Left Behind
The story: A group of prominent leaders from the religious right convened in a secret meeting in Salt Lake City last week to talk strategy for the 2008 presidential election. Concerned about the liberal social policies of leading candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, the group resolved to consider supporting a third-party candidate if more secular Republicans remain ahead in the polls.
The response: The Big Tent of the GOP is finally collapsing in on itself, and good riddance. The fiscal conservatives have been drowned out by the hollering of social conservatives, a tactic that may work in a socially repressive country like Saudi Arabia but hardly in the land of freedom. The only legitimate political debate in America is how to balance civil and economic liberties.
Besides, there is no logical connection between the self-sacrificing ethos of Christianity and economic policies encouraging greater individual control; Jesus’ “”give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”” sentiment is hardly harmonious with a steadfast stand against taxes.
The idea of the GOP finding its soul is not a new one. The 1964 election marked the victory of the Goldwater contingency over the moderating forces of the Rockefeller Republicans. Ronald Reagan rehashed Goldwater’s ideas in the 1980 election, distancing himself from the conniving forces of the Nixon administration (represented by Gerald Ford).
Considering the political atmosphere, this is not a time for the Republican Party to be concerned with “”electability.”” The Bush administration, with its excessive domestic spending and devil-may-care attitude towards the national deficit, has caused too much damage for the party to recover in 2008. Instead, Republicans should take this election to consider what it truly means to be a conservative and let these rediscovered principles lead them to victory in 2010 and 2012.
-Evan Lisull is a sophomore majoring in
economics and political science.
Well-versed candidates
The story: For one of the questions at the most recent Democratic presidential debate, moderator Tim Russert threw a curveball and asked the candidates to name their favorite Bible verse.
The response: The answers were predictable enough: Obama chose the Sermon on the Mount (which isn’t really a “”verse””), Clinton chose the Golden Rule (with a not-so-subtle hint that her critics ought to start applying it to her), and Edwards, the populist, chose “”What you do unto the least of those, you do unto me.””
Mike Gravel’s answer was, weirdly, “”The most important thing in life is love,”” which sounds more like a Hallmark sentiment than a Biblical one. At least he didn’t say, “”Life is like a box of chocolates.””
Sadly, no one opted for the Andy Kaufman answer: that is, just start reciting the whole Bible from beginning to end.
The trouble with the Bible question is that it’s just too easy. Even an atheist who’s never stayed in an American hotel probably knows a Bible verse or two. Why not ask them for their favorite Thomas Jefferson quote? Or ask them one of these: “”Senator Obama. Two cars are driving toward each other at 35 and 55 mph. After an hour, they pass each other … “”
Better still, Russert should have asked the candidates for their favorite line from Shakespeare. Mine is, “”If you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”” Harsh, but not inappropriate in these dark times.
-Justyn Dillingham is a senior majoring in history and political science and the wire editor of the Arizona Daily Wildcat.
