I am writing this with a heavy heart. I do not want to criticize Gary DeMar, for I have learned much from him over the years, especially about eschatology, the Christian history of America, and about the Law of God and its validity today. I still hold him in great esteem as one of my teachers.
But I have also observed, in the last several years, Gary’s lapse into neo-conservatism, that particular brand of leftist-socialist thinking that employs conservative-sounding language and has permeated the Republican Party to its detriment. And while some time ago this lapse wasn’t so visible – it was only expressed in publishing and endorsing opinions that can’t be called a better name than “broadly conservative” – and while initially Gary used to keep a neutral stance between the candidates in the Republican Party, I have observed him move steadily to a position of openly endorsing neocon positions on almost everything. I have been asked by regular readers of American Vision, “What’s up with DeMar, why is he taking such position?” but I couldn’t give a better answer than “He’s just trying to be pragmatic.”
There is one problem with pragmatism: When it goes to its logical end, it is indistinguishable from betraying your principles. And I am afraid Gary finally got to that point where his pragmatism reached the point of betraying the very principles he taught many of us. And someone has to say something about it. And I will.
I am talking about his article of today at Godfather Politics, “Why I’m Voting for Mitt Romney and Why You Should Too.” The article is a complete mess. It is an exercise in emotionalism, cheap MSM propaganda, and not so well concealed insults against those who disagree politically with Gary’s choice. What is missing from it is what we are used to see in Gary’s other writings: meaningful arguments and facts. One could be tempted to come to the conclusion that Gary didn’t write it, someone else did it, someone with very poor writing and logical skills, and then published it under Gary’s name.
To start with, Gary knows his main opponents are the Ron Paul supporters, so he doesn’t miss the opportunity to jab at them. He must be really mad at them for he uses language that it quite offensive, even if it doesn’t use pejoratives:
If Romney wins, there will be a coattail effect, but not if disgruntled conservatives and Paulians stay home. . . .
“Paulians.” He means, of course, Ron Paul supporters. At least he didn’t say “Paulbots” or some other insult used by the neocons against the Ron Paul supporters. But “Paulians” seems acceptable enough, and yet, dismissive enough. What is even more insulting is that Gary doesn’t even stop to ask the obvious question: “Why are these Paulians staying home? Could there be a higher principle they are faithful to, and therefore refusing to vote for Romney?” He talks as if the “Paulians” are under obligation to vote for Romney no matter what, and whatever their principle for staying home is, can not be worthy of consideration. So Gary dismisses them, and is ready to blame Romney’s loss on them. Amazingly, he is unwilling to even consider the possibility that Romney himself and the Republican establishment are the very reason for these people staying home. No, the only issue for Gary is whether Romney will win or not, and other people’s moral principles are of no significance, as far as Gary’s political choices are concerned.
But then he continues bashing the Ron Paul supporters:
There are lots of people who believe Ron Paul’s going to get the nomination at the convention. It’s not going to happen. If it were to happen, he would lose bigger in November than Barry Goldwater lost to Johnson in 1964. Paul gave it a good shot. Did he get revolution started? That remains to be seen. But he didn’t win. Get over it for this election.
There are no facts in this. Only opinions which Gary is trying to present as facts. Not even opinions but emotional outbursts. How can he know that Ron Paul can’t win the nomination? How can he know that if he won, he would lose bigger than Barry Goldwater? He can’t. But he is saying this only to show how dismissive and insulting he can be to Ron Paul supporters. He may not be using the specific words, but the logic of his emotional outbursts is this: “You, Ron Paul supporters are idiots. You believe idiotic things. So idiotic, that I don’t need to prove to you you are wrong. I just need to say that ‘it ain’t gonna happen,’ and I’m done with you. And I just need to make an irrelevant historical comparison between two events that have nothing similar between themselves, and leave it at that.”
What is even worse than giving emotional outbursts instead of arguments and facts is that these emotional outbursts are directly taken from the MSM propaganda machine. Gary has no way of proving that Ron Paul can’t win the nomination except to go to CNN, FOX News, ABC, AP, MSNBC etc., and hear their unfair coverage of Ron Paul. The same media who have been saying for two years now that Ron Paul’s campaign is over, and that he stood no chance, and yet he continues to be there, and Romney is afraid of him. These same media elevated one after another Bachmann, Perry (remember that “top-tier”?), Cain, Gingrich, Santorum . . . and where are these media darlings today? And how is Gary on the delegate count? Does he have any specific data? Or does he take his data from the leftist AP? It is very disturbing that a man of Gary’s stature would end up basing his assessments on nothing but the socialist propaganda coming out of the leftist media. Can a Christian leader afford taking such a position?
After he has insulted the Ron Paul supporters bad enough, Gary embarks on a trip to defend Mitt Romney’s reputation:
Some will say that Romney’s just like Obama. That’s nonsense.
