Parts 2 and 3: Political Parties and election tools

I started this post back after the 2012 election, and worked on it again some more last March.  It fits well into what I wanted as parts 2 and 3 of my series, and I didn't feel like I could chop it up.  So here it is.

I've been in politics far too long for my age.  If you'd like to read about how I got here, check out the "About Me" page.  The short of it is this: my mom has said time and again that she knew I'd be in politics since I was very young.  I was lucky enough to be homeschooled so my education could be geared towards that end.  I volunteered for the Republican Party for the first time in 1998, as a 9 year old, and it's been all downhill since.  I spent my high school years as a volunteer at the Colorado State Capitol.  I've volunteer far too many hours doing many things, particularly walking more precincts than my feet care to remember for more candidates than I could list.  And, as if that wasn't bad enough, I got into the management and consulting side of politics.  In other words, over the past 15 years, I've done more in politics than most people do in their entire lives.

Politics is frustrating, annoying, disheartening, disappointing, and down-right obnoxious most of the time, but somehow the masochist in me keeps coming back for more.  It's made me incredibly jaded, which is a sad thing to say for a 24-year-old, but it's true.  I'm a pessimist by nature, and have become increasingly cynical, which doesn't help much.  It does help me, however, to be much more realistic than the starry-eyed folks I often come across in politics on every side of the political spectrum--those kinds of folks annoy me more than anyone else in politics.

I've always been a Republican.  My parents were always Republicans.  My great-grandmother's grandfather was a Republican President of the United States (Benjamin Harrison).  This Party runs through my blood, very literally.  I haven't always been the "type" of Republican I am today, that's been quite a journey in and of itself, but this Party has always been my home.  Politics in general, and the GOP in specific, have also allowed me to meet most of my dearest friends... and my husband.  And, while I have yet to find someone I agree with 100%, I've found many allies and like-minded individuals along the way, so it isn't all bad.  I've had victories and losses, and learned much more by doing than I ever would have in a classroom.  Politics, strategy, and sometimes even my political philosophy, is an ever-evolving beast (the latter often because I've come to a better understanding of an issue rather than my mind actually changing about it, though)--but it's always been based on one thing for me: core principles.

Limited, Constitutional government.  
Free markets.  
The rule of law.  
Personal responsibility.  
NO EXCEPTIONS.

If I can agree with you on those issues, we can be political allies.  If I can't agree with you on them, we might still be able to be friends, but I don't compromise on those issues--and that hasn't ever changed, nor do I see that as being likely to happen in the future.  I believe there is, theoretically, room in the Republican Party for people who disagree on a whole slew of issues, so long as they can agree on what makes us all Republicans.

Except...

That no longer seems to be the case.  Those in power in the Republican Party keep pushing us closer and closer to the "middle"--or more specifically, closer and closer towards big government--and many have become out and out Progressives.  That is simply not acceptable.  We haven't had a truly limited government Presidential nominee in my lifetime.  Even Reagan, the paragon of "conservativism," wasn't totally limited government.

I'm all about a big tent, but without a foundation, that tent will just flap around in the wind.  And we wonder why we continue to lose in Colorado--something we've been doing badly since 2004.  It's not the message, it's how we message it.  It's not needing to catch up with the Democrats and their strategy, technology, etc. (we're 10 years behind them on that as it is, and yet we still use 30+ year-old campaign strategies), it's needing to surpass them.  It's not that we should move more to the "middle", it's that we should rebuild the trust in our brand that has been so thoroughly tarnish, people are leaving the Republican Party in droves--not because it isn't center enough, but because it isn't limited government enough.

At this point, I'm fairly sure my opinion of what's going on (and has gone on) in Colorado is no big secret.  Nor is it a big secret that the "elite" in power and I don't get along at all.  I can't imagine why, since I like winning and they seem to like losing... over and over and over and over...

And that's just it--the bottom line.  They keep losing.  Some of us on the ground--the ones they despise--have started winning.  We beat their "moderate" candidates in primaries.  We have been, slowly but surely, taking over spots of leadership in the Party.  But they don't want us in the Party.  Many have told us as much.  Sure, they try to look welcoming and preach far and wide about being so open to everyone, but anyone in the Republican Party who is not in lock-step with the Karl Rove types knows just how "welcoming" they are--and what they do to you if you don't agree with them.  Case in point.

It is beyond my ability to comprehend that those at the top still haven't figured out why they are losing, either.  Could it possibly be that they keep doing the same thing over and over?  That people keep leaving the Party as it moves more and more towards big government?  That their candidates suck?  They truly can't be that stupid... can they?  Worse yet, some people are so blinded by "power" and "access" that they continue to elect these buffoons to "lead" us into another electoral disaster--which makes them equally culpable in those future losses.

