My vote

Vile sycophancy goes both ways at VFR. There’s no way I can adequately express my admiration and gratitude for the quality of the comments in this discussion on the presidential election and other VFR discussions. Imagine if mainstream debate in this country were on half as high a level as this.

Some of the most respected and thoughtful VFR commenters have taken the pro-McCain side, and indeed, though in the minority in our poll, they have what seems like the most responsible and mature position, which is, very simply, that we cannot allow this leftist Obama to take over the national government. Even if Obama in alliance with the Democrats would only possibly cause grave harm, we cannot allow that possibility. Further, the very fact of America electing a leftist as president, even before he did anything, would damage and transform American identity in such a way that it could not be recovered.

On the other side, the anti-McCainites, while pointing out the good reasons not to vote for McCain, never quite grapple with the decisive issue: would Obama cause existential harm that McCain would not cause? That issue transcends the otherwise compelling concerns about the badness of McCain.

So looking at it from what seems like the responsible, mature, logical position, the pro-McCainites have the better argument. The obligation to avoid existential harm carries the debate.

But, looked at more deeply, it’s not that simple. There are deeper dynamics at work.

Contrary to what some seem to believe, the defeat of Obama would not deliver America from leftism, would not deliver it from strife and trouble. It would only launch the left—probably led by Obama himself—into an ongoing war against McCain, the man who loves to cooperate with liberals even more than Bush the back-rubber does—McCain, the man who, last evening, 36 hours before the presidential voting was to begin, bragged to a New Hampshire audience of having worked—twice—with Edward Kennedy in failed efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and promised again to make it a top priority of his administration.

As Laura W. has pointed out, the leftist campaign is not going to end but will continue and increase in vociferousness and hatred right through a McCain presidency, and McCain will in many ways eagerly placate and facilitate it, as I and others have discussed many times. The country will thus move further to the left, but with a hamstrung, conflicted, depressed conservative opposition. The grave harm that a liberal Republican president does to conservatism—a theme I have harped on endlessly during the Bush years—will be greatly exacerbated under McCain. Everything that has been ruinous about the Bush regime would be worse with McCain.

Also, McCain is of course far more fanatical and committed to open borders than Obama, and continuing mass Third-World immigration represents the greatest threat of existential harm to the nation.

Apart from immigration, let’s say that Obama tried to do things that would bring existential harm in a way that McCain would not do. It remains the case that under McCain the dynamic will be moving in the same direction, the direction of national dissolution, but without effective conservative opposition.

At the same time, just as a McCain victory will produce an intense leftist reaction, an Obama/Democratic ascendancy will produce an intense conservative reaction. The right half of America is not going turn a blind eye to the leftist doings of Congress under an Obama presidency, as they did so much of the time under Bush and will do under McCain. There will be heightened awareness, knowledge, resistance. There will be will and energy in the face of a mortal threat.

If we don’t believe in the possibility of such resistance, then we really don’t believe in the possibility of America fighting to save itself, and therefore a vote for McCain simply becomes a vote to go over the cliff at 60 miles an hours instead of at 90. Give us a few more years, the McCainites seem, unintentionally, to be saying, let this cup pass from us, let the curtain fall later, not now.

But maybe there is no time, however strong our wish to put off the ruin. The crisis will come, the crisis is coming, the crisis is already upon us. In the case of Obama, the crisis will take the form of explicitly leftist and anti-American programs and policies. In the case of McCain, it will take the form of the fatal hollowing out of whatever remains of conservatism, softening us up even further for when a leftist Democrat is elected in four or eight years. So if there is to be a crisis, it seems to me that it would be better to let it come now, rather than later. If we fail, we fail. But if we fail, we would surely have failed anyway, and a McCain presidency would not have changed that, but would only make the ultimate failure more likely.

As I have said from the start, I say again now: a non-vote for McCain is a vote for life and hope. It is an expression of faith in America, in our ability to prevail. A vote for McCain means surrender to the feeling that we can’t fight, surrender to the belief that we’re helpless to oppose our adversaries.

