Today’s post is brought to you by…
A most unusual political legacy.
That of retired (and now deceased) California state senator W.H. “Bill” Richardson.
Richardson died this past January at the age of 92. He was a prominent gun rights advocate and also a Bible-believing Christian and ardent defender of the U.S. Constitution. He was known in California politics for his sophisticated and highly effective approach to gaining victory at the ballot box by practicing the fine art of what he called ‘confrontational politics’.
In the 1960s, 70s, 80s and into the 21st century, he perfected his rigorous, systematic, direct-marketing-based approach to local political action. It struck fear and loathing — and frequently disgruntled changes of votes — in the hearts of the opposition.
Richardson’s proven system of confrontational politics hinged on what he called “positive confrontation”, which he describes, as opposed to the kind of negative confrontation that usually ended in failure and defeat at the ballot box.
Time and again his tactics worked, and his no-fear approach proved highly successful — whenever and wherever it was tried.
Predictably, whenever and wherever it wasn’t tried, the results were failure and defeat.
Case in point: Judge Robert Bork’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, which went down in a blaze of disingenuous infamy in July 1987.
That humiliating (and in Richardson’s opinion, supremely avoidable) historic defeat is the occasion of the article I am reposting today.
Gary North has written numerous times over the years about his friend Bill Richardson. You can do a search of Gary’s website and find dozens of references to him, all having to do with emulating Richardson’s proven tactics of organized resistance and an advanced strategy of successful positive confrontation, particularly in the area of politics.
Yesterday, Gary posted an article he found that was written by Richardson sometime after the Bork debacle.
You can read the full article here:
Gary says this article deserves ‘wide distribution’.
In this case, Gary will have to settle for my two cents’ worth of narrow and shallow distribution.
With an equal or lesser value of positive confrontational remarks and subheadings (mine, bold italic) inserted along the way.
California State Senator Bill Richardson was a friend of mine. We worked on projects in the late 1960’s. He brought me to Sacramento to testify to a Senate subcommittee in 1969.
He had been in advertising before he went into politics. He became the first California state senator to use direct mail to inflict pain on the Left. He knew his business.
In 1975, he founded Gun Owners of America.
Bill died last January. His Wikipedia entry is here.
I am not sure when he wrote this. I have a photocopy. It was not dated. It was written in response to the failure of the nomination of Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court. That was in July 1987.
A decade later, he wrote a book: Confrontational Politics. You can buy a Kindle edition for about $4. Order here.
The Bork nomination could have been a slam dunk, but instead, it was another example of Republican retreat when victory could have been easily achieved. Why do Republicans constantly get their political posteriors plummeted? The reason is the Republican membership from top to bottom has little technical knowledge of confrontational politics and its dynamics. It isn’t enough to be right on issues alone. Victory or defeat is embodied not only in the efficacy of the concept, but within the methodology of implementation as well. To put it more bluntly, the idea might be dynamite, but unless someone is smart enough to light the fuse nothing happens. Republicans do not understand confrontational politics. Up to this time, they don’t even own a match.
Confrontational politics. What is it? If one does not know, one better find out! Conservatives and Republicans have been getting their backsides chewed up politically because they have not understood the dynamics of confrontation or the techniques applied. They have been engaged in a karate fight while adhering to the Marquis of Queensberry Rules and have been kicked where a gentleman never contemplates.
Nothing could prove the point better than to witness the confirmation hearings on Judge Bork. While the Reagan Administration was trying to be rational “nice guys” and play by the old rules, the opposition wanted Judge Bork defeated, as well as coerce the Administration to nominate a more Leftist member to the Court. The Administration’s “nice guy” posture was predictable, thus attackable. The Left was given the field advantage, the offensive, the stadium, and use it, they did. First, they framed the nature of the debate by inferring that Judge Bork was a racist. Since truth is situational to the Leftist United States Senate leadership, and to their comrades on the outside, all they needed to accomplish was to level the charge and wait for the predictable response out of the Administration. How predictable and brilliant it was: “No, he is not a racist.” The Reagan Administration then spent valuable time trying to convince people Bork was not a bigot, but all they did was elevate the issue of racism in the minds of the public. Deny something long enough and a number of people will wonder–if there’s smoke, there’s fire! Once on the defensive, it is hard to get off of it; the Administration never did.