We can't afford that anymore.  By we, I mean WE THE PEOPLE.  Parties are simply tools.  There are many tools in the political arsenal.  I am, by no means, under any illusions that any third party is a viable option right now--let's be honest, the numbers just aren't there.  But I'm also tired of being taken for granted, kicked in the teeth, and ignored by a Party that is supposed to represent ME.

I haven't left the Republican Party (yet), but the Republican Party has left me--and I'm not the only one they've left, either.

I've been saying for quite some time that the results of 2012 would determine my affiliation in some form or another with the Colorado Republican Party.  The State Party Chairman's election back in March was an extension of that, and just proved once again that the Republican Party, especially in Colorado, is not only the Party of Stupid, but the Party of Insanity (per Einstein's definition).

While I make up my mind about future Party affiliation (the new deadline being 2014, proving once again I'm just a sucker for punishment), let me be perfectly clear about one thing: the GOP does not have my "loyalty".  Party does not trump principle.  My vote must be earned, and trust must be rebuilt.  Right now, the Republican Party is nothing more than a tool to elect limited government candidates when we can get them through the process.  It could be much more.  It should be much more.  But it won't be anything but that until there is a paradigm shift in leadership and attitude.

Everyone in the Colorado State Republican Party leadership is part of the problem, and the majority of the State Central Committee who put those people (two of the three back there, one is new) in power are entirely culpable for the results of the 2014 election--for every single loss we suffer.

Any win a Republican in Colorado might have will be entirely in spite of the Party, not because of it.  We can't take a losing strategy, dress it up in lace and pink bows, and expect it to be anything other than a hideous monstrosity that will also continue to drum up more of the same--sustained losses in this state.  I've seen absolutely no indication that this Party, under the leadership of a loser, Ryan Call, will go in any other direction than continued losses across the board.

We have other tools in our arsenal to advance liberty and limited government ideals besides just the Republican Party.  We need to start making better use of those, because continuing to rely on the Colorado Republican Party is naïve at absolute best, and, as far as I'm concerned, just plain stupid and insane.  The Party can't help us anymore, it's simply one of the many tools (and essentially only there now for ballot access).

Part 1: Morality in politics

In some form or another, the word "morality" is bandied about quite frequently in politics.  What are we even talking about?  Let's clarify a few things.

• I am a Christian, so don't even start with that about me.  Not only that, I'm a very devout Christian, and well-read and studied in theology.  I was catechised from a very young age, and continue that study to this day.
• Christians do not have a monopoly on morality, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either a liar or has never read the Bible.
• A Christian who has read the Bible would tell you that God has written His law on everyone's heart--and that law is what we call natural law.  Those of other faiths, or no faith at all, would tell you this ended up there in a different way, but that isn't the point.  The point, rather, is that everyone knows right from wrong in the physical realm (on the spiritual plane, it is a whole 'nother matter, probably for a different blog).
• Because Christians don't have a monopoly on morality, the "religious Right" needs to get off their darn high horse and start arguing natural law in politics logically and effectively, rather than with Bible-thumping emotionalism (then again, since emotionalism is the heresy de jour, maybe that's easier said than done...).

Morality certainly has its place in politics, and to deny that is silly and wrong.  However, many seem to confuse morality (natural law) with behavior control (the use of government force, i.e. coercion and/or violence or the threat of violence, to enforce a certain behavioral code).  That is where we run into trouble.

Without getting too much into the theological weeds, let me briefly lay out why I believe it is wrong for a Christian to argue behavior control is the appropriate role of government.  I have already written on this topic on my theology blog, so let me make new arguments here and let you go read my previous post for the rest.

1. This is a fallen world.  If you accept that premise and understand Original Sin, you know there is no way for humans to not sin while on earth.  No number of left-hand kingdom laws can change or stop sin, and while sometimes they might curb bad behavior, we all know there are those who will just not follow the law anyways.  So why bother having laws at all, right?  Well...
2. Because governments, theologically speaking, derive their just powers and authority from God.  This authority is very specific, particularly: police and military powers (power of the sword), and laws to keep order (to curb behavior that either encroaches on another person, or breaks your word--the basis of common and contract law, and our understanding of natural law).
3. The left-hand kingdom, or the kingdom of man, is governed by morals and reason, not faith and Scripture.  Essentially, an atheist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, and a Christian should all be able to cast the same vote based on reason and morals.

