This is big. Howard Ahmanson, the California philanthropist, religious conservative and personal friend of Your Working Boy, has announced that he has left the GOP and become a Democrat. Here is his column:
WHY I REGISTERED DEMOCRATBy Howard Ahmanson
About six weeks ago, I, a known leader of the Religious Right in California, decided to reregister in the Democratic Party. Why did I do this?
Well, I think I was reading about the budget struggles and threatened purges in the Legislature, and I was getting more and more tired and disgusted of it, and I realized that, had I been a Republican assemblyman, I could have hardly escaped being purged myself. The Republican Party of the State of California seems to have decided to narrow itself down to one article of faith, which may be described as NTESEBREE: No Tax Shall Ever Be Raised Ever Ever.
Now, I'm concerned about this constant tax ratcheting, but I don't think this is the answer. The Democratic Party in California, however, is now so big and diverse and all-inclusive that it has ABSOLUTELY NO PRINCIPLES WHATSOEVER. The Hollywood and San Francisco establishments within the Party may hold to some pretty detestable principles, but the party as a whole?
I have not changed any of my opinions. There is not a single right-wing opinion I hold that some section of the Democratic Party doesn't support it. Opposed to "marriage equality" and freewheeling abortion rights? A lot of Democrats of color will agree. And also many of them will agree on the importance and social justice of vouchers and tax credits for non-government schools. Opposed to fiscal irresponsibility? A lot of Silicon Valley Democrats will probably agree. Opposed to "urban redevelopment" schemes that run small business and residents out of the way for the benefit of the politically important? Got a high view of property rights? Lots of Democrats, including Robert Cruickshank and Senate President Darrell Steinberg, agree with me to a considerable degree.
I describe myself as a "social conservative, an economic moderate," and to a considerable extent a property libertarian. By "economic moderate" I mean that the philosophy of "starve the beast" has failed. The beast will feed welfare and pork and starve infrastructure. If we want to confront irresponsible spending, we have to confront it directly. We have to confront directly the issue of the role of government and what we want it to do and not do. And when we do want government to do something, we want it to have enough money to be able to do what it does pretty well (at least considering it's a government), but we have to fight the mentality of entitlement. The whole mentality entitlement is dangerous. The nearest thing we have to entitlements are property rights, and they are to defined things that actually exist. And all other rights, in the end, depend on property rights; freedom of speech, religion, and press is freedom in a place, or it is nothing. I am not one to radically abolish all welfare programs, as I was in my wild youth - and Social Security and Medicare are welfare, whether you like it or not - but the attitude of entitlement, especially to resources that may not even clearly exist, makes it impossible to pursue any kind of a rational fiscal policy.
I may have made a rash move, in that it will be hard for me to find Democrats that I can actually support - there probably are some, though; social conservatives in the inner city, Democrats with an open mind to vouchers and tax credits and in other ways willing to confront the public sector union beast (I don't consider private-sector unions, for the most part, a serious enemy nowadays), Democrats open to fiscal sanity, Democrats open to property rights rather than "urban redevelopment" social engineering schemes out of City Hall. And by the grace of God, there probably are some!
Wow. Just, wow. My friend gives this social conservative/economic moderate/small-is-beautiful-traditionalist something to think about. When a religiously observant billionaire finds he has more in common with black and Hispanic Democrats who share his religious and social conservatism than he does with the Republican Party, you know something big is up.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Sigaliris,
"the Discovery Institute"
So the Discovery Institute is now some insidious organization? Give me a break.
"the Episcopalian schism"
The Bible clearly commands that orthodox believers separate from heretics. This has been a long time coming and is a welcome development.
That said, Ahmanson is making a huge mistake. If he is dissatisfied with the GOP, which he should be, then he should join the Constitution Party (the American Independent Party in California) instead of the Dems.
What happened to my name? The above post was by Red Phillips.
Mr. Ahmanson has performed a great service to America. Now that he has switched his considerable support to compassion on the "other side of the aisle," we may discover some Democrats who are seeking to serve more than their own interests. That appears to be a motivation for this notorious shift.
Rather than dispute his reasons, I applaud Mr. Ahmanson for shifting attention from labels and political parties to the values that are most obscured by special causes. May he find those lone voices within the "party of choice" who actually speak in behalf of the unborn (and for GOD). May those courageous Democrats who risk public outcry, now become more effective in their fight to strengthen personal responsibility as a national virtue. May his influence even displace those in government that manipulate crises into greater dependencies upon their power.
Regarding his socially conservative agenda, Mr. Ahmanson may reap an unexpected harvest as his new partners realize that it is GOD's standards that he seeks to honor, rather than his own. Oh, how this nation needs to wake up and recognize what is at stake in eternity!
Ahmanson has shown us that commitment to just causes transcends party affiliation. We should all respect that. He is clear in his beliefs; he is focused in his intentions. I applaud his courage and his vision.
There's another way to look at this. True conservatives are sick & tired of waiting for the GOP to wake up. If large numbers of Republicans followed suit and became Democrats the percentage of liberal Democrats would be mathematically reduced, while the status quo of the GOP would be destroyed.
In the New Testament book of Revelation God tells the lukewarm churches that He wishes they were either hot or cold. But because they are lukewarm He says he will "vomit them out of His mouth".
There's something about moderates that truly does tend to make one sick. They are not leaders. They tend to follow the largest group, regardless of where that group is going, etc.
Rush asks his audience from time to time: "Where are the history books that were written to praise the achievements of moderates?" Answer: There are none.
In my opinion, the GOP, as a party, has become lukewarm.
If a large group of conservatives switched their affiliation from Republican to Democrat, it could very well change the face of politics in America.
I do not believe that switching to a struggling third party would have nearly the same effect as fracturing a Democrat party that is currently being run by it's more radical liberal members.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.