|
Letter to the Wanderer:
Buchanan Can't Win?
Date: November 4, 1999
To: A. J. Matt, Jr., Editor
The Wanderer
Note to Linda: God bless you! Below is a reply I made to a column by James Fitzpatrick in The Wanderer, which proposed that a vote for Pat Buchanan is morally irresponsible(!). I e-mailed it to The Wanderer, but it wasn't published.
Since he left the Republican Party, I'm supporting Pat. But I wouldn't give him a nickel until he did so.
I believe you're right about the NWO. I don't think we'll get another chance to vote on it. One last item. I say the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel daily and sometimes oftener. I have done so since I was a child.
Dear Mr. Matt, Editor - The Wanderer:
You may find the following response to Mr. Fitzpatrick's editorial of interest:
Buchanan Can’t Win?
In a Wanderer editorial (Oct. 28, 1999) titled "The Third Party Option," James K. Fitzpatrick concludes that 1) Buchanan can’t win the Presidency, 2) George W. Bush is better than Albert Gore or Bill Bradley, and 3) a vote for Buchanan may swing the election away from Bush and elect Gore or Bradley; ergo, it is irresponsible to vote for Pat Buchanan.
By the same reasoning, it was irresponsible for King Saul to back David as the champion of Israel against Goliath. It was irresponsible for Constantine the Great and his outnumbered army to fight against the forces of the Emperor Maxientius at the battle of Milvian Bridge. It was irresponsible for Don Pelayo and his mountaineers to fight a Moorish army at Covadonga. It was irresponsible for King Henry V of England to fight the French at Agincourt. It was irresponsible for the discredited Dauphin Charles to back the illiterate peasant from Lorraine, Joan of Arc, against the might of England. It was irresponsible for his Spanish troops and Indian allies to back Cortez against the Aztec emperor Montezuma. It was irresponsible for 600 Knights of St. John and 8,500 other Christian troops to battle 40,000 Turks at Valletta in Malta in 1565. It was irresponsible for the Polish King John Sobieski to fight to relieve Vienna beseiged by an overwhelming Turkish army in 1683. In each case, thanks be to God, ‘the irresponsible choice’ won. "Our help is in the Name of the Lord Who made Heaven and earth."
The Outcome is Uncertain
The truth is that no one knows what the outcome of any contest will be, whether it is a battle, a lawsuit or an election. No one but God knows how the struggle will turn out.
No one but God knows what will happen if Buchanan secures the Reform Party nomination and enters the general election fray. Just days ago, Albert Gore looked like he had the Democratic nomination all sewed up. Since then he’s lost a lot of strength, and Bill Bradley is coming on strong. Clinton standby, Larry Flynt, claims his investigators have ‘the goods’ on George W. Bush, and cocaine use is just a side issue. By election time 2000, Buchanan may be the only viable candidate for morally serious people. Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election with a plurality of votes as the third-party Republican candidate.
Control of the Major Parties
Suppose Mr. Fitzpatrick is right "that there is little doubt that he [George W. Bush] will be better than Gore or Bradley on Supreme Court appointments, partial-birth abortion, tax cuts..." etc.? Bush has already told us that he won’t make abortion a litmus test for his judicial appointments. But what real difference will it make whether Democrat or Republican wins the Presidency if both major political parties are controlled by the same fat cats? Their major party candidates—among them, William Jefferson Clinton—are taking us sooner or later to the same destination: a secular-humanist world government.
World government is the real issue of the 2000 election campaign, and none of the major party candidates is willing to discuss it, or make it a campaign issue. Why not? Because the same fat cats want world government, and don’t want it to become an issue. I’m afraid they will do anything to stop Buchanan rather than let it be discussed and submitted fair and square to the American people in a presidential election campaign.
These are extraordinary times, and call for extraordinary men and extraordinary measures. The major parties are organized apologies for the condition of this country. They made the country what it is, they and their appointees. Only an extraordinary outsider can force them to face the real issue in this campaign.
The Function of Third Parties
That of course is one of the historic functions of third parties in this country: they force the major parties to face and discuss the issues. Third parties have been extraordinarily successful in getting their critiques co-opted by one of the major parties. Anyone familiar with the history of this country knows that is how anti-trust legislation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the income tax, popular election of Senators, Prohibition, and a host of other ‘reforms’ came about: third parties espoused these causes, and finally the major parties adopted them. If third party candidates didn’t win the Presidency, many of their causes triumphed.
Elections determine, of course, who gets the office, but they often determine as well what policy shall govern. Policy is much more important to the American people than who draws the pay for the office. Ask the American farmer, worker and small businessman. The livelihood of a great many Americans is at stake in the year 2000 elections, and probably American freedom as well.
Is Rhetoric Enough?
Mr. Fitzpatrick is no doubt a man of good will. But he does not seem to realize that politicians never give more than they must to get our votes. For 35 years the Republican Party has given lip-service to pro-life, Christian-right, conservative, traditional American voters. In fact, it’s admitted that is exactly what James Deavers and others in the Reagan White House did: they gave pro-lifers, not a constitutional amendment, and not legislation, but rhetoric. Now the Republican National Committee doesn’t even want to give pro-lifers rhetoric. The Republican big-tenters want to strip the call for a pro-life constitutional amendment from the Republican national platform. They support pro-choice Republicans like Christine Whitman of New Jersey, Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, not only against pro-life candidates, but even against pro-life Republican candidates.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Charade
An example: the partial-birth abortion ban. The Republicans have controlled Congress since the 1994 election. They also control how the $1.5 trillion annual federal budget will be spent. Why haven’t they passed a partial-birth abortion ban into law? Because Clinton always vetoes it? NO. Because they are unwilling to reduce the spending that Clinton wants to get him to allow the partial-birth abortion ban to become law. Because both the Republicans and Clinton get what they want from partial-birth abortion. The Republicans get a pro-life campaign issue. Clinton reassures his pro-choice supporters. To get Clinton to allow the partial-birth abortion ban to become law, Repub-licans in Congress only need to make Clinton pay for his veto. Will pro-life Republicans ever see that they are being used?
Voting the Lesser of Two Evils
If the politicians can persuade their followers that they must vote for their candidate because the other party’s candidate is so much worse, that’s all they need to give their followers: a candidate not as bad as the other party’s candidate. Nothing else counts. What happens, as time goes on, is that they give such ‘lesser of the two evils’ voters worse and worse candidates and less and less for their votes. Pardon the expression, that is the reward of the gullible.
The Way Out
The only way to break out of this vicious two-party circle is to vote for candidates who are much better than those the major parties offer us: to reward and reinforce with our support and votes candidates who at least generally represent our views. When no candidate represents my views, I vote for Boabdil el Chico, the last Moorish king of Granada (1492). He won’t shame me.
Albert C. Walsh
David City, Nebraska
aw03954@navix.net
| 