Before we go much farther into this article, it is important for the reader to understand confrontational politics and what it means. It requires pondering the subject matter. Time well spent, if one is to understand contemporary confrontational politics, and thus what is happening in Washington.
Here, Richardson gives his EPISTEMOLOGICAL argument for the basis of the conflict:
There are two diametrically opposing views over the nature of man which prevail in contemporary American politics, two fundamental concepts totally alien one to the other.
Each of these premises serve as the genesis for political action, followed, mimicked and repeated over and over with most of the political actors playing out each scenario without the slightest idea of the epistemological foundation or the authorship of the drama.
Our behavior originates in our perceptions of reality and our relationships with each other. When these fundamental beliefs vary among people, clashes and conflict occur. Compatible beliefs formulate cultures and whenever radical, differences of beliefs appear within an established culture, division and dissention arises.
Let me be more specific. Western culture has its genesis in Judeo-Christian beliefs. Six thousand years of recorded history and experience has shaped contemporary Western man’s perception of the character and nature of the human being. This understanding formulates his actions and reactions to his fellow citizen. Based upon this knowledge, Western man perceives himself and others as singularly unique, individual, spirit worthy, created in the image of the Creator. He has been taught to: “Do to others as you would have them do to you”, “Be respectful of other’s opinions”, “Recognize one’s own fallibilities”, and “Be not quick to judge”. We are taught to love one another, even our enemies. Scripture tells the believer to love is to obey His commandments, and to live the law in dealing with each other. We are to honor our parents; we are to respect the property of others; we are told not to lie or be deceitful to our fellow man–friends and enemies alike.
We are raised believing these and other fundamental truths from childhood. They are ingrained in us by family, friends and the society which owes its origin to these ideas. We are told in Scripture that God instilled in everyone the knowledge of right and wrong. The fundamental desire then is to work harmoniously with each other. Whenever differences occur, they should be amicably treated, and if necessary, compromises met when men of good will differ.
If Christian love is the basis of negotiation, and shared by both parties, usually differences can be resolved. The goal is harmony and mutual compatibility, any other behavior other than this triggers negative vibes. Harmony then is the answer, disharmony is perceived as bad, unhealthy, and unproductive behavior. But, what happens when someone rejects these fundamental premises and is trained to think that man’s origins are different? What happens when someone believes all valuers are variable and changeable, and thus, situational? What is the result of man’s premise that man is but a graduate animal, nothing but matter in motion? What is the result from the rejection of God and the immutable laws that emanate from a creator?
Let me highlight that last question:
What is the result from the rejection of God and the immutable laws that emanate from a creator?
What do you suppose the result of this is, hmm? You don’t have to look very far, the results are all around us!
What actions evolve from one who believes the world is a dog eat dog place, or survival of the fittest, or might makes right? What is the logical argumentative posture of one who believes that conflict and confrontation is the nature of human development and unless confrontation and conflict exists, advancement cannot be made?
One third of the world’s land surface and 1.7 billion people are controlled by a philosophy that adheres to the conflict and confrontation theory of human progress. It’s called Marxist-Leninist, scientific dialectical materialism. This philosophy, at this very moment, is being taught to millions of children worldwide as contemporary gospel. It has permeated Eastern Europe, most of Asia, over half of Africa, South America and is the dominate philosophy of behavior taught all over the world. More people are taught dialectical materialism than are taught Christianity. This ideology-has permeated segments of American politics and has been now exerting an influence on our national policy, both ideologically and methodologically.
Marxism: two steps forward, one step back.