In Rick Darby’s outstanding comment, under the heading “worst case for �€˜pro-Obama’ (i.e. worst case for a non-McCain vote), he writes:

.Worst case scenario: Obama’s pathological wizardry triumphs. He has his hands on too many levers of power, too much patronage, too many nominations for judicial and executive posts for any stirred-up rebellion to overcome. Conservatives give up, turn into apathetic, Britain-style grumblers.

That last phrase says so much, gets it so right, both as a description of Britain and as a worst-case scenario for us. But to go with this argument, meaning, to vote for McCain on the basis that an Obama presidency will so triumph over and transform America that nothing will be left of conservatism but “apathetic, Britain-style grumblers,” is to go with an argument from weakness. It is to say that American conservatives are already in effect beaten. And if that’s true, then it’s over anyway, for conservatism and for any recognizable America. And we—those of us who are not beaten—ought to become aware of that fact now, and start looking for a destiny outside the structure of the historic United States of America.

But I don’t think it’s over, for conservatism or America. The increasingly intense opposition to Obama by conservatives in recent weeks and months as they have come to understand the true extent of his leftism shows that if Obama is elected, the fight against him will continue.

So, coming from my reason, heart, and gut, I refuse to vote for McCain, and in refusing to vote for him I vote for life and a chance of life, rather than for what seems to me the certainty of slow, or even not-so-slow, death.

For whom then will I vote? While I was disappointed in his presidential candidacy last year, because it focused too much on illegal immigration and not on legal immigration and the culture issue as a whole, Tom Tancredo is still the U.S. politician who is most clearly a traditionalist, the one who understands that America and the West are concrete and transcendent entities, not abstract universalist ideas. Further, there is nothing wacky about him, he doesn’t take his dissent from neoconservatism so far as to oppose necessary measures for national defense such as the Patriot Act, or to suggest that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attack. He is a sound, rational, and moral man. I will cast a write-in vote for him.

- end of initial entry -

James N. writes:

What would you do if, like me, you lived in New Hampshire, where the outcome hangs by a thread?

I assume you vote in NY, where it probably doesn’t matter how you vote (at least in terms of the outcome).

LA replies:

I’ve said before that my vote is not dependent on whether I live in a solid blue-or-red state or in a battleground state.

However, given how difficult this decision was (and my posted comment does not given any idea how terribly difficult it was), I can’t say with absolute certainty that that would not have been a consideration. Meaning, it is possible that if I were in New Hampshire, a small state on which the outcome of the election could hang by a few votes, the balance of factors in my mind might have come out differently.

However, as far as my conscious intention was concerned, I was not considering whether my vote would “count” or not. I was voting the way I felt I would vote whatever state I lived in.

Mark A. writes:

Kudos to you. A vote for McCain is a surrender to apathy. It is a sign of weakness. One last cry for the nurse to bring more anesthesia before darkness descends. A John McCain victory would merely result in white America resting on its laurels for another four to eight years as the country slides further and further towards South American-style despotism and class division. I’ll take a wolf rather than wolf in sheep’s clothing. If Obama has hell in store for us, then let’s have it straight. The most powerful weapon that evil wields is that of deception. Eight years of a man like McCain that the Right believes is on their side will result in more existential damage to our cause than anything that Obama can throw our way.

Bobby writes:

Thank you for your intelligent discussion of the election and your rational decision not to support McCain. It was a principled decision which reflected your character. However, I must ask, why not endorse Chuck Baldwin for President? He is a principled defender of our Constitution and is actually running for election to the presidency?

LA replies:

I recognize the argument that a vote for Baldwin is meaningful in that all the Baldwin votes will be seen as a cohesive body of conservatives who refuse to vote for McCain, whereas a write-in vote like mine has zero impact and visibility.

However, I could not vote for Baldwin given his opposition to the Patriot Act, his at least flirting with the 9/11 truthers, and his general libertarianism which is of a type I dislike, though of course there is much in common as well. Not that it’s wrong to oppose something, but the overheated arguments against the Patriot Act have been terribly irresponsible and destructive. The Patriot Act was for our nation’s defense from terrorists, and was not the threat to liberty its opponents said it was Every time I looked at these charges, there was nothing there.

