won out. As Ann Coulter said today in her column, "nominating McCain is the gesture of a desperate party." And "as the expression goes, given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, voters will always choose the Democrat." So what are principled pro-life conservatives supposed to do (besides hope that Ronald Reagan rises from the grave and runs as an independent)? Well, I'll tell ya. One, prepare for the political wasteland. Two, either stay home or, as Coulter makes the case, vote for the Democratic candidate.

On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal.

-- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."

-- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

-- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

-- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

Can I take a breath now?

-- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

-- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

The only site that would have been more appropriate for Schwarzenegger in endorsing McCain would have been in front of an abortion clinic.

Although McCain has the minimum pro-life record demanded by the voters of Arizona, in 2006, McCain voted in favor of using taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos. He opposes a constitutional amendment to protect human life. And he frets that if Roe v. Wade were overruled, women's lives would be "endangered." This is the same John McCain who chides Mitt Romney today for "flip-flopping" on abortion. At least Romney flips and stays there.

I should point out here that McCain was endorsed yesterday by Republicans for Choice (as it refers to abortion, not paper or plastic OR salad dressings).

Of course the most important issue for pro-lifers is the Supreme Court. As long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, it doesn't matter how many hearts and minds we've changed. So it's not insignificant that McCain has called Justice Samuel Alito too conservative.

We ended up with David Hackett Souter when a Republican president was actually looking for an Alito. Imagine how bad it will be when the "Republican" president isn't even trying.

McCain uses the boilerplate language of all Republicans in saying he will appoint "strict constructionists." This is supposed to end all discussion of the courts. But if he's picking strict constructionists, he will have to appoint judges who will commit to overturning McCain-Feingold.

That could be our litmus test: Will you hold President McCain's signature legislation restricting speech unconstitutional?

In 2004, McCain criticized the federal marriage amendment, saying, it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." Really? Preventing the redefinition of a 10,000-year-old institution -- marriage, that is, not John McCain -- is part of the core philosophy of being a Republican? I had no idea.

I'm not a lawyer -- oh wait, yes, I am -- but Republicans were proposing to amend the Constitution, a process the Constitution specifically describes.

It's like saying it's antithetical to the core philosophy of Republicans to require presidents to be at least 35 years old. It's in the Constitution! And Republicans -- other than the ones who voted for McCain-Feingold -- support the Constitution. You might say it's part of our core philosophy.

Of course, back in 2004, McCain was considering running on a presidential ticket with John Kerry. Realizing that this would not help his chances to run as a Republican in 2008, when he would be a mere 120 years old, McCain quickly withdrew his interest in being on Kerry's ticket.

But he defended Kerry from the Bush campaign's suggestion that Kerry was not tip-top on national security, saying on the "Today" show: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense." So that was helpful.

McCain also explained to an admiring press corps why he wouldn't want to be anyone's vice president, not even a national defense champion like Kerry, citing the meager constitutional duties of the vice president as: (1) to assume the presidency if the president is incapacitated and (2) "to break a tie vote in the Senate." (At which point several members of the fawning horde were heard to remark, "What is this 'Constitution' you speak of, Senator?")

But McCain conveniently forgot the second of these constitutional duties just a year later when Vice President Cheney was required "to break a tie vote in the Senate" on a matter of utmost importance to liberals: federal judges.

Just one year after McCain had correctly identified one of two jobs of the vice president, he was indignant that a Republican vice president might actually exercise one of them. Better to let a gaggle of 14 Senate malcontents pick the president's judges for him.

As part of the "Gang of 14," McCain hysterically opposed allowing the vice president to break a tie on judicial nominations. Following the Constitution with regard to the role of the vice president, McCain said, "would be a terrible precedent." Yes, if members of Congress actually read the Constitution, they might realize McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)

If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.

There's your choice, America.

On the City Journal website this week, John Leo gives an update on liberalism and diversity in our society and courts. It's not pretty.