Let me be more specific. Leftist dialectical action espouses direct confrontation as necessary in order to gain any social objective, so success is not possible without conflict and the predictable reaction from those attacked. When serious reaction is met and the debate or conflict becomes heated, the opposition generated is perceived as a good sign, as confirmation of the righteousness of the program. The Left then looks upon conflict and resistance as a positive, a necessary ingredient in advancement. The Left also believes that dialectical confrontation can be carried only to a certain point because resistance can sometimes become so overpowering as to negate the overall objective. So, when resistance becomes formidable, it then becomes practical to back off, step back, compromise, but never retreat far enough to negate a net gain. The Marxists refer to it as two steps forward, one step back. They even teach their children to march that way as to inculcate the principle into their youthful minds. Two steps forward, one back, net gain, one step.
The Art of War and the wisdom of Sun-Tsu: “Leave ’em an out!”
Sun Tsu stated over 2500 years ago, “Never surround an enemy so completely that he has no means of retreat.” Even a mouse will fight if it has no escape route. Sun Tsu concluded, one must always give a back door, an escape route to the opposition because when cornered, they will usually avail themselves of the escape route in order to avoid more conflict. In dialectics, the step backward creates the back door for the opposition to escape further punishment, and, as is often the case, the opposition will take this “compromise” sometimes even offering the compromise in anticipation of attack.
Let us now put this in perspective; Leftism program, status, quo opposition. The Left designs a new social program replete with new revenue, increased bureaucracy, more governmental control, more socialism. They have formulated and structured the program, complete with positive arguments, couched in terms designed to evoke sympathies out of segments of the population. They introduce legislation then push aggressively ahead until opposition is met.
Conservatism = conserve the STATUS QUO?
At this point, one must remember what the term conservative implies both factually and politically. It usually means to conserve the status quo, to keep things as they are, to preserve existing institutions.
Momentum, planning, and opportunity are on the side of the offensive, plus they know in advance where they want to go. The Leftists march straight ahead implementing aggressively, awaiting opposition, expecting opposition.
Conservatives react. They oppose and organize to stop the Leftist thrust. All the time hating the conflict that has occurred. Confrontation is an affront to their fundamental nature, conflict is unpleasant and gut wrenching, especially since they have been categorized as old fashioned, non progressive, hard-hearted tight wads. The conservative cannot wait until the controversy ends, however, fighting for preservation of the status quo is a matter of principle and so, unwillingly, begrudgingly he fights on. When he reaches a level of successful opposition, he is usually presented with a compromise, the backward dialectic step. Usually someone in the conservative rank is all too willing to accept the compromised as a means of stopping the controversy. The sum and total is net gain for the Left and a moving of the status quo farther and farther to the Left. Incrementally, the Left achieves its purpose. They wait until their program is institutionalized, then they begin expanding it bit by bit. These programs are now accepted as part of American institutional fabric. Socialized medicine, Social Security, food stamps, OSHA, federal participation in public education, so-called equal opportunity employment practices, the list goes on and on.
What is our plan? Do we have a plan? Or even a consistent WORLDVIEW?
Let us now analyze the differences. The hard Left has a long range program, socializing the world and the elimination of capitalism. What is our plan? There is none, except protecting the status quo. Protecting the status quo is not a plan, it is a precursor to disaster. One hundred years ago Americans had a world view. We were willing participants in exporting Christian Judaic ethics. We set up missionaries around the world to bring the Gospel of Christ to the heathen. Those were the days we called people heathens, and, those were the days we knew the difference between a heathen and a civilized man. Our intention was to bring truth, freedom, and civilization to the world’s misguided and oppressed. It was our Christian duty to do so. We judged our culture and ethics to be superior. We, as an example, judged cannibalism, witch doctors, and cow worshippers as inferior, not just another value system. We-believed they were, in need of redemption and salvation and it was our duty to see they were exposed to God’s Word. Today Christians rest comfortably in their pews, forgiving everyone and everything, holding no one accountable for the crimes against God’s laws, and taking dominion over nothing, when there is much over which to take dominion.