The problem with 9/11 truthers speaks for itself.

So, for the same reason that I couldn’t vote for McCain, I couldn’t vote for Baldwin: one’s vote is an expression of one’s principles and beliefs; it’s not just a vote for the less bad of two bads.

Further, the 200,000 or so votes that the Constitution Party (formerly the U.S. Taxpayer’s Party) has gotten in each presidential election has not actually had any effect at all on Republican attitudes and politics. The vote would have to get much bigger than it’s been. Therefore by not voting for Baldwin, I don’t feel I am hurting anything practical, while in voting for Tancredo I am voting for someone who is in keeping with my principles.

Stewart W. writes:

Thank you for the particularly outstanding discussion you’ve had on VFR over the last few days. If nothing else, it has allowed me to see that there are a few sane people left in the world, and to keep heart that your prediction is true and that we Men of the West may rally yet.

Well, now there’s nothing left to do but vote, and get ready for life on the other side of the Looking Glass.

Mark Jaws writes:

There is a world of difference between contemptuous vile sycophancy and the genuine admiration and affection your readers have for you.

Mark P. writes:

Good article on how you are voting.

Tom Tancredo would’ve been a great choice.

Alex K. writes:

I must say I was greatly heartened to read that you plan to write in Tancredo. So did I. I thought about Baldwin, but I just felt that if you’re going to vote obscure, do it with your heart, and Tancredo expresses my position more than anyone else. Besides, I didn’t get a chance in the primaries.

LA writes:

Right. If you’re going to vote obscure, vote your heart and beliefs. Otherwise what’s the point? To vote obscure for a person you have major problems with makes no sense.

Terry Morris writes:

I wish I could join you in casting a write-in vote for Tancredo, but on the Oklahoma ballot this simply is not possible. I will, therefore, abstain in the presidential election.

Taffy G. writes:

Our only hope may be Palin reining in McCain.

LA replies:

Taffy appears to be convinced that McCain is about to win the election. There are various commentators and analysts who have made that point, and who have substantive arguments to back it up. But they are in a tiny minority, their predictions require that essentially ALL the polls are wildly far off, and so they are hard to credit. Are we in for a Dewey-Truman upset to the nth power? Ok, anything is possible. But I don’t think so.

Robert B. writes:

Extremely well put, Lawrence.

I have agonized over this myself all day long. The time has come and the hour draws near. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for McCain, I simply cannot do it.

I have decided to vote for Chuck Baldwin. I want my vote to register, I want my vote to mean something. I will vote the straight Republican ticket after that. I simply could not live with Al Franken as “my” senator.

Thank you, Lawrence, for all you have done this past year and especially in the last several months over this issue. I truly feel you made a difference, somehow.

But I confess, I have a heavy heart this night—as if I must go to a funeral tomorrow or I have lost a friend. I am frightened, not so much for myself, but for my children and their children and what the future holds for those of us who see what this is and what is happening. I cannot even being to understand what the “baby boomers” have done to this nation in my lifetime—my forty-nine years. I cannot make sense out of it to my children who are just as conservative as myself, just as much staunch traditionalists as you are.

Without our traditions, without our past, we are nothing as a people, mere chaff in the wind. But I guess that is the Left’s goal, now isn’t it?

As always,
Robert B.

November 4

Ryder (see his essay on his he’s voting here) writes:

Compelling essay, and I certainly respect your refusal to vote for McCain. I consider your analysis to be spot on.

A few months ago, before the prospect of an Obama presidency became “real” in my mind, I could not have imagined a vote for McCain. I just assumed that I would vote third party, as is standard for me. I don’t buy the lesser of two evils argument, and never have. Following that argument just encourages evil.

The crisis is indeed coming, and as you point out, it is already here. Four to eight years of slowly boiling the white frog under McCain will get us nowhere that we want to go. Four to eight years of hollowing out and neutering what remains of genuine conservatism will get us nowhere that we want to go. As terrible as it will be, I agree that our long term chances are probably better under Obama.

