And just to sweeten the pot a little for Mr. Horowitz: He should think of all those millions of Muslims that can swarm into the US per GWB’s national suicide plan - taking the jobs that Amercians won’t do for 30 cents a day, and of the vast increase in funding for groups like CAIR, et al., not to mention the expansion of Wahabism among the large numbers of black and hispanics in the penal system through their outreach programs.

Even under the narrow criteria of fighting the war on terrorism, Bush’s plan is a disaster. Did Mr. Horowitz bother to read the Gaffney article posted on his own website? Evidently, he is simply incapable of seeing the obvious: If we destroy the essential character of the tradtional America through ulimited immigration, we will bring all the world’s ills, including Jihad, right into our own backyard.

I’m usually opposed to paternalistic legislation. But who among you would support an increase in the minimum wage to keep the new immigrants out (and to keep Americans from getting totally screwed)?

It might be thought that I’m being unfair to Horowitz when I say that he automatically supports the president, since he has just published a huge article by Frank Gaffney showing how Grover Norquist gulled the president into being friends with radical Moslem groups in this country. But Gaffney’s criticism of the president is rather muted. Gaffney supports the president overall strategy of making friends with Moslems; he just feels that, through Norquist’s manipulations, the president was fooled into choosing the wrong Moslems. Here is a comment I posted about it at Front Page:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=11210&commentID=243762

By his comments, Horowitz says to me that he does not care about preserving or defending the historic America, the particular country that exists (although it is more eroded every day) and of which he is a native-born citizen. He then goes on to say that everything must be subordinated to the goal of winning the war against terrorism. I’m moved to ask why, unconcerned as he is about the destruction of his country and the debasement of its citizenship, he particularly cares about winning the war on terrorism. What would such a victory, assuming victory is possible in a war against so amorphous a target, preserve that Horowitz cares about? The global free market (which doesn’t exist)? An unrestricted supply of cheap oil (which doesn’t exist either)? Israel (which is not Horowitz’s country)? It can’t be America, because he plainly could not care less what happens to her. HRS

In answer to Mr. Sutherland, Horowitz is a right-liberal, or, more precisely, an anti-leftist libertarian liberal. As a liberal, he embraces principles of equality, tolerance, and openness that are ultimately incompatible with the continued existence of America or any nation. But he himself doesn’t recognize that fact. As far as he is concerned, he is defending America from leftists and terrorists and radical Moslems. His anti-leftism is his great exception to his liberalism, by which he can imagine that he believes in the life of our society, not its death. But the exception does not alter the underlying logic of the liberalism which he still embraces, the liberalism which defines America in terms of some unqualified tolerance and inclusion and openness and the endless expansion of minority and individual rights, the liberalism which must lead to the destruction of the society that he imagines he is defending, along with its liberalism.

Mr. Auster’s comment of 4:08 PM offers the best explanation I’ve seen of Horowitz’s stance. It’s really a giant unprincipled exception to his underlying liberalism. That’s why his position is ultimately incoherent.

Even a liberal can recognize some exceptions in the name of preserving the remainder. There’a difference between a suicidal liberal, an authoritarian, and a liberal that recognizes some illberal things may need to be done to keep the society alive.

As usual, you (Mr. Auster) are “right on” on David Horowitz’s incredible “lurch to the left”. I think it is interesting to note that the email links to his associates are working—but his own has been turned off! It’s no wonder; his pro-Bush position on so many issues (thank you for bringing this to my attention, Mr. Auster!) has more than likely got a lot of us quite upset with him—a man we trusted as a real conservative. I completely agree that his becoming “a Bushie” probably has more to do with the War on Terrorism than anything else. However, he is probably not aware of Bush’s “coddling” of the Saudis that continues—even though it has been proven that they are part of a huge Al Qaeda fundraising effort here and in the Middle East and that they knew in advance of the coming 9/11 attacks (Getting their people out of their World Trade Center offices the day before). How Horowitz would support a man that close to the Saudi chiefs that he can’t see the forest for the trees is beyond me. Kicking out 70 Saudi Al Qaeda sympathizers from the Saudi Embassy as the Feds did today is to let us think that “we’re getting tough with them”.