That last, stinging rebuke against so-called Bible-believing Christians bears repeating:
Today Christians rest comfortably in their pews, forgiving everyone and everything, holding no one accountable for the crimes against God’s laws, and taking dominion over nothing, when there is much over which to take dominion.
Taking dominion… Hmm. Where have we heard that before?
He goes on…
By their programs and actions, the Left creates hostilities and antagonisms to their schemes. They afford us many opportunities to attack them successfully. Socialism is a failure when applied and creates ample constituency who can be organized and led. The Left rubs against the grain of history and civilized man.
His theological assessment of the Left (shades of Isaiah):
The Left gives lip service to belief in God but their actions deny His existence or His laws. The hard Left is openly atheistic to the degree of open antagonism to all of God’s people as well as His ordinances.
They believe the “thou shall nots” of the Ten Commandments are nothing but constrictions placed upon mankind by the ruling capitalist classes to hold the people in line, giving them verbalistic placebos to placate their desires for a better life. All laws and/or rules, are then man-made, thus all rules can and may be broken if the situation dictates.
We must recognize this contemporary nihilistic philosophy has been around most of this century. The followers of Nietzsche, Rousseau, Saint Simon, Sartre, are permanent fixtures in our colleges and universities and the disciples of Darwin and John Dewey abound. Pumped full of this nihilistic nonsense, our young people are ready fodder for the dialectic methodology-promulgated by the campus resident Marxist.
During the 20s and 30s, Norman Thomas’ Socialist nirvana became the intellectual fodder on our campuses and the Democratic Party became its political vehicle of implementation. The Republicans, once the majority party, defenders of the status quo, found themselves under attack and for the past half a century have compromised themselves into a whining, retreating, gutless minority. The contemporary liberal Democrat makes Norman Thomas look moderate by comparison; Democratic leadership is permeated by such people. A former California State Chairman of the Democratic Party was an identified communist. They all knew it, but no Democrat activist voiced any complaints.
The hard Left has gravitated to, or either substantially influenced leadership within, the Democratic national structure. Moral and ethical standards based on Judeo-Christian premises are not in evidence either in commentary or actions of their elected leadership. Their blatant support of abortion and homosexual causes and their tolerance to the Ted Kennedys, the Metzenbaums, Bidens, and the Harts, knows no bounds.
Since ethics are dictated by the situation, then half truths, innuendoes, threats, intimidation, coercion, propaganda, character assassination, even pretense of religious beliefs become successful behavior if it achieves the desired ends. Situational ethics reigns in political leaderships so recognize it as such and recognize that those who are in leadership are able practitioners of the act.
Whenever any kind of behavior is rewarded, there will be more of it. If situational ethics succeeds in politics, More will engage in it. It also stands to reason that when unethical, immoral conduct is punished, there will be less of it. When morality is rewarded, the same is true, whether morality is believed or not, it will be practiced in politics if it is the ingredient that elects.
Read this next section VERY carefully.
First, conservatives must understand the nature of the confrontational Left and the genesis of their actions. The hard Left is the driving force behind the leftward slant of the world, both in ideology and methodology. Their goals are unchangeable, which is total socialization of the world. They use dialectic techniques to ascribe these goals and glory in them. Why not, they have been immensely successful so far. These confrontational techniques must be recognized for what they are and understood. One need not like dialectical confrontation to understand it. One need not like conflict to use it, understand it or master it. I do not.
Richardson’s confession of faith:
I am a Christian and I do not enjoy confrontational politics at all. I am, however, embroiled in combat with the heathen and knowledge of their methodology is key to defeating them. I receive great satisfaction from throwing their plans out of kilter and cutting into the territory they have consolidated.
The key to winning is positive confrontation… Confrontation is INEVITABLE.
Is it possible to move them back farther and give up the protection of the status quo as the conservative position? The answer is yes. Of course we can, but first we need to understand that our lot must be participation in the use of positive confrontation. What then is positive confrontation? It is the methodology that must be used by conservatives to turn the tide of socialism. It would be impossible to go into all of the ramifications of positive confrontation at this time, but we can cover the high points.
