The Death of the Republican Party?

The Death of the Republican Party?

                Jonathan Capehart recently wrote in The Washington Post (08/12/15) about Donald Trump’s rise in the Republican Party as the party’s demise. I must take issue, not so much with the conclusion, the party may well be dying, but with the apparent assumptions.

                Capehart stated, “The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. [It has] become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly [it has] lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with [Republicans] on every issue.” This statement is seriously flawed because it assumes that principles based in truth are inappropriate to a diverse society. The Republican Party is dividing. However, it is dividing because many within the establishment are beginning to accept Capehart’s misguided ideology. Basically, he goes on to state that inclusion and essentially large group-hugs are the key to a successful society.

                A very large problem arises with inclusion. Looking at the world it is apparent to even the least educated among us that the differences are myriad. Can a country simply drop its boarders and invite everyone to enter? And if they do will they each be allowed to come to that country with their own laws and cultures? Will they bring their own economic systems and education systems? Capehart and others like him are living in a fantasy world. Every society in the world has a legal and economic system. And they are as varied as the life forms that populate our planet.

                Any society must have laws. Immediately upon writing the first law we also have the first disagreement. If I say people cannot do something, invariably there will be another who will disagree with my sentiment. Laws must have a foundation upon which to claim superiority. When we make a law we are saying that this idea is better than another. If we post a stop light at an intersection we are saying that controlling the flow of traffic is better than not controlling it. And there is likely someone who would even disagree with that simple idea. Imagine bringing 87 (nebulous number) different cultures into one area and not having laws. It would be disaster. And waiting to create laws until they all arrive here would be even worse.

                Inclusion is what the United States of America embraces. But not the way Capehart dreams. Coming to the United States as originally envisioned meant inclusion but also change. It was never intended that people of different cultures would establish miniature versions of their homelands here and live within this country in rebellion against it (e.g. Dearborn-istan). Coming here meant living in accordance with our laws. Our forefathers built a constitution of general laws based upon solid moral values. The many other laws they knew would grow from these they fully expected would be patterned after them. They believed in the basic concepts of right and wrong as expressed within the pages of the Bible. It was these concepts of right and wrong based upon the Word of God that were to be the basis of society. Inclusion was expected. But inclusion was intended to be adherence to our laws while maintaining cultural diversity as those laws permitted.

                The Republican Party, which I associate with, does not disdain diversity but we do insist that it remains in compliance with our laws. And that the law remain true to its roots, that every law find its basis in Biblical morality and the Divine Nature. Today society is wanting to camouflage all forms of immorality and indecency under the heading of diversity to make many of us feel out of step or old fashioned or even guilty. Modern society is embracing an archaic platform, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6). It is this departure from the foundations of our heritage which is separating the Republican Party today. It is not the reluctance to embrace multi-culturalism that splits this party, it is the tendency of so many within the party to discard truth and morality for the sake of a single vote.

                If we as a party finally surrender our values in order to win the popular vote, what will we have? Society may be expressed by diversity but it is defined by its law.