“In order to enhance diversity, it was necessary to suppress it,” Walter Olson writes at Overlawyered.com, referring to a transgendered Californian who is suing a Catholic hospital for refusing to perform a breast augmentation procedure.
...
The hospital, Seton Medical Center in Daly City, has not clearly explained its position, but it apparently views breast enlargement in this case as part of a sex-change process that it objects to on moral grounds. In a written statement, a spokeswoman said that the hospital “does not perform surgical procedures contrary to Catholic teaching, for example, abortion, direct euthanasia surgery or any of its related components.” The procedure is elective and surely not an emergency, and there is no shortage of hospitals in the San Francisco area willing to increase the plaintiff’s hormone-assisted breast size. Yet the case is likely to be framed as a bias violation, with little attention paid to the right of voluntary service institutions to operate by their own moral rules.

The 2006 controversy over gay adoptions in Massachusetts is the classic example of how antidiscrimination law is used against religious institutions. In the conventional liberal narrative, the refusal of Boston Catholic Charities to approve gay adoptions was a simple issue of discrimination. Generally absent from the discussion was this question: Under what conditions can the state force churches and religious agencies either to violate their own principles or to quit providing social services altogether?

In effect, Massachusetts used its licensing power to bring the Church to heel—no gay adoptions, no license to conduct any adoptions. Acting on traditional social principles—that one father and one mother are best for children—became bias. Rather than capitulate, Catholic Charities retired from the adoption field after 103 years, leaving other agencies in the state with an enormous new caseload. Catholic Charities had shouldered 31 percent of the state’s special-needs adoptions—children who were abused, neglected, disturbed, or handicapped—almost entirely at its own cost. Very little was at stake for gays wishing to adopt, since all other agencies in the state approved gay adoptions. All gays lost was access to adoption through a Catholic agency.

John Garvey, dean of the Boston College Law School, argues that the most pressing concern should have been religious freedom, not who was right about gay families. “When freedom is at stake, the issue is never whether the claimant is right,” he writes, any more than freedom of the press requires publishers to guarantee that everything they print is true. “Freedom of religion is above all else a protection for ways of life the society views with skepticism or distaste.”

Pressure is increasing on churches and believers to accept dominant secular norms. The pressure includes laws requiring Catholic institutions to provide medical plans offering “morning after” pills to female employees, attempts to force religious hospitals to approve abortions and abortion training, and campus efforts to force Christian evangelical groups to allow sexually active gays into leadership positions.

Jean Bethke Elshtain, a professor of social and political ethics at the University of Chicago Divinity School, calls this establishment pressure “liberal monism.” She means that those who talk the most about diversity and pluralism are often the most willing to mandate that all private and religious institutions conform to one ideological framework. Liberals, she says, are eradicating the differences needed to make tolerance a viable practice. In order to enhance diversity, it is necessary to suppress it.

Well, a lot has changed since I wrote the first of this three-part series. Huckabee is still in the race, but for what reason, no one knows. Supposedly, he's trying to get a VP nod from McCain, but that's ludicrous, since Minnesota Governor Pawlenty has that spot wrapped up with his non-stop campaigning for McCain. Right now, Huck is merely a spoiler, giving the election to McCain. But then again, who isn't giving the election to McCain? Well, besides Republican voters, that is. The media has all but crowned the 72-year-old J-Mac as the party nominee based on a mere handful of state primaries. Never mind that a bunch of those states had Democrats and Independents voting in the Republican primaries. For example, in Florida, Romney beat McCain among REPUBLICANS. Yet he lost the primary because of the independent votes. Meanwhile, a New York paper tried to claim that Romney has a chance of losing his own state of Massachusetts, altogether ignoring the polls that put him up by 20-30 percentage points over McCain.

How did we get to a point where the likely November matchup is Hillary versus McCain? After all the talk of getting rid of the establishment and going for fresh voices and faces, how is it that we end up with the epitome of the establishment; a first lady - who, if elected, will make the Bush-Clinton reign last for a total of 28 straight years - against a career senator who's been in office since I was three. Plus, as Chuck Norris once said, if the elderly McCain (4 years older than Reagan when Ronny won) wins, it is quite possible that the VP will serve out the end of McCain's term. [I guess the silver lining is the VP will be Pawlenty, and I wouldn't mind a President Pawlenty.]

