Salt and Light Blog

What ails the conservative movement? We conservatives have many bogeymen. Phyllis Schlafly, a woman I have greatly admired for years, recently blamed public schools for changing young evangelicals’ moral imperatives. Every young evangelical I know who attend public schools have not changed their moral imperatives and I attribute that to their parents and their church. We evangelicals need to stop blaming the public schools for our failures. My children, all grown, can spot “leftwing jargon” a mile away.

There is a cancer in conservatism and it has infiltrated the Reagan movement not from without but from within.

Steve Deace of Newsradio 1040 WHO of Des Moines, Iowa, has an amazing interview of Jed Babbin, editor of Human Events.

Steve Deace

Jed Babbin

WHO Newsradio 1040 is the very station that Ronald Reagan got his big break in radio. As you listen to this interview, I want you to jot down notes of thoughts you have of Mr. Babbin’s comments, good, bad, indifferent. I have made excerpts of Steve’s show.

Please listen to the first part:

Part 1 Steve Deace interviewing Jed Babbin
(You will be asked to download a file which is a windows media file; I promise it is safe. Afterwards, use your browser’s back button to return to this page)

Steve does a great job of analyzing Mr. Babbin’s comments and we need to look closer…

Mr. Babbin’s definition of conservatism: “Principled conservatism is very simple: it means smaller government, greater individual freedom, strong America, defeat of the enemy and win the war, and just a few other things. Basically it comes down to what my father always told me when I was growing up, he was as rock-ribbed a conservative as you’re ever going to find. He basically said, ‘Look, the government’s job is to defend the shores, deliver the mail, and otherwise get the [h-e-double sticks] out of my life.”

In “The Conscience of a Conservative” Barry Goldwater wrote this about conservatism: “So it is that Conservatism, throughout history, has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other men, nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored. Throughout history, true Conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with ‘democratic’ Jacobins. The true Conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the French monarchy. And he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism. The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.”

As Steve asks on his show, especially in light of Barry Goldwater’s words, is Mr. Babbin’s definition of conservatism sufficient?

For many of us in the conservative movement the answer is no and we are calling on Human Events to replace Mr. Babbin. You can read the news release and thanks to Gregg Jackson and John Haskins for drafting and organizing the many leaders who have signed onto this letter. Please be sure to use the link to Gregg Jackson’s surprising interview with Jed Babbin, which took place before Steve Deace’s interview.

It would seem as though the Left is taking notice of the press release initiated by Gregg Jackson and John Haskins of which I linked to in yesterday’s post. Notice Right Wing Watch’s “When Crackpots Attack.”

The next audio clip has Steve doing a brilliant job of summing up the state of conservatism and then asks Mr. Babbin what his non-negotiables are; give a listen:

Part 2 of Steve Deace Interviewing Jed Babbin

Mr. Babbin’s non-negotiables: “…are set forth best in the Bill of Rights…freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to keep and bear arms. All the rest of the things we hold dear…keeping America strong and defending these fifty states of ours against any enemies foreign or domestic…”

Again to Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative: “The legitimate functions of government are actually conducive to freedom. Maintaining internal order, keeping foreign foes at bay, administering justice, removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods—the exercise of these powers makes it possible for men to follow their chosen pursuits with maximum freedom.”

While the Bill of Rights is indeed important, they are the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. Would not the original document carry the same weight? Would not the three branches of government and the function of government be important? One could make the case that Mr. Babbin was speaking on the fly, but he makes a point of taking an oath to defend this nation and yet his oath clearly states:

I do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

Now again, am I being picky with Mr. Babbin? Perhaps, but in the totality of the interview, coupled with his appearance on Gregg Jackson’s show, my confidence in Mr. Babbin’s understanding of conservatism is shaken to say the least.

Okay, after digesting parts 1 and 2 of this stunningly revealing interview conducted by Steve Deace of Newsradio 1040 WHO of Des Moines, Iowa…

Steve Deace

…of Jed Babbin editor of Human Events.

