Thursday, April 13, 2023

NYT To Republicans: "Surely Ye Shall Not Die"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Under the guise of helping, the New York Times spoke candidly yesterday to the Republicans in America, suggesting they part with their old ways---and if they don't they will likely lose the upcoming elections, including the presidential election in 2024.

I was reminded of the deceptive words spoken in antiquity: "Surely ye shall not die."

The Times op-ed was titled: "Pressured by Their Base on Abortion, Republicans Strain to Find a Way Forward."

"Some in the party are urging compromise, warning of dire electoral consequences for 2024, while other stances, on guns and gay rights, also risk turning off moderates," the NYT warned.

Be informed, not misled.

Jonathan Weisman began his conversation with conservatives---his "Ye shall be as gods" talk with this: "Republican leaders have followed an emboldened base of conservative activists into what increasingly looks like a political cul-de-sac on the issue of abortion — a tightly confined absolutist position that has limited their options ahead of the 2024 election season, even as some in the party push for moderation."

The Left has been trying to frame every righteous social issue in the past 50 years as a cul-de-sac or dead end that must be avoided at all costs, which is dogma from Saul Alinsky and cultural Marxism.

It is written, "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field..." 

Progressivism always acts on the belief that the end is so noble and virtuous that any tactic to achieve it is justified.

In this case, it would compromise the most fundamental beliefs in the Republican Party platform.


The Times begins with compromise number one by quoting Republicans:

"Days earlier, abortion was the central theme in a liberal judge’s landslide victory for a contested and pivotal seat on the state Supreme Court in Wisconsin. Some Republicans are warning that the uncompromising position of their party’s activist base could be leading them over an electoral cliff next year."

Then they quote Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC):

“If we can show that we care just a little bit, that we have some compassion, we can show the country our policies are reasonable, but because we keep going down these rabbit holes of extremism, we’re just going to keep losing."

The Times notes that she has repeatedly called for more flexibility on first-term abortions and exceptions for rape, incest, and the life and health of the mother. “I’m beside myself that I’m the only person who takes this stance.”

The New York Times quickly helps Republican Nancy Mace in her time of sorrow and frustration.

They remind their reader that "She is far from the only one."

The chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, has been showing polling to members of her party demonstrating that Americans largely accept abortion up to 15 weeks into a pregnancy and support the same exemptions that Ms. Mace wants. Dan O’Donnell, a conservative radio host in Wisconsin, wrote after the lopsided conservative defeat in the state Supreme Court contest that abortion was driving young voters to the polls in staggering numbers and that survival of the party dictated compromise.

O'Donnell concluded, "As difficult as this may be to come to grips with, Republicans are on the wrong side politically of an issue that they are clearly on the right side of morally.” 

So Republicans must ask themselves, "What is more important: Winning elections or standing for what is right?"

I'll come back to that in a moment.

Gun Control

Weisman also warns Republicans they better compromise their positions on guns and gun control, or else.

The problem goes beyond abortion. With each mass shooting, the G.O.P.’s staunch stand against gun control faces renewed scrutiny. Republicans courted a backlash last week when they expelled two young Democratic lawmakers out of the Tennessee state legislature for leading youthful protests after a school shooting in Nashville that left six dead. Then on Monday came another mass shooting, in Louisville, Ky.

“My kids had friends on Friday night running for their lives,” said Ms. Mace, referring to a shooting on South Carolina’s Isle of Palms, which elicited no response from most of her party. “Republicans aren’t showing compassion in the wake of these mass shootings.”

LGBTQ+ and Climate Change

And of course, Weisman says, the Republicans must compromise on LGBTQ+ issues and so-called Climate Change.

The party’s stand against legislation to combat climate change has helped turn young voters into the most liberal bloc of the American electorate. And Republican efforts to roll back L.G.B.T.Q. rights and target transgender teenagers, while popular with conservatives, may be seen by the broader electorate as, at best, a distraction from more pressing issues.

Representative Mark Pocan, an openly gay Democrat from Wisconsin, said on Monday that in the short term, the Republican attacks on transgender Americans were having a real-world effect, with a rise in violence and bigotry. But he said it is also contributing to the marginalization of the party, even in his swing state.

The Washington Post has said, "The GOP has become the insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, and unmoved by conventional reasoning." 

Ironically, however, The New York Times in an article published July 6th, 2017, titled "When the Boss Wants you to do Something Unethical," tells its readers:

“I think you have to just say no if it’s against your own moral values. You can’t be forced to do something. The worst thing that could happen to you is you’ll be fired, but you can’t really stay at a job that’s going to ask you to transgress your morals anyway.”


No question that compromising on non-moral policies is inherent in good politics. But should that involve moral issues such as the sanctity of life and abortion? Or the LGBTQ agenda? Or the institution of marriage?

No. How many abortions are OK from a political perspective?

If two people of the same sex can "marry," why can't a group of people marry? Or why is polygamy outlawed? 

The secular Left's morality is based on ever-evolving truth or relativism.

The conservative biblical worldview is based on eternal Truth and unchanging moral values based on biblical teaching.

The Bible makes it clear that God does not condone compromising His commands: “Be careful to do what the LORD your God has commanded you; do not turn aside to the right or to the left” (Deuteronomy 5:32). Joyful are those who “do not compromise with evil, and they walk only in his paths” (Psalm 119:3, NLT). God is holy, and His ways are right. God is good, and His ways are life-giving. Concerning matters that God has clearly addressed, we do not negotiate, bargain, or compromise.

King Jehoshaphat foolishly entered a compromising situation with the wicked King Ahab, which almost cost him his life (2 Chronicles 18). Jesus rebuked the church of Thyatira for their theological and moral compromise: “I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols” (Revelation 2:20). There are certain lines that should not be crossed, and there are times when compromise becomes evil.

As we go through this world, we will hear many calls to compromise. The “fleeting pleasures of sin” (Hebrews 11:25), “hollow and deceptive philosophy” (Colossians 2:8), and “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16) all tempt us to compromise in areas we should not. Usually, the temptation to compromise is heightened by some type of fear, such as the fear of being rejected or criticized---or losing an election.

What makes compromise so dangerous is the subtle way it approaches us. Compromise, by definition, doesn’t involve a wholesale capitulation to worldly ways or ideals; rather, it accommodates them. Most of us would recoil at the thought of tossing Jesus aside and embracing an idol, but compromise never asks us to do that. Compromise says that we can have the idol and keep Jesus, too. There’s room on the shelf for one more object of worship, right? And what’s the harm, since we still have Jesus?

The political left calls that process "incrementalism" and considers it to be an excellent political strategy to achieve its end result.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Engaged. Be Faithful. Be Prayerful.