RSSFinally, Hope!
W.H. Chellis
2008 has been a depressing political year. But hope has come.
I am absolutely ecstatic about Sarah Palin’s place on the McCain ticket. She, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford… these are the faces of political conservatism’s future.
Suddenly, the future is now (or at least it is visible).
I am finally excited about the Presidential election!
richard w.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“Hope has come.” Jeepers, you’re starting to sound like Obama!
Travis Prinzi
August 30th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Part of me wishes she would have waited till the Bush-McCain years were gone. I’d rather her be the GOP’s future, not linked to its neocon present.
richard w.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Out of curiousity, should the fact that she is a mother have any impact here? The gang at the Bayly blog seem to think so, for instance. Can we have a sensible Reformed position on this?
W.H. Chellis
August 31st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Travis- true enough.
Richard- me thinks she will be able to find a nanny. Is there a Reformed position against building enough personal wealth to hire others to raise your children?
richard w.
August 31st, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Nope–none at all. But what would Dabney say? A woman and mother?
Iohannes
August 31st, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Does a Vice-President need to be away from home very often? Assuming the President is healthy, the office carries no executive responsibilities. The VP seldom actually presides over the Senate, and unless the President is eager for advice, the VP’s duties are mostly ceremonial. Perhaps in light of recent experience America would be ready for a VP playing a less prominent role in the government?
Kaalvenist
September 4th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Dabney nothing. What would Knox say… something about “First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women”?
Pantagruel
September 4th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Sarah Palin’s speech was spectacular. McCains was somewhat more of the same-old same-old couched in a mediocre delivery. We heard lots of promises from him that the president really has little control over, and he hinted of continued policy of political and military interventionism which worries me. Too bad Ron Paul and his message never too a serious foothold.
I think I agree with Travis. Not so much his comment about Palin, but his charge that JM and the party as a whole are just a neoconic shell of what conservative politics is all about.
Josh M.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Excited because … Palin makes you feel good?
It is highly unlikely that Palin will play the Dick Cheney role to McCain’s Bush. It is also unlikely that she will win the Presidency after McCain’s term(s) is over, since the last two VPs to do so were George H.W. Bush and Martin Van Buren. Palin is also a Pentecostal and a dispensationalist, which is not exactly what we want to be the face of “conservatism’s future.”
Most importantly, the top of the ticket still says McCain. *That* is the face of conservatism’s future, always creeping leftward, rejecting traditionalism in favor of open borders, international governance, and abstract rights.
Zrim
September 5th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
“Palin is also a Pentecostal and a dispensationalist, which is not exactly what we want to be the face of ‘conservatism’s future.’”
Why not? Would that mean you couldn’t pull the trigger on Paul, being all Baptist? What about Romney? I guess I am wondering what tongues, end-times flow charts and golden plates have to do with governance. After all, Jesus himself told us to render unto he who thought he was–gulp–divine.
Pantagruel
September 5th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Josh, at least as being a Pentacostal and a dispensationalist it is likely that she at least understands the need for redemption. McCain on the other hand in his acceptance speech, claimed that we “are all God’s children.” Is that theology any better for the face of conservatism’s future?
I think Palin WILL be our first woman president. And when she is I think she will, at least while in office, stem the republicanism creep to the left. (I hesitate to use the terms conservatives and republicans interchageably.)
Josh M.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Zrim, note the phrase “conservatism’s future,” which is not the same as “governance.” Still, I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, and while I would vote for Paul, it is obvious that he is a classical liberal. Dispies tend to wholeheartedly support Israel, and it was no surprise to discover that Palin met with AIPAC immediately after her nomination and she proudly flies the Israeli flag in her office. Sort of makes the “Country First” slogan suspect, no?
Yes, it’s very surprising, but one’s theology can affect one’s political choices. If I believed that, in order for the Rapture to occur, the nation-state of Israel had to be protected at all costs, and if I held the most powerful political position ever … well, it isn’t too hard to guess what choices I might make.
Pantagruel, McCain’s theology is Bush’s, because polytheism is the de facto state creed right now. If Palin does not pay lip service to it, then she will take serious heat. So don’t expect her to become President so easily, unless she joins the CFR and publically proclaims the validity of a myriad of religious beliefs.
Zrim
September 7th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Josh,
Seems we agree that one’s theology can affect one’s politics, but just what that means is where it gets interesting. My theology tells me that, as roundly un-Presbyterian and fairly Methodist as it may be, it matters very little if a man tags Jesus as his favorite philosopher. He may even wear funny undergarments. My point about Caesar was that I am not so sure we 21st century American religionists, who assume governing and theological belief ought to be complimentary, appreciate well just what the implication to render unto him really seems to suggest: religious confession has nothing to do with governing.
If we think rapturism is a problem in American-Israeli politics, try swallowing the pagan beliefs of Caesar.
Josh M.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Zrim said: “we agree that one’s theology can affect one’s politics” and then “religious confession has nothing to do with governing.” So which is it?
If you think religious confession has *nothing* to do with governing, I have some countries around the world I’d like to show you.
Zrim
September 8th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Josh,
It’s one and the same. That’s the point.
Re your invitiation around the world, yes, I know, that’s also the point. I am not so sure how Americans can at once blame “radical Muslim fundamentalists” for making those connections but go all misty when a guy who wants to lead us tags Jesus as his favorite philosopher. Is spoken theocracy really any different than a silent one? I’d feel better if it were admitted that it really has more to do with self-protection than a flimsy doctrine of church/state separation.
shawnanderson
September 11th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
It would be too long to post here, but if you want to check out a few links to articles on the topic of Women and Mothers in office you can check it out here:
Thoughts on current events re: Voting and Palin
I have yet to be excited by politics in America.
W.H. Chellis
September 11th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Knox was wrong about Elizabeth I. She was Gloriana and my daughter bears her name.
Palin may be disappointing when it comes to Russia but what a cultural Rorschach test.
I find I have as little regard for the theonomic/hard right “women should be back in the kitchen” approach as I do the left’s venom against Sarah Palin. I remain hopeful that she will be our Maggie Thatcher. Only time will tell.
Anthony Cowley
September 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Of course, Knox wrote not against Elizabeth I, but against Bloody Queen Mary and probably had in view the then Queen of Scotland who trembled and wept at his presence and feared his prayers. Calvin had critical things to say about Knox’s First Blast of the Trumpet. Poor timing, Johnny me boy!