Recognizing confrontation is inevitable when dealing with the Left. They have no intention of stopping their worldwide goals. Let us give them more confrontation, let us joyfully give it to them, but, joyfully or not, let us give them more conflict than they can handle.
Perseverance and Persistence will INEVITABLY win!
Leftists will always step backward when the pressure grows intense. It is part of dialectics. They play hardball until it is to their advantage to retreat to save ground already gained. Perseverance under confrontation bodes for our side, persistence will inevitably win.
Every confrontation builds a constituency of followers. The Left organizes these constituencies as a residual and uses these people in future confrontation. We rarely do. We have been happy just to conclude the combat and forget about it. However, we have at our disposal a great potential residual constituency if we would think in terms of long range conflict rather than singular battles.
A Real-World Example of Success
Let me give an example. In the 1970s, the Left organized a major drive to confiscate all handguns and control registration of all firearms. They successfully passed the 1968 Gun Control Act and were busy in some states with gun confiscations legislation. The normal course of conservative action would be to resist such legislation but such resistance failed to stop the anti-gun control act that was implemented in 1968.
I founded Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners of California in 1975. I had positive confrontation in mind. I believed the pro-gunners could be organized into a positive political force by taking advantage of the rampant anti-gun sentiment voiced by the media and the Leftists organizing the anti-gun movement. We formed a political action committee committed to electing pro-gun candidates to office and defeating anti-gun legislators.
The gun owners enthusiastically accepted this single positive purpose we proposed. We hired qualified experts in political operations and raised millions of dollars which we funneled into campaigns. It didn’t take the incumbent long to figure out the dynamics of what we were doing. We didn’t fight the gun issue as much as we leveraged politicians. We won a number of races where we were the dominate financial contributor. In fact, by 1980 Gun Owners of California gave more to candidates than the State Republican Party. G.O.P. became Gun Owners Party.
Gun Owners computerized all pro-gunner names so they could be retrieved according to political districts; we gave our membership advice on how to vote. We sustained and maintained these lists communicating to the gunner around issues with which he identifies.
Proactive Instead of Reactive
Instead of reacting, we acted. We engaged in positive confrontation on our battleground and knew, we were being successful whenever we were vociferously attacked by the Left. We have even been able to cut back on the federal 1968 Gun Control Act. The gun community is organized far better than it was in the 1960s, and with continued sophistication, we will be able to do more good work.
The Left has dialectically retreated in their direct attack upon firearms ownership due to the positive confrontational efforts of Gun Owners both state and nationally. This acquired computer knowledge and direct mail skills allowed us to set up other positive confrontational organizations.
We were smart politically. We didn’t fight one campaign on the gun issue, but the gun community financed successful political campaigns using issues germane to the races. We became the cutting edge in a number of races. We were given credit for being the deciding edge in the election of the Governor in 1982. Today, the Left cannot get an anti-gun Mother’s Day resolution through the California Legislature.
It’s about much more than just GUNS.
What are other positive places to organize?
Take examples of legislative immorality and rally those who find it reprehensible. Turn this into a confrontational body and train them in the ways of contemporary politics by elevating positive issues around which they can work.
Let’s legislate MORALITY for a change!
Example: Parental consent for abortion. Until recently a minor could get an abortion in California without her parents knowledge. Children need parental consent to take an aspirin or go on a field trip, but not to receive an abortion.
The pro-family lobby saw this as an important issue and rallied the fundamental churches, religious T.V. and radio, and antiabortion groups and introduced legislation to change the law. The pro-abortion, Planned Parenthood incumbency, is powerful and entrenched. Their influence on the California Assembly Speaker has kept this legislation from succeeding by sending it to a controlled committee which would kill the bill.
The pro-family lobby knew they had a good issue with substantial populace support so instead of backing off, they applied positive confrontation.
No Pain, No Gain.
