• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

This just in: Cain has now confirmed what I’ve said about the contradiction involved in his purported pro-life views. Take a look at “Herman Cain tells Piers Morgan that he is anti-abortion, yet pro-choice.” This is the position taken by “abortion rights” Democrats like Hilary Clinton. In fact, Cain is worse. He has said that he acknowledges the personhood of the nascent child. Therefore, if pro-life constitutionalists accept Cain’s leadership, they line up behind the view that government has no obligation to secure each person’s unalienable rights. They surrender the fundamental Declaration principle that says that securing these rights is the foundational purpose for which all legitimate governments are instituted. A Cain victory will therefore strike a fatal blow at the very foundation of our constitutional republic.

Time and again Herman Cain is showing himself to be someone who takes blatantly contradictory positions. Another example: “At two campaign rallies in Tennessee on Saturday night, the Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said that part of his immigration policy would be to build an electrified fence on the country’s border with Mexico that could kill people trying to enter the country illegally. But by Sunday morning, in a dramatic change of tone, Mr. Cain, a former restaurant executive, said he was only kidding. ‘That’s a joke,’ Mr. Cain told the journalist David Gregory during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where he was asked about the electrified fence. ‘That’s not a serious plan. I’ve also said America needs to get a sense of humor.’”

I’ve always been proud and grateful for the fact that Americans don’t have a sense of humor about government policies that may lead to indiscriminate killing. There are times when the country’s security (including especially the security of our borders) may require the use of deadly force. But in that case, as in all such life-and-death decisions, American leaders must have due regard for the founding principle that makes it essential for government to take care of the unalienable rights with which God has endowed all humanity. As I observed recently with regard to Ron Paul’s criticism of the al-Awlaki killing, this doesn’t forbid them to implement extraordinarily tough measures when the nation’s security requires it – but it sternly forbids them to make light of policy proposals that involve doing so. Since from its beginning, America has acknowledged God as the source of human rights; joking about measures that affect the unalienable right to life comes dangerously close to mocking Him.

That is hardly sensible behavior for someone who claims, as Herman Cain does, to base his strongly pro-life stand on respect for the self-evident truths set forth in the American Declaration of Independence. In light of that, does it make sense to believe that Herman Cain was joking? Or is he saying so in order to sidestep the challenge of seriously explaining and defending what he proposed? Given what I pointed out in my column last week, Mr. Cain’s inclination to be evasive when it comes to matters of constitutional principle starts to look like a bad habit.

Mr. Cain purports to be a straightforward, WYSIWYG kind of guy. But it’s hard to be straightforward when your walk frequently includes evasive sidesteps and equivocation. It’s also hard to convince others that you have the gravitas required for the presidency when your evasions include claiming that your advocacy of deadly force (in a situation that would certainly involve children as well as adults) was just a case of deadpan humor.

This not only poses a problem for Herman Cain. It implicates anyone willing to accept and advocate his leadership. The cumulative effect of his behavior makes a mockery of the positions he purports to advocate. His self-contradictions, his careless formulations, his implausible claims of constitutional statesmanship or humor, make those positions the easy target of ridicule and caricature. With him as their representative, Americans who claim him as their spokesman will be more easily dismissed as thoughtless and incoherent. Thanks to his problematic leadership, they will be more easily held up to contempt as people whose views derive from ignorant prejudice and passion. The elitist media claque determined to discredit them could not invent a better way to demoralize these well-meaning Americans, while setting them up to be manipulated into contributing to an electoral outcome that subverts their will to restore America’s moral, material and constitutional integrity.

As one “veteran strategist and lobbyist,” Scott Reed, has reportedly said of the GOP elitists’ plan to co-opt the tea-party movement: “Party leaders have managed to bleed some of the anti-establishment intensity out of the movement. … [T]hat’s the secret to politics: trying to control a segment of people without those people recognizing that you’re trying to control them.” Is this what the Cain boomlet is all about? Is Mitt Romney the intended beneficiary of Cain’s careless sound bites, evasions and self-contradictions? However that may be, Reed’s exposure of the secret aim of elitist politics raises an ominous question. If the elitists succeed in thus surreptitiously controlling Americans, won’t their achievement confirm the demise of real self-government in the United States? In that event the outward forms and processes of the Constitution may linger for a while, but Americans will all too soon encounter harsh realities that justify their growing suspicion that the elitist twin-party sham has already reduced the American dream of God-endowed liberty to a perishable charade.

Precisely because I share their beliefs, I will go on risking the disapproval of these sincere grass-roots republicans (note the small “r”) in order to warn them against the pitfall Herman Cain’s problematical leadership represents. But, as I said not long ago, the true problem is not just with Herman Cain or any other model on the GOP’s showroom floor. The problem is the corrupted mentality of the party system that produces them. On account of that corruption, the present twin-party sham is programmed to offer nothing but bad choices, shrewdly packaged to deceive. Americans who accept these bad choices because they so badly want to “win” simply repeat the cynical folly that produced Barack Obama’s 2008 election. (“As a dog that returns to his vomit, So is a fool that repeats his folly.” Proverbs 26:11) Could it be that all along his tenure was intended to set the stage for the last act of the elitists’ overthrow of our constitutional republic?

When an organization consistently produces bad products, anyone with good sense eventually realizes that the problem is not the poor quality of this or that product, but the poor quality of the organization itself. At least twice in U.S. history America came to a point where the existing party system failed to represent the common good of the nation. The last such moment produced the Republican Party. We have come to such a moment again. When a free people find that the corruption of their country’s political process hurries their nation to its destruction, they must hurry to build an alternative. If we have forgotten how to do that, or if it seems too hard and impossible a task, then we have forgotten how to be a free people. In that case our liberty is irretrievably lost.

Someone recently admonished me to remember that “Winning is crucial.” However, I agree with America’s founders that winning respect for God’s justice is even more crucial. We must first and foremost acknowledge and fight for God’s way, even when the prospects of victory are slim (as they were when the American patriots assembled in Philadelphia voted to declare independence from Great Britain in 1776.) The current twin-party sham implements the elite faction’s plan to overthrow the Declaration’s principles. Any victory that involves supporting parties dominated by forces that slyly mock, ignore or openly seek to overthrow God’s endowment of political right is no victory at all. As the Roman general Pyrrhus famously said, “One more such victory and we shall be undone.”

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.