Another interesting point that was raised in the Facebook discussion that prompted this series of posts is the nature of morality, and the "lesser of two evils" argument everyone makes in politics.  Accepting the premise that this is a fallen world, all political choices would essentially be a choice between lesser evils.  That is where morality comes into play--meaning who will better understand and uphold natural law, rather than who will enact my idea of behavior control.  

As one of my friends put it, "You speak about morals and then relent that it's the lesser of two evils. Please elaborate on how evil is necessary."  The problem here is that the idea of "morals" being discussed was not morality and natural law, but behavior and/or thought control.  The only way to have morality in government is to enforce natural law, not behavior and thought control.  As soon as you cross that line, then it's fair game for anyone to enforce their idea of behavior, and we get into the regulatory mess we are in today in the United States.  You can't legislate the sin out of people, and that is too often what happens in politics, with liberal progressives trying to curb greed, gluttony, and envy, while conservative progressives attempt to curb lust, and sloth (I'm not entirely sure where, if anywhere, pride and wrath fit into either side's legislative agendas, as it seems a problem both sides have personally...).  That's simply unreasonable.

In summary, morality is natural law (do not encroach on any person or their property, and do all you have agreed to do--the basis for common and contract law), not behavior or thought control.  Until we understand that distinction and start to govern in a way that shows we understand it, we will remain in this mess we have today, and continue to use words that don't mean what folks think they mean.

“A Marriage of Athens and Jerusalem…”

I normally try very hard not to cross the streams of the left and right hand kingdoms, mostly because I am just as passionate about theology as I am about politics and am probably just as polarizing in both realms, but here goes nothing.

I took a brief hiatus from Party politics last week to attend the 49th Rocky Mountain District Convention for the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod 7-9 June in the Denver Tech Center.  This was quite unexpected.  At our May voters meeting at Church, I was elected as a last-minute alternate to replace our other alternate who had a conflict arise, just in case our delegate couldn’t make it.  No one else volunteered, so I did.  Our Delegate swore up and down that he would be there—and I know it would have taken an act of God to keep him from it.  Which is what happened.  Those incredible rains came last week in Colorado Springs, and late Wednesday evening, I got an email from him informing me his house had flooded and he couldn’t make it.  Our Pastor’s house flooded, as did my mothers.  All three live very near each other.  So I, living in Denver now, ended up attending as our congregation’s voting delegate.

After a little kerfuffle with the sign-in (I was so last-minute my paperwork wasn’t there, and because my Pastor, who is the District Secretary, had a flooded house, he was delayed in getting to the convention), the fun began.

Without getting too much in the minutia of the theology of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, let me give a brief overview for those who aren’t too familiar.

We are a creedal church, meaning we confess the Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles, Nicene and Athenasian).  We believe in Faith Alone through Grace Alone by Scripture Alone.  We believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.  We are a sacramental church, which means we actually value the saving properties of Baptism and Holy Communion (which we believe in Real Presence, which means that the Body and Blood are in, with and under the elements—not transformed into, nor merely representing).  The Book of Concord is our confession of faith, and is entirely based upon and in accordance with Scripture.  We hold tradition and history to be important, but not on the same level as the Bible.

Anyone who wants to know more may certainly ask.

Now, as with party politics, there are essentially two sides in our synod.  The “confessional” side, the Quia subscribers to the Book of Concord (“Quia” is simply Latin for “because”, meaning that we believe in the Book of Concord because it is supported by Scripture, indeed, in full support by Scripture), are all very conservative.  The liberal side, the Quatenus subscribers to the Book of Concord (“Quatenus” is Latin for “insofar as”, meaning that they believe in the Book of Concord only insofar as it is supported by Scripture), are the folks who promote things like ordination of women and contemporary worship.

I am just as conservative in my church politics as I am in my party politics.  In fact, on Facebook, I identify myself as a “Confessional Quia Reformed Catholic”.  Originally, the word Lutheran was a pejorative used to try and convince others that those subscribing to the Augsburg Confession were following a man, not God, so while it is an identifier now, I prefer to not use it when at all possible.  When not using it as a title, I also specifically use small “c” catholic (like my many rants on “l” vs. “L” libertarianism) because it refers to the church universal, not the Roman Catholic church.

Hopefully that helps give you a foundation to understand where I’m coming from religiously now, so that the rest of this makes a little more sense.

I hope sometime soon to have the chance to expand this more, but for now I am just throwing out some notes I made during the convention.

·         Confessional Lutherans seem to have a slightly small “L” libertarian tendency—this, largely, I think is due to our strong left-hand, right-hand kingdom doctrine (one that, interestingly enough, Kevin Miller—a non-Lutheran—used as the basis for his book “Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally or Socialism”)

·         Lutherans really do just have more fun.  How many other church bodies can you think of where you can sit down with your Pastor, the President of the Synod and your husband… drink whiskey, smoke cigars, listen to U2 (on the iPhone of the Synodical President) and talk left-hand kingdom politics?  I dare you to find me one.