Jed Babbin

…it is time to turn our attention to Mr. Babbin’s concept of the highest law of the land, which is a pure democracy. Steve asked what would trump people wanting to enslave a race or kill 50 million babies, what would trump that? Mr. Babbin comments: “Nothing…not under our system of government…nothing.” Steve comments that if the people get it wrong then we are in trouble. Mr Babbin comments: “Well, that’s what democracy is…some great cynic once said that democracy ensures you get the government you deserve.”

Give a listen to part 3:

Part 3 of Steve Deace’s interview with Jed Babbin

The Founding Fathers would have shuddered at the thought of a pure democracy, in fact they did!

“AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. . . By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, WHETHER AMOUNTING TO A MAJORITY OR A MINORITY OF THE WHOLE, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ADVERSED TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHER CITIZENS, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. . . The latent causes of faction are thus SOWN IN THE NATURE OF MAN; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. . . If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights AGAINST THE DANGER OF SUCH A FACTION, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.”

James Madison, Federalist Paper #10 (Emphasis added)

My fellow Americans a pure democracy means anarchy many times and the Founding Fathers had to look no further than the French Revolution to see what a dangerous faction could mean to a country. We can look at current events and see that a pure democracy put Hamas in control of the Palestinian people. The brilliance of our republican form of government means that with our checks and balances no entity, to include the people, can usurp and abuse power.

The next segment is where Jed Babbin proves himself to be confused on our form of government and its founding documents. As John Haskins will say later in the interview, Jed Babbin has a magnificent radio voice but he does not come off as too smart. Please listen:

Part 4 of Steve Deace’s Interview with Jed Babbin
(Please be patient downloading this audio file; it takes around 2 minutes)

Mr. Babbin says the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the Declaration of Independence is merely a background document. Mr. Babbin says, “The Declaration is not law at all.”

For someone to declare themselves a fairly good constitutional lawyer, Mr. Babbin does not understand the law very well. Steve brings up and John Haskins and he discuss it later in the broadcast, the Declaration of the Independence clearly is law. Scott Johnson of Power Line blog writes:

But does the Declaration have any legal status such that these words can truly be deemed to state the American creed? It does, although virtually no one seems to know it. In 1878 Congress enacted a revised version of the United States Code that included a new first section entitled “The Organic Laws of the United States.” The story behind the 1878 revision of the Code is told in the introduction to political scientist Richard Cox’s valuable book Four Pillars of Constitutionalism: The Organic Laws of the United States. (Cox credits the idea for the book to Professor Harry Jaffa, Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute.)

The Code is Congress’s official compilation of federal law; the organic laws of the United States are the country’s foundational laws. First and foremost of the four organic laws of the United States is the Declaration of Independence. Following the Declaration among the organic laws are the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

Additionally, as Steve and his caller Hugh rightly point out, in a representative republican form of government such as the United States of America, the highest law of the land is God’s laws. The writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson himself, made the following statement:

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

It is this misunderstanding of our founding documents that we are told the courts can make law or some court ruling is the law of the land. Many conservative organizations, some of them Christian, claim that they need our money to fight judicial tyranny. I wrote in my Talon series “Ravaging the Republic”:

Tyranny is defined as “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.” It is impossible for the judiciary to be tyrannical because it has NO POWERS to exercise or abuse. The public has been lied to when it is told that some court has enacted some law through judicial tyranny.

In the next segment we will hear Jed Babbin perpetrate that lie.

In this segment we hear Professor Deace of the Veritas Institute ask some very penetrating questions that conservatives need to ponder about the current conservative leadership. I’ve listed them below:

1. Do they have a coherent worldview?
2. Do they have the right worldview?
3. Do they even have our worldview?
4. Can they communicate it?
5. Do they have ideas?
6. Are they the same ideas we would like to have?

Steve is going to replay some of Mr. Babbin’s comments from the prior segments and I want you to listen real close again and then come back to answer these questions:

Is it hard for you to say why you are a conservative?
Is it because you are your father’s child?
Are you a conservative because you cannot remember not being a conservative?
Did you become a conservative because of how much money the government was taking out of your check?

