Roskam & Kirk: Courage, moral confusion and litmus tests (Part 2)

Print Friendly and PDF

Yesterday in part one I began discussing the wisdom of a conservative Republican endorsing a fellow Republican who actual would be a better ideological fit in the other party.

I linked to an article in the Sun-Times where Steve Huntley refers to the D.C. based The Hill newspaper calling Illinois 6th District Congressman Peter Roskam the “most up-and-coming member of Congress.” Huntley says Roskam and Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk are “making names for themselves in political circles and in Washington.”

To understand what all of that means, allow me to explain. For those of you who might have already forgotten, Illinois Congressman Dennis Hastert was once an up and comer and then rose to the top and became Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. He served in that office for the equivalent of two presidential terms.

You’re right, of course, to think that should have been a good thing for Illinois, but in fact, anyone paying attention to the state of the Illinois Republican Party knows the opposite is true.

Denny, by the way, is still very popular in those “political circles” and in Washington. That tells you all you need to know about those circles and Washington. Unfortunately, supporters of limited government and traditional values and the rest of the planks of the GOP platform are still suffering from Hastert’s bad judgment and lousy leadership not only in Illinois but across the country.

When running for president in 1992 candidate Ross Perot said of Bill Clinton that if Hillary Clinton couldn’t trust Bill, then Perot couldn’t trust him either. For many of us who have taken the time to study the moral issues of abortion and homosexuality, a similar simple approach should be taken when judging the reasoning faculties of would-be leaders.

If a candidate or elected official will not stand up for the protection of unborn life – it’s a bridge too far to expect that person to make sound judgments on the value of life in other areas.

If a political leader can’t understand that human behavior must remain in the area of life subject to the discrimination of others, then GOP platform supporters are not hopeful that these leaders can grasp the many ways government policy impacts the social fabric.

A few closing thoughts. I’ve written on this before, but it needs to be repeated. Every issue we face is going to be difficult to address. Too much of our society still doesn’t grasp the fact that this current economic meltdown was caused by government and is not a failure of the market.

Worse, too many Americans don’t understand that you’re probably not going to have a functioning market when our leaders are too embarrassed or feeble-minded to discuss the moral issues. It shouldn’t be news that human behavior is key to market economics.

For our readers who think I might be being a tad bit too harsh on Mr. Roskam or Mr. Kirk, I would encourage you to put in the time neither of those men apparently have learning about the sick reality that is abortion and much of the so-called homosexual lifestyle.

This isn’t about tolerance. I’ve stated the proper definition of tolerance: it’s me not caring or wanting to know how you like to have an orgasm. Tolerance is not letting you confuse school aged children with ignorant talk about “alternative lifestyles.” Tolerance works best when people work out their private sex issues in private.

Our Republican leaders have failed to “take the nation to school” on critical issues such as free markets, school choice, proper health care reform, and the importance of the War in Iraq – even after we’ve won it! So, is it any surprise that they’ve failed miserably communicating the basics on the social issues?

The answer to this failure isn’t to drop the subject – it’s to learn what you don’t know and get to work conveying that information to voters.

Anyone who has followed the work of Peter LaBarbera, or has read the works of Dave Smith and Laurie Higgins, knows the depravity and the danger of the radical “homosexual rights” movement to the social fabric. Anyone who has spent any time reading what Jill Stanek has written knows the evil that is abortion.

Those who have educated themselves know how laughable it is that the misuse of the concept of “tolerance” is not “enlightened,” but its exact opposite.

I’ll keep saying it: the same courage that’s needed to truly and effectively address all domestic and foreign policy issues is cut from the same cloth as the courage needed to uphold a moral standard. Congressman Peter Roskam might want to think about that as he contemplates his future.

©2009 John Francis Biver

Print Friendly and PDF