Some leaders in the pro-family lobby, notably Barbara Alby, recognized that pain is a part of confrontation. One of the legislators needed for a vote in the Senate had rarely ever voted for the pro-family lobby; his constituency was quite liberal. The efforts to turn on Christian pressure in his district was extremely successful and over 10,000 phone calls were generated to his district office. That’s real pain.
The Senator was enraged. He ranted and raved over the pressure received. He even confronted Barbara Alby in the legislative halls and verbally abused her with vulgar obscenities, creating a great deal of emotional stress for Barbara. Some of the pro-life lobby crumbled under his ranting and raving and thought we had gone too far, they were willing to back off. Not Barbara. She understood the Senator was a Leftist and a practitioner of situational ethics. His protesting was painful and very intimidating but a good sign. The pressure was maintained even though some of our people were peeling off due to the conciliatory and non-combative nature of Christian activists. The Senator in question sat sullenly through the committee and then voted affirmatively for the bill. He translated these phone calls into votes in the next election and he did not want to be the Senator who was credited with killing the pro-family bill. He perceived it was better to vote for the bill (take a dialectic step backward) than to loose his seat. The bill passed to the Senate floor; there were other confrontational moves necessary before the final vote was taken. The entire success of the legislation was confrontation all of the way. Hard, gut wrenching, head to head, battles with the Leftists, cutting into their territory, forcing them to retreat, causing them a net loss.
Is the fight over? Of course not. We can expect the next battle in some Leftist superior court where they will try to claim the bill is “unconstitutional”. We are now in the process of building and reinforcing the residuals we gained from this battle. We are gathering our forces for a fight in the courts. We are raising the money, putting our supporters names on computer file, elevating a populous issue, attacking the liberal courts while putting the State Attorney General on the line. We have a great issue in which to rally the people as well as the leadership who understands positive confrontation. To capsulize, what is positive confrontation?
Positive Confrontation: a Quick-Start Guide
1. First, we must recognize the difference between positive and negative confrontation. Negative confrontation means reaction to a program promoted by the Leftists where the fight is strictly to preserve the status quo. They advocate a program, we try to defeat it. These battles are over ground we already hold. Our posture is strictly defensive. It is worthy to note that even when the liberals are totally defeated, the fight is debilitating for the conservative. No territory is gained by either side, but the Left usually amasses a residual for a future engagement on the same grounds. They have framed the debate in such a manner as to build some popular support. They have also recruited some new advocates for the next assault. Again the liberal views each conflict as a positive opportunity for advancement and recruitment. In negative confrontations the conservative inevitably loses some ground no matter how well fought.
2. Positive confrontation is emotionally painful, but, properly applied, it is more painful for the Left. When the other side starts to react and complain, it is confirmation the program is working.
Positive confrontation is controversial because any change in the status quo will affect some incumbent group that will suffer if the change is effected. If there is no controversy, there is no opportunity.
3. Positive conservative confrontation rejects situational ethics and dialectical behavior as morally corrupt but does not deny its existence as a Leftist mind set and integrals to his methodology.
4. Positive confrontation requires persistence and patience and a tranquil mind in the face of hostility. Righteousness is never born in anger. There is a difference between anger and righteous indignation; the first is destructive, the second can be organized.
5. Positive confrontation is hardball politics. Head to head uncompromising opposition unless compromise is on our terms and involves the loss of territory for the Left.
6. Positive confrontation sometimes ends in momentary defeat, but if a residual is built for future fights, the defeat becomes a strategic step in a protracted conflict.
7. Positive confrontation requires proper framing of issues to present the debate in the best light, while causing the opposition to debate on our ground.
8. Positive confrontation embodies the following:
A. People organized to achieve a singular purpose.
B. Networking with other groups.
C. Raising funds to professionalize the effort.
D. People are trained in the act of confrontation and recognize it as necessary tactics.
E. A residual of committed people gathered for a future fight on correlative issues.
F. New leadership emerges to fight on other fronts or to advance a long range program.
In conclusion, positive confrontation has worked and will work again. Our politicians must be evaluated in terms of how they act in terms of confrontational ability, either positive or negative, when faced with Leftist pressure.