The same old argument will of course rear its ugly head—that a terrible president like Bush with his “terrorist buddies” (Debbie Schlussel’s Oct. 1 and Oct. 5, 2001 WND column you can find at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=121&PAGE=3) is better than a lefty like John Kerry. Horowitz, of course, will not admit that Kerry (as President) would not remove our troops from Iraq “post haste” (Kerry would not want the stigma of having carried on essentially “a Republican war” after Saddam, the main issue and prize, was already captured). What neo-cons like Horowitz are REALLY worried about is 8 years of Democrat Kerry in The White House! He and other neo-cons are SO virulently anti-Democrat that they can’t admit that Kerry would probably do no worse than Bush on the War on Terror—and that President Kerry would almost certainly (as 99% of past Democrat presidents before him) be stronger on domestic issues and the economy (Clinton was quite good for the economy until his last half year in office). I call this kind of Republican behavior “fear mongering”—something we accuse the Left of doing to us conservatives (saying we’re “Nazis”,”racists”, “bigots” to marginalize us).

It’s really too bad to see a smart man like Horowitz who many of us adored and admired be so hideously changed in his support of the President. He is vey mistaken.

I, for one, strongly recommend writing in Lawrence Auster for President!!

NO one can explain things the way they are BETTER than this superb commentator/writer.

David Levin seems to have taken in more than his share of Democratic Party propaganda. On another thread we find the nonsense about Republican Senate leaks of Democratic memos being “dirty tricks”. Now we have Clinton being good for the economy, and Kerry being about the same as Bush in the War on Terror, despite decades of evidence to the contrary from every nationally prominent Democrat.

Many posters to this board have simply lost all sense of balance. The animosity towards Bush because of his leftward lurches on several key issues over the years, most recently immigration, has caused many to whitewash the truth concerning the Democrats. Let’s be mature enough not to kid ourselves. If we vote in such a way as to oust Bush, we are paying a short-term price in order to achieve a longer-term gain by pushing the GOP to the right on key issues, immigration being foremost. But we ARE paying a short term price. All this denial, this “we can have our cake and eat it, too, because the Democrats won’t be any worse” is just wishful thinking. It is the typical psychological ploy of denial, denying that a painful trade-off is sometimes required in life.

I agree with Mr. Coleman’s insight that there is a psychological dynamic in people that pushes them to believe that a particular course they are advocating may not involve real costs. As I’ve said over and over, though I devoutly wish for Bush’s defeat, I also expect that a Democratic administration, under Kerry for example, would be ruinous. But Bush’s defeat is the only way to stop and invalidate his now-openly anti-national agenda and to revive the Republican party as a party that will resist liberalism, rather than accommodate it. We can only defeat one opponent at a time. Let us hope and work for the defeat of Bush. And then let us, as part of a (we hope) revived conservative/Republican opposition, fight the Democrats and try to contain the damage they will do in office.

But thanks to Mr. Levin for the compliment. :-)

The weird thing on Bush is that he was supposed to represent the disciplined conservatism-with-a-happy-face that would (1) win elections and (2) get things done. After the Dole debacle, conservatives learned to hold ranks, be realistic, avoid overly moderate losers, etc. No more Buchanans in exchange for no more Doles.

The problem with Bush is that he has no charisma, little brains, poor ability to articulate conservatism, anti-intellectual emotive protestant religious views, ideological leftist views on domestic policy, etc. The only thing going for him is forein policy and occasionally his rhetoric and tone.

His candidacy was floated by big Republican donors because of his electability (true). And we were repeatedly told “He’s not like his father.” But it turns out at best he’s like the WSJ editorial page, but slightly more mercantalist.

” … [Bush’s] anti-intellectual emotive protestant religious views … “

That’s interesting. We need to understand better the tradition behind this.

Here’s a stab.

Fundamentalist protestantism is only 100 years old. In the 60s and 70s it focused on televangelism, small group bible studies, therapy like sessions of self-revelation, and making the church a central part of one’s social life.