However, I will still vote for McCain. At this point, while symbolism is a major part of my motivation, it increasingly boils down to denying a mandate to Obama. Assuming Obama wins, I want his margin to be as small as possible. I don’t like to engage in such tortuous logic (as opposed to the clear linear approach that I am more comfortable with), but I think at this point it is legitimate to see a vote for McCain as simply an anti-Obama vote and not a vote “for” McCain per se. I am not trying to deny Obama the presidency. I am trying to deny him a Reaganesque mandate. I may be the only voter casting my vote for the candidate that I hope doesn’t win!! This is not normally how I would make such a decision, but then, these aren’t normal times. The agonizing that so many of us have gone through in making our respective decisions should be proof of that. If somehow the election came down to my vote, and I ended up putting McCain in the White House, I would not be a happy camper. I really don’t want him in there. Instead, I’m voting for the symbolism and, more tangibly, to reduce Obama’s mandate. This is new to me, because I have never really been a “strategic” voter before.

Transatlantic Conservative writes:

“And we—those of us who are not beaten—ought to know that now, and start looking for a destiny outside the structure of the historic United States of America.”

I have only arrived in this country from Europe in 2002, because Europe was going down the socialist drain. Only to find US conservatives like you suggest another emigration??

Where to? I can’t see any country at all, where things would go any less bad than in the US …

LA replies:

I don’t mean a physical emigration but more of a separation within, for example, the building of separate communities, or perhaps secession. The point is, at a certain point America may become so leftist politically or so alien culturally and morally that it ceases to represent us as our country. There are readers who are always urging a movement of secession of conservatives/whites, and I’ve always been against that or said that it’s too soon to think about that, it’s too soon to give up on the U.S. Here I’m acknowledging that that day may come sooner than I had previously allowed. I’m not saying that it has come or that it will come. I’m saying that it may come.

November 4

MGH writes:

Bravo! I am glad that you decided to stand firm. Remember the words of the Patriot, Thomas Paine, in The American Crisis 1: “Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;” and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.”

You are correct that we should vote with our heart if we are going to vote for a third party candidate, so I too will write in Tom Tancredo, instead of voting for Barr just because he is on the Arizona ballot. It’s possible McCain may not carry Arizona anyway; if not that would be quite satisfying.

I leave you with the words of another Patriot, John Adams, who said, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

Thanks for your outstanding thought leadership.

Richard B. writes:

All of that agonizing and you’re back to square one. I think you did the right thing. If McCain wins, I’m sure I’ll be sorry I voted for him. Ergo, only an Obama victory can ease my conscience. Then again, if people can raise their voices loud enough, I think McCain will listen. I’m sure Obama will not listen, and will suppress dissent like never before. Whatever happens, we’re going to need your view from the right.

Bob B. writes:

At the very last second, I voted for McCain. However when I read “My Vote,” “In My Heart, I knew you are right.” This is going to change America forever, and I fear the future! I believe when you said we need to “start looking for a destiny outside the structure of the historic United States of America.” You predict the fate of the nation’s future. This is hard for me to believe or take without anger and dread, but I know big unwanted “CHANGE” is on the way. I will end by saying, “GOD BLESS AMERICA” but I doubt we will be saying this very often soon, also.

P.S. I feel lost.

Mitch W. writes:

Given that you don’t vote for president, but rather for electors you vote won’t even be counted. Since Tancredo has no recognized electors, the Board of Elections simply throws your ballot in the trash. You may feel good, but you might as well vote for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

LA replies:

I cast a similar write-in vote (for Tancredo) in 2004, and I’ve made the point myself that such a write-in vote has no legal reality. But it does, as a publicly declared vote by me, have a political reality.

James P. writes:

“the defeat of Obama would not deliver America from leftism, would not deliver it from strife and trouble. It would only launch the left—probably led by Obama himself—into an ongoing war against McCain,”

We know we’re in an all-out war with Leftism anyway, no matter who wins. That war will NEVER end—there will NEVER be “final victory” over the left. Is it better to fight the next four years of battles when you control at least one of the three branches of government, or none of them?