·         Speaking of our Synodical President, Matt Harrison… you might know him as the man who kicked serious butt testifying before Congress earlier this year on HHS rules.  If you missed it, it is so worth it to watch/read (various video, audio and statements can be found here).  Find me another church body that, on their website, implores their members to actually study the Constitution (“Learn about our rights under the U.S. Constitution to freely exercise our beliefs and to speak of Jesus Christ and our conscience in the public square.”).

·         There was a huge political emphasis at this convention.  Colorado Right to Life was present with a table and petitions to take to churches.  The banquet speaker (which I missed due to a previously-scheduled conflict) was the National Right to Life President—a Missouri-Synod Lutheran, I might add.  Tim Goeglin was one of the session speakers.  Even during President Harrison’s address the opening night of convention, a few political questions were asked.  This is a church body that, more than most I can think of, is engaged in and understands public policy and the left-hand kingdom.  I’m glad they are getting more engaged as Pastors, as we only have 6 LCMS Congressmen right now (one of them is our own Cory Gardner, though!), and I think that may be changing soon.

·         On a less political note, Colorado has some absolutely incredible confessional Pastors.  It was such a blessing and salve for my soul to be around God’s servants who preach, teach and confess everything I hold dear.  For too long, we’ve been fighting against the infiltration of liberalism into our Synod (anyone who knows me knows that I refer to the ultimate outcome of Seminex, the formation of the ELCA, as the E?CA, because they’re not Lutheran but I don’t know what they are…), and I am so pleased to see a marked return to our confessional roots.  In speaking to several there, it appears this is a pretty drastic shift from even 10 years ago.  I couldn’t be more pleased.

Now, for a few thoughts on the parallels I saw there between the GOP and the church politics.  Maybe I’m just reaching.  I’d love your input on whether or not I’m crazy or if there are the actual parallels I’m seeing, particularly from those who were in attendance.

Topic	GOP	LCMS
Declaration of Independence/Bible (conservatives)	Our ‘roadmap’ for the founding of this nation given to us by our founding fathers	The ‘roadmap’ for the foundation of Christian life and doctrine, given to us by our Lord
Declaration of Independence/Bible (liberals/progressives )	Worth reading, but an old history lesson	Worth reading, but not always right
Constitution/Confessions (conservatives)	Sacred, means today what it has meant always, unchanging	Sacred, means today what it has meant always, unchanging (quia, because the Word of God is unchanging)
Constitution/Confessions (liberals/progressives)	A living, breathing document, can change over time to mean whatever we want it to mean	A living, breathing document, can change over time to mean whatever we want it to mean (quatenus, because the Word of God is not sacred and can be reinterpreted to “fit the times”
Conservative	Traditional, “old-fashioned”, time-tested principles with a focus on actually retaining and promoting those principles of governance	Traditional, “old-fashioned”, time-tested principles with a focus on actually retaining and promoting those principles of faith
Liberal/progressive	Focused on growth and unconstitutional practices to gain the illusion of more power, principles can and are sacrificed in order to obtain more power	Focused on growth and extra-biblical practices to gain the illusion of more power, principles and doctrine can and are sacrificed in order to obtain more ‘power’

Like I said, maybe I’m reaching, but the parallels are pretty obvious to me.  The fight of principle vs. the illusion of power is alive and well in the GOP, and appears to be in my church body too, which of course means I just can’t sit idly by, I must engage in this battle.  Party politics is important, and I will likely be engaged in it for the rest of my life.  But church politics… that is of eternal importance, and so I can’t be uninvolved any longer.  I’m looking forward to the 2013 Synodical Convention now.

Let me be clear… this is not the time or place to debate me on religion.  Comments like that will be removed because they have nothing to do with this post.  Notice I didn’t evangelize in the least here, I’m simply talking about my faith and am looking mostly for input from those who share it (meaning all of Christendom, not just Missouri-Synod Lutherans).  Don’t attempt to evangelize me on your beliefs or lack thereof here.  We can do that another time.  Just talk to me on the elements here.  Thanks!

Oh, and one last comment—that was the best run convention I’ve ever seen, bar none.  Somebody there knows Robert’s Rules of Order pretty darn well (actually, I think most of the attendees knew RROO pretty well, which helped significantly).  There were a few nit-picky things I noticed, but not enough to really even bug me.  The GOP could learn a thing or two (or ten) from them on how to run a meeting.