A chief theological tenant is that the Bible is inerrant, clear, and that people reading it in good faith will come to the same conclusions. Thus there’s not much room for debate. Too much study is considered “worldly” and also unnecessary. Why read earthly books when the real truth is right there in the Bible? Can’t you feel it? Can’t you “feel” the Holy Spirit? Deviation from a pretty narrow doctrinal line is considered proof of ill-will, obtuseness or worse.

Between hand-holding, overly public expressions of private life, and the “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ, Protestant churches encourage men and strangers to reveal their darkest secrets, embrace an emotional religious experience, and, above all, avoid being too worldly or intellectual. This anti-intellectualism is a strain in Christianity going back to the Manicheans, but it really reaches its full flowering in the Puritan, Low-Church stuff that made America.

It’s interwoven in our national psyche, whether from the late 18th Century revivial, temperance movements, or the Moral Majority Christian Evangelical movement of the 1970s.

One of the weird things these Churches did was to eschew the stuffiness of the now incresingly liberal mainline Protestsant denominations. Church was supposed to be “fun.” Look at old Jim and Tammy Baker episodes.

This all said, there could be worse movements in our culture. But between the notion of the inidividual relationship with Jesus Christ easily accessible in the bible, coupled with an overly intrusive cult-like Church community (with two Sunday services, group therapy style Bible reading, and Wednesday Night Bible reading) and finally with the very familiar certainty of Evangelicals, Bush’s vibes on cultural and political issues come very much out of that milieu.

Thanks for that explanation.

I’ve always been a little bemused by the expression “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” The Gospels and Epistles have many descriptions of the believer’s relationship to God through Christ, for example, “Abide in me, and I in you” (John 15). But “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” is not one of them, and seems to convey a somewhat different meaning.

Since the Fundamentalists (though I thought we were talking about Evangelicals here since Bush is one) believe in the Bible as their sole authority, it is odd that they make this non-Biblical phrase the central statement of their relationship with God.

“Personal relationship with Jesus Christ” was coined in antithesis to the corporate European state-church ethos, in which it was (and still is) common for the member to have no consciousness of a conversion experience, a crisis point of repentance in their lives, etc. “Of course I am a Christian. I am Danish, and we are all Lutherans here.” etc.

Use of a phrase not found in the Bible is ironic among fundamentalists, I guess, but it is not unique to them to claim the doctrine of sola scriptura. I believe that was supposed to be common to all Protestants, was it not?

“Born-again” is perhaps a more common identifier among evangelicals and fundamentalists as a joined group. This phrase is directly from John 3, yet is treated as foreign and odd by other Christians, who are as uncomprehending of what Jesus was saying as Nicodemus was, almost 2000 years ago.

I should add that there is something of an “authenticity” concern among fundamentalist Christians. Intensity replaces coherence. And coherence comes from a pseudo-individualist pursuit of truth.

The idea is that you will do what everyone else does and think what they think so long as you’re authentically Christian. Thus, while there is putative individualist relationship to Christ—and thus the doing away with the Church’s traditional hierarchy and social perogatives—and a putatitive individual study of the Bible, because most people do not come up with these ideas or interpretations on their own, instead the minister of any individual congregation assumes substantial important. Text is said as though it’s all plain and self-interpreting (thus so much bible quoting).

A congregation’s minister’s theological reasoning is largely unmediated by tradition and history. And when everyone agrees with him it’s seen as proof that all reasonably people are being led by the Holy Spirit. Thus thorny questions are all simple, once you read the Bible.

Salvation by faith alone and sola scriptura are also both not in the Bible.

I have some knowledge in this field—both culturally and theologically—as a Catholic-turned Baptist-turned-Catholic again. I hope my path is a sign of a pursuit of truth and not flakiness!

I agree that Catholics and other Christians don’t know the Bible well enough and are too freaked out by the intensity of Proddys.