“the leftist campaign is not going to end but will continue and increase in vociferousness and hatred right through a McCain presidency, and McCain will in many ways eagerly placate and facilitate it, as I and others have discussed many times.”

The leftist campaign against traditional America will continue under Obama, with his enthusiastic support. He, too, will facilitate it! He knows where his power comes from, and it is NOT “traditional America”—those folks who “cling to their guns and Bibles.”

“McCain is of course far more fanatical and committed to open borders than Obama,”

What is the evidence for this? Has Obama said anything even remotely anti-open borders or anti-immigration? Is there any reason to believe that Obama will not smile benignly as the floodgates remain open, knowing that each immigrant is a potential vote for him? [LA replies: I didn’t say that Obama was not in favor of open borders, only that he does not talk about it much and does not express the intense commitment to the issue that McCain does.]

“If we don’t believe in the possibility of such resistance, then we really don’t believe in the possibility of America fighting to save itself,”

I don’t see why resistance should be impossible if McCain wins but not Obama. If McCain wins, I’m not conceding conservative doom from the outset and “giving up” on America. If conservatives are so flaccid that they can’t force an ostensibly friendly Republican back on track, what hope do they have to change the mind and policy of a bitter overt enemy (a Democrat)? [LA replies: It’s not a matter of Republicans being too flaccid to fight a liberal Republican president, but rather of their instinctively identifying with a liberal Republican president. Our sad starting point, which I’ve decried endlessly, is the reality that Republicans and conservatives, because they reflexively support a Republican president, will reflexively support him even if he’s a liberal. They will only oppose liberalism strongly and consistently if it comes in the person of a Democrat. I wish it weren’t that way, but it is that way.]

I fully understand that McCain is not a friend to conservatism and must be treated with suspicion from day one. However, I think his liberal impulses can be more easily constrained than those of Obama IF conservatives are smart enough to deal with him, from the very beginning, with a clear understanding of what he is.

Irwin Graulich writes:

I love Tom Tancredo as well. I agree that McCain is a disaster for conservatives and Republicans. However, President Obama will probably do irreparable damage to America. Also, Obama is very convincing and will make sure that many Americans believe that all the bad things which occur during the next four years are remnants of the Bush administration/Republicans, while anything good that happens, he will obviously take credit for, including the newly designed Apple computer. The herd of sheep in America will most likely believe him. That is the real danger.

Since the economy is so horrible today, it will almost certainly improve somewhat—even if my dog were president. Well, guess who will take all of the credit? Barack “Houdini” Obama, that’s who. I want McCain to win—but I want the Republican party to redefine itself and re-brand itself over the next four years to show that McCain is outside of the Republican mainstream and he will definitely NOT be nominated in 2012. Maverick, my behind; he is an old fart whose brain got totally messed up by the torture he suffered. That is the main reason why he is such a big compromiser—even with Ted Kennedy, the murderer! [LA replies: What you’re saying is that during a McCain presidency, Republicans will oppose McCain and remake the party as a non-McCainite, conservative party! Everything we know about human history, everything we know about human psychology in general and about Republican psychology in particular, and all recent experience suggests that this cannot happen.]

A President McCain would position a real conservative like Newt, Tancredo or Alan Keyes in 2012. I think that is a much better strategy than what you proposed—although I fear that the Obama herd mentality is unstoppable today. I guess we will just have to deal with it—just like other countries who have had some left wing semi-dictators take power for awhile.

JAM writes:

Perfectly and completely done, Lawrence.

It is ironic, or perhaps ridiculous, that some few people go to such lengths to do the very best they can for an election, while the vast number of voters will not.

Civilization is kept by small numbers of people, and it is keeping civilization to which you are attending, not voting.