As Mark Steyn said in his "A McClinton Consensus" column this past Sunday,

President McCain? Or Queen Hillary? Henry Kissinger said about the Iran/Iraq war that it's a shame they both can't lose. Conservatives have a slightly different problem: It's a shame that neither of them will lose — that, regardless of who takes the oath come January '09, the harmonious McCain-Clinton consensus policies on illegal immigration and Big Government solutions to global warming will prevail. Where's Neither-Of-The-Above when you need him?

All this begs the question, who would Darius prefer to see in November? Well, I'm glad you asked. The strikes against McCain are myriad, but in case it isn't obvious why he is such a deplorable candidate, here are a few problems with him. One, McCain-Feingold. Two, McCain-Kennedy. Both are utter pieces of legislative trash; the first a campaign "reform" bill that is so unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has been stripping it piece-by-piece, the latter an immigration bill that, besides having Ted Kennedy's name on it, was so anti-rule of law, it was laughed out of the building by all true conservatives. Furthermore, he graded an F on the Second Amendment, his voting record recently has put him in the "most liberal" category of Republican senators, and on abortion, he said that "in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade." He also said that he thinks Alito is TOO conservative. In other words, he values being a moderate and being liked more than being right. Plus, he lies about Romney all day long and then has the gall to claim that Romney is the dirty campaigner.

Now, on the other side of the aisle, I actually would prefer Clinton to win the nomination, since I believe she is relatively easy to defeat in the general election. However, I will not, as Ann Coulter half-seriously suggested she will do, campaign for Hillary if McCain wins today. But why not just leave McCain on the side of the political road right now, Super Tuesday? Why can't conservatives rally behind the man who has been endorsed by the MAJORITY of Christian leaders? Christians such as Rick Santorum (while he was a senator, he led the fight for social conservatism, and his "yes" was always yes), Dr. James Dobson, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Wayne Grudem, Thomas Sowell, and Bob Jones (who would have ever thought that possible?) have all endorsed Willard "Mitt" Romney as their candidate.

Now for those who aren't convinced Romney's conversion to conservatism isn't legit... neither am I. However, as Coulter pointed out recently,

Romney's first race was against Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- whom he came closer to beating than any Republican ever had. If Romney needed to quote "The Communist Manifesto" to take out that corpulent drunk, all men of good will would owe him a debt of gratitude.

In a way, she's right, winning on conservative values is IMPOSSIBLE in Massachusetts. So Romney did what he had to do to get into power, then turned on the liberals.

After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: "(A)s governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice."

Plus, as a political analyst said the other day, Romney has painted himself into such a political corner that he could not switch back to moderate liberalism without completely ruining his political career. As I heard Santorum say on the radio last week, Romney had an authentic conversion on the issue of life. Most of his other supposedly "liberal" positions were much more moderate than Massachusetts was accustomed to in the past. I don't think it is fair to punish a political candidate for "seeing the light" when we wouldn't do that in our own private lives. We would welcome them with open arms. Why are Christians not so gracious with political "conversions?"

And when you hear Romney speak, he says mostly the right things, something you can't fake as long as he's been in the race. Eventually, a man's true convictions come to the top. Yet, Mitt's been spot on (except for a couple issues regarding government's role in health care and people's lives). His speech on the role of religion in public life was very powerful and, as Dr. Dobson referred to it, "magnificent." He is a man who lives his religious convictions, having been married to the same woman, his high school sweetheart, for 38 years, joining her in wedlock shortly after returning from a 2 1/2 year mission trip to France.

So, tonight, as the Minnesota Caucus gathers, I plan to vote for Mitt Romney. Those Huckabee supporters out there... consider carefully that your vote is in essence a vote for McCain.

Liberal theology, without the gospel, proves to be the smell of death rather than of life. - J.I. Packer