While I agree with many of Roach’s points about the anti-intellectual aspect of Evangelical Protestantism, it’s useful to point out that George Bush’s views on numerous social issues are at odds with those of most Evangelicals. The great foot-dragging on a marriage amendment, the blue smoke and mirrors on partial birth abortion, support of racial socialism all betray an underlying belief in the leftist “social gospel” and a betrayal of the millions of Evangelicals who voted for him in 2000. Perhaps Evangelicals buy into the cheap panders Bush throws their way and his use of common religious phrases as a result of this anti-intellectual current, which makes them particularly gullible.

Is Mr. Coleman saying that the phrase “personal relationship with God” originated among European Christians, not Americans?

Mr. Auster wrote: “Since the Fundamentalists … believe in the Bible as their sole authority, it is odd that they make this non-Biblical phrase the central statement of their relationship with God.”

This is overstatement to begin with, but let’s consider it. Should I, as a Fundamentalist, drop the term “Trinity” because it’s not found in Scripture? Of course not. It is merely a term convenient to denote a doctrine plainly taught in the Bible, (and in both Testaments.)

The “personal relationship” phrase is in the same vein, used, as Mr. Coleman explained well, in contrast to the nominal sense in which many identify themselves as Christians, since they live in a ‘Christian’ society, or attend ‘Christian’ services, et.al. but have never repented of their sins and actually taken the step of embracing the free gift of salvation God has offered through the death and Resurrection of His Son.

There are of course diverse facets of the relationship to Christ enjoyed by His redeemed: He the Shepherd, we His sheep; He the King, we His subjects; He the Master, we His bondment; He the Saviour, we His saved. He told his Disciples, “Ye are my friends; if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants … but I have called you friends.” (John 15:14-15) All who bear record since continued to refer to themselves as His bondmen; there was something suggested here beyond this. Something we as Christians have with God that Mohammedans for example do not have with their Allah.

The Lord Jesus Himself expressed this warning: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in they name have cast out demons? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt 7:21-23)

“I never KNEW you,” He shall say to them! He obviously knew of their existence, and their attempts to earn their way into His graces by their good works. But He never KNEW them. What is this referring to if not a relationship?

Now, given my reference to “Abide in me, and I in you,” I obviously was not questioning the fact that Christian life is about a relationship with Jesus Christ. I was only expressing a personal feeling (which may be based on nothing more than a cultural prejudice) that the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus” has never “clicked” with me for some reason, perhaps because I never have heard that phrase in the main Christian texts and teachings I’m familiar with, but only from evangelical preachers, of whom I have little experience. Please understand that I was not saying that the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus” is wrong. If I gave that impression, I apologize.

Also, I did not mean to sound as if I was questioning all the things Christians affirm that are not literally in the New Testament, such as the word Trinity. I believe in the Trinity. :-)

All good, and no apologies were needed. It’s all about terminological clarification. :-)

The Trinity, as an important example, IS in the New Testament — and the the Old. It’s only the _term_ that isn’t there, which doesn’t matter.

All that matters is this: Do you love the Lord Jesus? And I take the answer for granted.

But allow me to take the opportunity to state it for myself: I LOVE THE LORD JESUS!!! Praise to Him now and forever!!! :-D

“Since the Fundamentalists (though I thought we were talking about Evangelicals here since Bush is one)”
Didn’t I read somewhere recently that Bush attends a Methodist church? Maybe my Protestant typology is rusty, but I thought that was not “evangelical”.
In any case, an enlightening discussion about the sources of Bush’s outlook. When he said that the philosopher who most influenced him was Jesus Christ, it is clear that he does not know what a philosopher is. And as mentioned above, all that Protestant hand-holding, public display of private emotions, and “personal relationship” stuff are all on display with GWB.

Well, I would give Bush a break with the “favorite philosopher” question. Bush doesn’t read philosophy. The meaning the question had to him was, who is the person who is your highest authority on truth? He gave a genuine answer, which also served his political purpose.

Seriously, what answer did people expect Bush to give to this question? Aristotle? Kant? Schopenhauer?