Steve sums up why Mr. Babbin is grossly mistaken in his assertion that the Declaration of Independence is not part of the law. Steve also lays out the case that as long as we have conservative leaders with worldviews such as Mr. Babbin’s we will never beat back judicial activism.

Now I want you to listen very closely and at about the 5 minute mark Steve is going to play a most stunning, upsetting, and damning revelation from Mr. Babbin that clearly illustrates his being unfit for duty as a leader of the conservative movement.

(This is a big file so it takes about 4 minutes to download; go get you a cup of coffee or tea and then come back and fasten your seat belts ladies and gentlemen; we are in going into some turbulence and it is going to be a bumpy ride.)

Part 5 of Steve Deace’s Interview with Jed Babbin

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a cancer in conservatism and please understand I use the word cancer from the second definition found in the Random House Dictionary which defines cancer as “any evil condition or thing that spreads destructively; blight.” Blight is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “something that impairs growth, withers hopes and ambitions, or impedes progress and prosperity.”

Ladies and gentlemen, is not conservatism’s growth impaired? Are not the hopes and ambitions of conservatives withering before our very eyes? Do we not have conservative leaders such as Jed Babbin impeding the progress and prosperity of conservative principles and values that are directly founded in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution which themselves are grounded in biblical principles?

Yes? Yes! And that, my dear readers, is a cancer that must be removed if the cause of conservatism is to survive.

Here is the conclusion of Steve’s interview where he brings in John Haskins, founder and editor of the Underground Journal, who will clear up much of the confusion I’m sure many of you are left with after listening to Mr. Babbin’s explanations.

So as you have listened to these last five segments, see if the questions I’ve come up with align with yours:

1. What are Jed Babbin’s core conservative principles?

2. What impact do the Charters of Freedom have on Mr. Babbin’s conservative beliefs?

3. What is Mr. Babbin’s understanding of the constitutional separation of powers?

4. Does Mr. Babbin’s understanding of judicial restraint match up with yours and if not, does his view provide you comfort?

If you are as confused as I was the first time I listened to the interview in its entirety, Steve Deace has brought in the Veritas Institute’s Professor Emeritus John Haskins to clear up some of the confusion. Give a listen:

Part 6 of Steve Deace’s Interview with Jed Babbin
(Again, this may take a few minutes to download so thanks in advance for your patience)

Steve points something out at about the 12:20 mark on this segment that is exactly what was going through my mind when I heard Mr. Babbin’s comments at the 10:15 mark on activist courts and the Founding Fathers’ desires, vision, and design for our republican form of government. I’ve transcribed Steve’s comments because he has laser-like locked in on the core problem of today’s conservative and Republican leaders.

“It is important John because that statement is not very far off the justification the Left uses for the schemes that it finds in its revision of our rule of law and our Constitution that has lead us to where we’re at. And this is one of the core questions we keep asking ourselves; why do we as conservatives win a whole bunch of elections (until like the last couple of years) but previously for a quarter of a century we’ve won the vast majority of them, appointed the vast majority of judges, yet why are we now in an era where the government is bigger than it’s ever been. The culture is more immoral than it’s ever been. Freedom is more threatened than it’s ever been inside our own shores. Radicals inside the schools and universities have more influence than they’ve ever had. And now we are seeing big business and big government get into bed together. And we are trying to figure out how did we win all these battles at the ballot box but lose the greater war.”

There it is; in fact in a later comment, which I do not provide, John Haskins says that the Right has become more liberal than the Left, leapfrogging them and attempting things the Left would have never dreamed of attempting.

What do we do? First, if you consider yourself a conservative…why? Is your answer what Jed Babbin’s is, or can you articulate the reasons you believe in Conservatism. Begin by reading Barry Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative” as a starting place.

My approach to seeing conservatism win out so liberty will prevail is the 3Rs approach: reeducation, revival, revolution. I will talk more on this but for now prepare yourselves for an onslaught of material to read to reeducate your minds on the founding principles of our nation…true conservatism.