A typically thoughtful essay by Hadley Arkes on what Newt Gingrich left out of a recent speech. Here's a sampling:
“My late professor Leo Strauss, in his commentary on Machiavelli, drew attention to Machiavelli’s silences and omissions. He offered this rule of interpretation: When a wise man is silent on a matter that is regarded, in common opinion, as a matter of importance, he gives us to understand that, in his own judgment, it is not that important after all. Newt has made it clear that when it comes to leading the Republicans back, their appeal to the broad electorate should not mention these vexing issues of abortion and marriage.”
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/06/abortion-marriage-and-future-of.html
steve said...
At one level I agree with the criticism. However, let's remember that we can only elect candidates who run for office. There's a limited value in those who never run for office, but are always quick to find fault with those who do. There's a limited value in saying what a better job you could do in office if you always delegate the job to someone else. Failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/06/abortion-marriage-and-future-of.html#2571373096760595045
Comment has been blocked.
Splitting the vote between two different parties would dilute the influence of Christians within a given party. At that point, Christians would just be one more lobby, competing with others for attention.
ReplyDeleteComment has been blocked.
A bad thing. The whole point of participation in a political party is to use the party as a vehicle to extend or amplify your political influence.
ReplyDelete