Also, the phrase, “who is your favorite philosopher?” is silly. You might speak of your favorite television show or your favorite brand of ice cream. But your favorite philosopher?

The United Methodist church has a diverse membership. The Methodists who make the most noise are those who don’t believe much in the Bible and openly encourage things like homosexuality. However, there are Methodists who could be classified as evangelicals. Outside of English-speaking countries, the Methodist Church is overwhelmingly evangelical. Here in Mexico, most if not all Protestant groups could be easily classified as Evangelical. At an international Methodist conference, the Mexican delegation scolded the American delegation for its support of gay rights. Good for the Mexican Methodists.
As for George W. Bush, this website has struggled with psychoanalyzing him before, and I’m not convinced that his identification with Evangelicals really explains much. Some of it could be attributable to Baby Boomer culture in general. Both Clinton and Bush II utilize emotional appeals that seem to owe a lot to contemporary pop psychology.
The American Evangelical Movement still has much vitality, and could be a major force in the regeneration of our country. But alas, it suffers from many of the same pathologies of society at large. Too much of the preaching and teaching nowadays is too superficial, too commercialized and too influenced by pop psychology rather than the Scripture and Christian Tradition.
Bravo to Mr. LeFevre, I appreciated his posts on this thread !

I agree with Mr. Auster in saying the Bush hardly knows what the word philosopher means, but let us note, for the record, that Jesus _was_ indeed a political philosopher of the first rank. What an achievement the “render under Caesar” passage — so astonishingly economical in its words — was! I submit that even unbelievers must concede that Christ made a contribution in that statement of incalculable value. The Gospel-writers record this fact themselves: “When they heard it, they marveled” (St. Matthew); “And they were amazed at him” (St. Mark).

I agree completely with Mr. Cella. Of course, as the Gospels tell us, Jesus was much MORE than a “wise man” or a “philosopher.” But he was nevertheless a philosopher, that is, one who articulates the structure of existence, though he did not do this in the language of philosophy but in his own language.

Surely the matter of one’s “favorite philosopher” (admittedly a juvenile way of putting it) is more to the point when referring to a politician than the matter of a favorite color. How about Locke, Hobbes,Smith,Hayek, or more on Bush’s level, William F. Buckley? All would have been suitable answers, but Bush has probably only heard of the last one. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, as well as many others, would not have been embarrassed by having read Locke in the original, or having a profound knowledge of his philosophical importance.
Whether Christ was a philosopher could, I suppose be debated, but I note that by the commonly accepted use of the word, he was not. It is interesting to see Him called thus by several posters here, especially Evangelicals, for these latter normally have no use for philosophy, and are not shy about saying so.

For myself I would not refer to Jesus as a philosopher. But speaking in the context of Bush’s statement, I simply meant that there is a sense in which it is not completely off-base to refer to him as one. I did feel that Bush was swift footed to turn the queston to his own advantage and say in effect, “You’re asking me who is my most important source of truth. My most important source of truth is Jesus Christ.”

I’m sure George Washington would have read Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. It’s less likely he would have read Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

Mr. Auster asked: Is Mr. Coleman saying that the phrase “personal relationship with God” originated among European Christians, not Americans?

No, I was saying that the phrase was intended to present an antithesis to “mainline Protestantism”, which churches originated in Europe and were stultified by their status as state churches in various countries. The phrase no doubt originated more recently in America, but the conscious antithesis to the state churches arose in Europe, among various “Dissenters”, Anabaptists, Moravian pietists, etc. (and even among the “Methodist Societies”, the ancestors of the church mentioned in this thread), long before the phrase was coined in America.

Mr. Coleman makes some cogent points about my belief that a Democrat president like Kerry would be no worse on national security than our current president. Of course, there is no way to know the answer without a Democrat president being elected. I do not see John Kerry as a Jimmy Carter—perhaps that is what many on my side fear about Kerry. No one wants a repeat of the Carter years. I do not see a President Kerry as being another Lyndon Johnson—expanding our current “nation building” in Iraq. But, it would seem from the majority of opinions expressed in this thread, that most of us do not want to see a repetition of the last three years of G.W. Bush who has shown a complete disconnect from the conservative base that put him in office. A change is needed.