RB writes:

As a “foot soldier” in the war against amnesty, I yield to no one in my distaste for McCain. However, he is an enemy that we know how to fight; we beat him once and we can do it again. We can count on the support of a number of blue dog Democrats against any McCain amnesty proposal; but will they dare oppose the Magic Negro on this? We also know that there are some limits beyond which McCain won’t go. With Obama there is no such assurance; he far exceeds the usual liberal that the Democrats have always foisted on us. His new plan for a civilian national security force is one example. For those old enough to remember Papa Doc, it is chillingly reminiscent of the “ton ton macoutes.” Might we also expect an attack on conservative Internet sites for promoting “hate speech” in addition to the return of the fairness doctrine?

I also believe that we don’t have to undergo the torture of an Obama presidency in order to reform and revitalize the conservative opposition. This whole campaign and the very prospect of a white hating Marxist has raised the consciousness of many complacent conservatives; we just have to make sure that we keep the pressure up and build on that momentum. Given these considerations, I will be voting for McCain.

Spencer Warren writes:

I voted for McCain while looking only at Sarah’s name.

LA replies:


That sounds like,

“Lie back and think of England.”

Spencer Warren replies:

I have to say McC disgusts me more every day.

Donna E. writes:

Thank you for this most insightful view of this never ending cycle of election season ‘08 for President.

It is not conservative thinkers who are at fault for our lack of good government, it is the Christian community that can’t seem to view our government responsibilities as their own. Many Christians seem to have a world view that makes them question the need to participate in anything “political.” So we have lost our culture by default. Seems as though we have not cared enough to teach our children love of country, so we are surprised when they kill each other and grow up to hate their country and all it stands.

Terry Morris writes:

For the very first time since I’ve been voting I left a portion of my ballot blank, as did my wife, namely the presidential section. And to top it all off we took our eleven year old daughter with us who pointedly asked early this morning whether she might be allowed to go with us to learn more about the voting process in order to better prepare her for good citizenship once she comes of age. She and I read the ballot together, discussed the various candidates, reasoned through the state questions on the ballot and our decision for or against, etc. I let her “complete the line” (as is the method on Oklahoma ballots) for the candidate that we decided on in the individual races, as well as on the state questions. She filled out my entire ballot from start to finish. We rechecked the ballot once finished for any inadvertent mistakes. Once satisfied there were no mistakes, and that we were sure we wanted to leave the presidential section unmarked as originally intended, we fed the ballot through the machine for processing. Afterward we discussed voter fraud and how to prevent it, as well as the secret ballot.

A great lesson in civics!

LA writes:

Richard B. wrote: “All of that agonizing and you’re back to square one.”

But it’s not square one. Over the last few weeks and months we’ve learned a lot about Obama’s radical leftist record, associations, and agenda we didn’t know before. That, plus a generally greater cognizance of what he was about, forced me to re-think. The decision I’ve made now is a different decision from the one I made before, because it involved taking in the fact that Obama wants, for example, to turn America’s young people into recruits for a left-fascist alliance of government and community organizers. I had to deal with the possibility that Obama may really do great damage to America that will never be undone. I ultimately returned to my original position not to vote for McCain, but it was by far the most difficult decision on a non-personal matter I’ve ever made in my life.

Mack writes:

I applaud you on your choice in the presidential race—your choice to write in a man like Tancredo whom you believe holds to a set of ideals and values most closely aligned to your own is a noble choice. In fact, I was surprised—I had almost conceded to the idea that you might somehow have brought yourself to vote for McCain.

If only everyone were as reasoned and meticulous in their deliberations as you, those of us (like myself) who feel more motivated by pragmatic concerns would feel freer to vote as our interests and conscious truly dictate. Instead, we feel as though we need to hedge and compromise ourselves in favor of the idea that a vote for the evil of two lessors is in fact the truest available expression of our interests.

You know I don’t agree with the traditionalist perspective on every issue (or 50 percent for that matter) and I’m sure that you could make a reasonable guess as to why I wouldn’t vote for the Constitution Party. I know many people who voted for Baldwin primarily on the merits of the CP’s position on immigration and despite (what I know to be true) disagreeing deeply and fundamentally with much of the rest of the CP’s platform. This kind of a decision is no better than the ones that many of us made when only considering the two major party candidates.