Yeah? Says who? We need facts and arguments, Gary, not emotional outbursts. Why is it nonsense, if Steven Deace, not a great fan of Ron Paul himself, documented Romney’s record to show that Romney is actually worse than Obama, on all points. Does Gary show any such documentation to prove his case? Not at all.
But he knows that Romney has become “more conservative now.” How does he know it? By his rhetoric:
Will he remain as conservative as his recent rhetoric seems to indicate? I don’t know.
So, his rhetoric, is it. That’s how we know if a person has become more conservative: by his rhetoric, especially in election time, especially when he needs to woo the conservative vote. Then we can trust his rhetoric, that it is telling us exactly what’s in Romney’s heart. Especially knowing that Romney has no record of flip-flopping at all, on rhetoric. Well we know for sure that he never flip-flopped in his practice; it has always been leftist and Marxist, as Steven Deace’s article quoted above shows. Some Marxists don’t need Marxist rhetoric to do Marxist politics.
Besides, there hasn’t been anything even close to conservative in Romney’s rhetoric. He doesn’t want to repeal Obamacare, only “replace” it. He wants to continue the senseless wars, like other liberals before him. He supports the NDAA and has no plans to dismantle the TSA. He has no plans to reduce government spending; and he has no plans to reduce taxes of borrowing. In all, he is just as Obama, and even worse.
No need to continue arguing about every little point. Gary, unfortunately, is not himself in this article. This article has no arguments, no facts, no sound logic. Only emotional outbursts, and MSM propaganda.
He says at the end, trying to give us some plausible reason to vote for Romney:
If we play this election right, Romney will give us a chance to right the ship of State. Liberals aren’t afraid of making small gains.
But Gary rejects the obvious fact that Romney is a small gain for the liberals, not for the conservatives. He is paid by the same donors who pay Obama. There is no small gain for us in Romney; there is small loss. In fact, I would argue with Steven Deace above that our loss with Romney is greater than our loss with Obama. Gary’s claim that Romney will give us any chances or that he would be a small gain is a product of Gary’s wishful thinking. He has no proof for these claims.
It is amazing, though, that for a Christian author who has for years defended the Constitution as a Christian document, Gary missed a very important moment when Romney exhibited his ignorance of the Constitution and said, “Let’s ask the Constitutionalist here,” that is, Ron Paul. Gary is enthralled by Romney’s cheap babble, as when he attacked Obama on the “You didn’t build that.” Big deal, Romney is not exceptional, thousands of blog writers did a better and prompter job in debunking Obama on that speech. (In fact, Romney’s waiting time was disastrously long and it actually doesn’t speak very well of his ability to think quick.) Or Romney’s cheap attempt at wittiness with Brian Williams which actually had all the characteristics of a well-rehearsed pre-made skit. But how could Gary, the champion of America as it used to be, the champion of the Constitution, miss the fact that Romney doesn’t even know the Constitution and has to ask the only politician who actually knows what it says? And how can Gary not support that unique politician instead of the clueless Romney? I don’t know.
Gary’s only argument is taken from the playbook of the MSM: fear. Anyone but Obama, and you better vote for Romney if you don’t want to have Obama. For one who knows history very well, Gary doesn’t stop to think why we got Obama in the first place. It is because the Republican establishment used the same argument of fear and gave us McCain. The same thing is happening now, and the same argument of fear is used. And Gary just retranslates it for his own audience, the same argument used by the socialist political establishments throughout history. But an argument of fear is not a Christian argument. An argument of principle is the Christian argument. And in this case, no matter how dismissive and insulting Gary wants to be to the Ron Paul supporters, he is standing on a lower moral ground than them: they are based on moral principles, he is based on immoral pragmatism and fear.
A Christian shouldn’t succumb to fear. Besides, we shouldn’t fear an open Marxist like Obama. Those usually fail spectacularly. I lived under Communism, and I saw it fall. It had all the guns, and all the food, and all the tools of production. And it fell. Overt Marxists are easier to deal with: they fail quickly. What we need to avoid is covert Marxists; those that use conservative rhetoric but their practice and views are Marxist. Romney is such a covert Marxist, as evident from his record. If someone is to be feared, it is Romney, not Obama. But fear is not a good councilor. Principle is.
So, no, Gary is wrong. He shouldn’t vote for Romney. He should join those of us who are going to give a good lesson to the Republican Party: either you are returning back to your conservative foundation, or you are dead for all practical purposes. Romney is a liberal, and no matter what conservative rhetoric Gary is eager to find in what Romney says, we shouldn’t vote for a liberal, no matter what arguments of fear or other manipulation the GOP establishment and the MSM are throwing at us. To be faithful to his espoused principles, Gary must support the only Christian candidate, and the only candidate who believes in the Constitution, no matter what his perceived pragmatism tells him. For a Christian, principle must trump pragmatism every time; and pragmatism, when developed to its logical end, becomes betrayal of principles.
To summarize it: Gary DeMar shouldn’t vote for Romney; and neither should you.