Hopeless Change or Hopeful Progress?

The roles of race and women have come to dominate this year’s Presidential election; as a result, many choose, thinking to advance the rights of the supposedly disadvantaged. Some support the first black nominee, primarily because of his color; Pat Buchanan has asked what will happen if he loses, in fact, suggesting a lose/lose scenario. Some for similar reasons favor one, who might have become the first woman nominee, for similar reasons, and their disappointment may be major factor in the outcome of this election.

Hope, change, and leadership, often in very non-specific terms, are virtually meaningless bases for choosing a candidate, and many contrary contrary indications tend to make one wonder. The reality is that our country has been changing, in the areas of race and gender especially; unintended consequences provide a warning to us as we consider the future that any nominee or prospective representative proposes. Do they actually seek to lead us somewhere specific? We need more than a vague hope for a better future, the kind of hope with which people play the lottery. Changes can be bad or good; change in itself means nothing. In fact, when it comes right down to it, many of us don't like change; and that is true regardless of ideology.

One of my roommates observed several young women walking by our home, and he was appalled by the way that they talked. We all have heard girls with mouths like sewers, the result of poor parenting and r-rated media, among other things. Is this the gender equality the movement had in mind? Did the rhetoric seek to lower the feminine to the worst of the masculine? A man who speaks with a limited vocabulary filled with crudity and cursing lessens his effectiveness in conversation; seeking power, perceived as macho, in offensive words actually reduces his power. It is even worse for a woman, who corrupts her femininity by taking up the lowest of masculine expression. A strong woman may be tough, speak firmly, and deal with others actively without being crude and offensive.

Words are only a more visible indication of this equality by lowering. The inner reality is far worse. Men have been the hunters and the soldiers; by virtue of their greater size and strength, the male has been the punisher and, when necessary, the life-taker. He has often suffered for it, with post-traumatic stress, flashbacks, and physical and emotional scars and handicaps. The majority of violent criminals are men. This is not an aspect of life that women should want to embrace, just to be equal; unfortunately, they have. Women have become life-takers rather than life-nurturers.

In particular, feminism has embraced abortion as necessary for equality. The movement has long passed the notion of abortion for the sake of a woman’s health; it has taken up the cause of abortion for the convenience of a woman, who prefers not to have a child or to avoid the actions that conceive a child. The meaningless rhetoric about when life begins has become irrelevant; every woman and a good many men know that aborting a fetus kills a living organism. Killing a baby, regardless of its stage of development, is worse than the coarsening of speech; this is a hardening of the female heart. The defense of partial birth abortion and other kinds of infanticide, as well as the well-publicized cases of mothers killing their children, show where this is headed and, to some extent, has already gone. Woman in this don't become equal to men, in taking life, but less; life-givers have evolved into life-takers.

Others have noted that women, now prevalent in most workplaces, enjoy many of the same symptoms of stress that men have suffered—greater incidence of heart attack, shortening life expectancy, neglected relationships—all so they could earn more money, have careers, etc. Is it worth it? The early feminists claimed they could “have it all,” but they have learned that it's all about trade-offs. To gain in these areas, other areas suffer. Children grow up in homes without any parent; instead they have childcare with all the new problems that represents, such as the foul-mouthed girls I noted above. Two working spouses have even less time for relationships; good relationships take time. Is it any wonder that so many marriages fail? Those who don’t marry have even less enduring partnerships. For the sake of equality, women have careers, children they seek to raise alone, and often less material wealth than if they were home-makers. Still, the corruption of the woman as nurturer into destroyer is the worst un

The racial equality movement has yielded similar “unintended consequences” for black families, which are even more broken, although non-blacks are working hard to catch up! Government entitlements for the presumed victims of slavery and prejudice have arguably wrecked even greater havoc on American blacks, driving fathers from the home, encouraging out-of-wedlock births to sky-rocket, and creating dependence on welfare. Subsequent generations of black children blame racism for their plight, encouraged to believe this myth by politicians who need their loyalty to win elections. These politicians are the greater racists, whether they believe that blacks are incapable of self-sufficiency or just prefer to keep them dependent for the political benefit. The inner cities have become cesspools of poverty and cultural blight caused more by government and political strategery than by racism. The proof lies in the success of recent African immigrants who work hard, get their education, and prosper, despite whatever lingering remnants of racism may touch them.

If all of that isn't enough, abortion is a huge factor within the black community, too. Some have suggested that the so-called "pro-choice" movement is a kind of quiet racial genocide. Certainly, the eugenics movement leaned in that direction, including Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. The more overt aspects of this attitude is the encouragement given to parents of unborn children with disabilities to abort them.

Positive change is desperately needed, but little is evident in the current political rhetoric. The need is opportunity unhindered by government fixes. The more the government is removed from the social fabric the better. Sufficient remedies already exist in law to protect the rights of women and minorities. More “programs” to assist them actually only assist career politicians in gaining power by keeping those they would “help” dependent on them and their largess.

Many leaders in and out of government love to mock religion and traditional values. Of late, a favorite claim is that some Christians desire a theocracy, government dominated by religious values. They like to compare radical Islam and Christianity, as if they were similar, but they are not. Christians, with very few exceptions, prefer to persuade to convert. We want the freedom to do so and then to practice our beliefs freely. A few failed experiments long ago proved that even a genuine Christian government is as likely to oppress as any other. Most result in a corruption of true faith as oppressors use religion to advance their own agendas, much as some radical Muslim leaders are doing today. Until God himself takes charge, most of us prefer the American way—republican democracy.

We need genuine leadership, men and women who actively seek to restore limited constitutional government. We seek leaders who believe that American liberty and opportunity can solve a problem better than any government program, who lead us away from more centralized power, and who recognize the dangers that too much government create. For women and minorities, the best hope is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” equally available to every citizen. The notion, implied by the harsh criticisms of the current President, is that he or she ought somehow to be able to keep us safe, make us prosperous, prevent natural disaster, and assure our individual happiness. Any candidate who implies he or she will do all that is an idiot, a megalomaniac, or liar. Any voter who believes a President should or could do all that is stupid, crazy, ignorant, or a fool. People who deny the hope and power of God, who yet put their faith in a fallible or even evil human, are not unexpected, but they are making a dangerous choice.

Many well-meaning citizens are naively putting their “faith” in empty rhetoric. It is sad when people do that and destroy their own lives; it is frightening when they collectively choose such a course and potentially threaten the very security and existence of an entire nation. Socialism in a small nation only robs its own people of freedom; socialism in a world power, whether it was the Soviet Union or will be the United States, threatens the freedom of the entire world as well. In such a circumstance, change will destroy hope, and leaders will become tyrants.

I hope for a different kind of progress, not toward bigger government or a one-world authority. I would like to see a change away from the course our culture has been slowly following that has produced foul-mouthed girls, life-taking mothers, and devastated black families, among many other sad and tragic results. I hope for leaders who want more freedom for us and not more power for themselves, true civic-minded, civil servants that have become a rare breed. Spare me the empty rhetoric! Show me you know how to take us to a truly brighter future where freedom and faith not only create prosperity but a better citizenry. That kind of hopeful progress I will support whole-heartedly.