Here is what it all boils down to: O-R-I-G-I-N-S
We have two opposing philosophies at work in American politics. It is not Democratic or Republican, it is not a classical liberal or conservative view of constitutional government. Both liberal and conservative adhere to the belief in a constitutional government and the dignity of the individual American. The battle is between those who differ over the origin of man and the extension of programs that each of these views implies. Are we just matter in motion. And, if so, then God is dead and has no relevance in the course of human action. All laws are then man constructed and changeable. Ethics are then situational. On the other hand, if this cosmos in which we live is organized and sensible, the product of a wisdom beyond our finite grasp, and if this world and all of its inhabitants are a part of this infinite wisdom, then it is reasonable to conclude we live in a world of cause and effect, marvelously conceived and miraculous to behold. It is also fair to conclude that such a God would reveal His wisdom to us about the nature of His creation. I believe He has. It is called the Holy Writ, Scripture. Is not the battle in which we are waging the fundamental fight between good and evil, right and wrong and choosing by whose laws we shall live, God or mammon?
NOW HEAR THIS:
We are called upon to take dominion over this earth and no where does it state that it will be an easy task. Dominion requires knowledge of ourselves and those who oppose us.
Confrontation in politics is a fact of life.
Let us now reflect on what has happened in relationship to the Bork confirmation. Let me quote from the press:
“By the time the Senate convened yesterday morning, only three senators had not announced their positions: John Warner, R-Va., William Proxmire, D-Wis., and John Stennis, D-Miss. All three voted against Bork.
“The biggest surprise was Warner, who had been openly agonizing for weeks over the decision. The ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, Warner is almost unfailingly loyal to the Administration.
“But in a brief speech on the Senate floor, he said, Reagan’s recent statement that the opposition to Bork was a “lynch mob” was unbecoming the office of the presidency.”
It is obvious Senator Warner hasn’t got a glimmer of what he is doing. The comments of the Left against Bork was inflammatory compared with the more accurate “lynch mob” statement of a frustrated President Reagan.
Let us see what Senator Ed Kennedy said:
“If we receive a nominee who thinks like Judge Bork, who acts like Judge Bork, who opposes civil rights and civil liberties like Judge Bork, he will be rejected like Judge Bork, just like that!”
Kennedy was already framing the issue on the next Supreme Court nominee! Kennedy is an able practitioner of confrontational politics.
Now, let us see what Senator Strom Thurmond, Senior Republican from South Carolina, stated: “I would recommend they not send someone as controversial.” Strom Thurman is already caving in on the next fight before it has even begun! Senator Thurman is already preparing to retreat before the first shot is fired. Thurman’s knowledge of confrontational politics is abysmal at best, dangerous at worst.
The moral (“take-away”) of the Bork debacle:
There were no residual benefits gained from the entire Bork hearing. All that remained were scars and a retreating Republican Party. Our conservative politicians must understand confrontational politics and be able practitioners of its more positive nature. If they cannot or will not understand, then we better elect some politicians on our side who do.
Enough said. Now, let us end this article with a BANG!…
We cannot afford the luxury of elected representatives who are either unaware or incapable of meeting the Left head on. We need to recapture territory lost. If those in office cannot do it, and show no signs of practicing positive confrontation, then we should remove them post haste. A Republican who just takes up space is worse than no one at all.
Did this article grab you? The whole idea grabbed NPR. On October 20, NPR devoted a series of articles to covering disciples of Richardson. It took NPR over 30 years to figure out who was behind what is going on politically in the heartland. NPR is appalled. See for yourself here.
Pass this article along. Or post it on your blog. Or post a link to it on Facebook. Use this link: https://bit.ly/ConfrontationalPolitics. It deserves wide distribution.
Thanks for reading! I hope you have enjoyed this non-confrontational message of motivation and exhortation for local Christian political action. A word to the wise is MORE than sufficient.