Pardon my for getting personal, but it has some relevance, I believe. I was a Democrat for 24 years. I stayed away from the Peace marches and trashings of universities and cities. I was not a radical leftist like David Horowitz. All that changed with the coming (pardon the poor use of that word here) of Bill Clinton in ‘92. My liberal father later passed away not understanding “why” I had changed so much, politically. I lost many friends to this political change of mine, friends who are liberals and had never in their lives known a conservative and hated Nixon and anyone supporting the GOP. I was “branded”! I lost jobs and clients because of my political views/stances, and this continues even today when being conservative is somewhat more accepted. It wasn’t just Bill Clinton that drove me to the right—it was the radical gay and lesbian movement within the Democrat Party and the growing acceptance of their behavior as “normal”. It was the Clinton-Gore Goals 2000 that was ruining our government schools. It was seeing parents’ rights being minimized by the growing power of the radical CTA. It was the public school administrations’ imposing Ritelin (with the help of socialist/pro-government psychologists and psychiatrists) on thousands—perhaps millions—our school boys and the quiet acceptance of gay preists and ministers in our churches, some of whom molested our children and were secretly moved from one diocese to another. It was the “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is” and O.J., the Ramseys and William Shatner going free after murders. It was a LOT of things that pushed me to where I am today. I could never and will never “go back”!

However, I learned along the way that all Democrats are not “all evil” and there is good AND patriotism in many of them. Conservatives don’t have a corner on the “patirotism market”. I am talking about “the man”, NOT the radical groups who a Demo leader must deal with. I believe that President Kerry would stand up to those groups, keep us “as safe as we are now” from terrorists, and very likely the economy will come roaring back. What Kerry did after Vietnam is certainly a concern and relevant, although he was younger and so were we all. Times are very different and a lot us—including John Kerry—are more conservative than we were in our mid-twenties. That he was supposedly a male “Jane Fonda” is stretching it a bit. I was against the Vietnam War, too. I do not, however, see him as “the devisive ideologue” many of my conservative colleagues do.

I do not feel that four more years of G.W. Bush, regardless of the (R) next to his name, would be in the country’s and this state’s best interest. His largess spending and desired spending now will bankrupt us. My business was nearly destroyed in the past three years’ recession in my state. He has had plenty of time to get conservative judges up for nomination, but allowed the Democrats to keep them out. He’s had time to close our borders and deport illegal aliens, but has instead told the U.S. Border Patrol to “look the other way”. Enough is enough.

A write in for Tom Tancredo for President would be “a protest vote”. Others here have shrewdly noted that “there is time before the Election to decide what to do”—to write in, to stay at home or to bring in our gas masks and pull the lever for Mr. Bush. Mr. Coleman and other conservatives are welcome to pull the lever for Mr. Bush. I rather guess that if the President continues to push for amnesty for illegals and massive spending for the NEA and continues to keep our boys in Iraq, that many of us are not going to support him, however odious that may seem to some. Just remember—an (R) to the right of the man’s name does not a conservative make.

I think the problem with Bush calling Jesus his “favortie philosopher” is that while it is true that one could look at Jesus as a philosopher (and much more) when Bush elaborated his response, he did not actually talk about Jesus in that context, rather, he referred more or less to his conversion experience and to his relationship with Jesus, not to Jesus’ s philosophy, let alone political philosophy.

I agree with Steve Sailer that Bush is not dumb per se but has no intellectual curiosity. I think this has more to do with the fact he is part of a dynasty and did not have to do as much for himself than it is about his religious beliefs.

I am not certain what David Levin is saying:

[I]Horowitz, of course, will not admit that Kerry (as President) would not remove our troops from Iraq “post haste” (Kerry would not want the stigma of having carried on essentially “a Republican war” after Saddam, the main issue and prize, was already captured).[/I]

The parenthetical statement that Kerry does not want to continue the war seems to contradict the statement that Kerry would not remove our troops.