I’m going to the Obama mega-rally (hard to miss this, not as a supporter, but simply for the pure spectacle that it will be)—maybe I’ll have some interesting stories!

So, once again—bravo—if only a plurality of people would follow your fine example.

Rocco DiPippo writes:

This is one of the most beautifully written, thoughtful pieces I’ve read in a long, long time.

Were it not for the existence of Muslim psychopaths with nuclear weapons in hand I’d be in total agreement with your decision, and I completely agree with your points. Since I began writing back in 2004, I concluded that the poisonous left had burrowed far too deeply into our cultural institutions to ever be removed, except through force of arms. Consider the fact that younger Americans don’t read, they just watch and passively absorb stuff—no active mental engagement required. Everywhere you look now there is a screen or a glossy rag or a headline or a song or a textbook or piece of clothing or some idiot actor or teacher expressing a bit of self-hating leftist b.s. The cumulative effect is a veritable “Wall of Sound” of nihilism being blasted from sea to shining sea. And it has been going on for a long time now. Gramsci had it right. No social system can survive self hatred—ours won’t.

Have you spoken with any 20 to 30-somethings lately? I have. Most know nothing about the Great Books, nothing of philosophy, very little about European and American History, except that white folks killed non-white folks to steal their stuff. They seem pathologically incapable of thinking critically, but they’re pretty good at parroting the tripe spewed out to them by the culture commissars.

I think we’re truly screwed either way in this election, as you so eloquently point out. My attitude though, the one that keeps me attacking the Commie swine, is best reflected in the last sentence of a Churchill quotation:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

I think this quotation also describes well why conservatives now have their backs to the wall in America. They let the name-calling left shape the culture game for 40 years when they could have squashed leftists like bugs by simply standing up to their infantile, name-calling, vilification of Good with a simple, and mighty “[Expletive deleted].”

A final thought: America’s slide has a lot to do with its trivialization of God. Look up at a clear sky some night when you’re out in the country, away from all lights, and tell yourself there isn’t a God. And nope, he’s not Obama.

Vincent Chiarello, a former U.S. diplomat and activist with ANCIR (American Council for Immigration Reform), writes:

Caro Lorenzo,


I write to describe an event that I wanted you to know about: voting today.

By the time we visited our local polling place, I still had not made up my mind, as many conservatives have not, about the lesser of the two evils approach, and, thereby, casting my vote for McCain. But I had read of his recent talk in New Hampshire about “comprehensive immigration reform,” and I knew that I would be supporting a man who, despite his war record, seeks to alter the nation by legalizing 20 million miscreants and lawbreakers on “the path to citizenship.” When I entered the booth, I decided I could not, in good conscience, vote for the man, so I typed in the name of my “write-in candidate:” T-O-M T-A-N-C-R-E-D-O.

When I returned and began looking at your website, I laughed out loud when I saw how you had voted. What is that about, “Great minds think alike”?

LA wrote to Rocco DiPippo:

Thank you very much, Rocco.

The “FU” near the end of your comment produced something of an editorial problem for me, until I figured out a solution. You can see it in the thread.

Rocco DiPippo replies (November 4, 11:30 p.m.)

Larry, I just started my day (it’s 6:20AM here) by falling off the couch laughing my a** off after reading my comment on your site. Thanks a million, man—you have lifted my spirits on what now looks to be a dark day.

November 5

Carl P. writes:

I always thought your analyses were thoughtful, but this time you thought yourself into a hole in which you have brought to power those who will deny you the ability to regain power. This is a transforming event, and you can’t just go back and undo it after some conservative time in the wilderness finding itself. Just like Chavez and Morales, the Left means to fundamentally alter this nation.

LA replies:

You’re that sure that Obama has the intention and the ability to turn America into an unfree, European-type country, and that we can’t stop it?

But if we’re that weak in the face of the left, how could we EVER ultimately hold out against them?


See VFR debate on the 2008 election, a eollection.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 03, 2008 09:27 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):