by Ed Berry
This subject is at the heart of the true battle for America’s freedom. If a sufficient number of voters adopt the erroneous belief that there is no significant difference between Republicans and Democrats, or between Romney and Obama, then their votes can truly cause the loss of freedom in America.
This is not a personal attack on Dr. Chuck Baldwin. In fact, I recommend Chuck Baldwin’s book “Romans 13“, co-written by attorney and House District 4 candidate Tim Baldwin, to everyone, especially to preachers.
This is a rebuttal to Chuck Baldwin’s article “A look at how Democrats and Republicans differ” and here which summarizes the extreme political positions of many tea party folks and Ron Paul supporters.
In this rebuttal, I will quote statements from Chuck Baldwin’s article and present my comments after them.
Here are the statements that I challenge.
1. “No matter which of the two major parties in Washington, D.C., is in power, the freedoms and liberties of the American people continue to be eroded.”
Comment: Indeed, beginning with George H. W. Bush, all presidents have presided over a “loss” of our liberty, and Republicans have grown government and reduced individual freedom since 1787. Some growth is needed as our population gets larger. But this focus misses the important point in comparing the major parties.
The important question is: Which major party offers the most hope and practical solutions to the conservative goals of the American people?
This question cannot be answered with a generality. A good researcher looks at details. What does it mean to “be in power“? Does it mean to control the Presidency, or Congress, or both? Does it mean to control the courts?
Look at recent votes: 34 Senate Republicans blocked the Democrats’ Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). All Democrats and 14 Republicans were for it. While the Republicans did not score 100%, neither did they score 0% like the Democrats. One less Republican vote and LOST would have been part of America’s further loss of liberty.
Similarly, if you want to get rid of Obamacare, then elect at least 4 more Senate Republicans and Mitt Romney as president. If you want to rebuild America’s energy generation capabilities then vote Republican. If you think we can power America with wind turbines, vote Democrat.
In summary, to make our best decisions, we must look at details rather a generality that hides important details. The details prove there is an enormous difference between Republicans and Democrats, and between Romney and Obama.
Statement (1) has 4 major problems:
- It does not identify or define the real issues and problems, which are hidden in the details.
- It does not define “liberty” and its application in context of our complex society. Where there are no definitions, there can be no reference or logical conclusion.
- As a generality, it leads to a bad solution. If my car won’t start, the generality would say junk my car. The details might say replace the battery.
- It prevents a good solution by preventing votes for a good Republican candidate … forever!
2. “Where they [the Rs and the Ds] are similar is in the fact that neither of them has any interest in preserving liberty.”
Comment: This statement takes the factual but general statement (1) and turns it into a general conclusion, like my car won’t start so I will junk it. Drawing a general conclusion from a general statement can lead to incorrect conclusions, and it does here.
Statement (2) says because the Bush regimes have removed some American liberties, therefore all Republicans have no “interest in preserving liberty.” This is wrong and illogical. Many Republicans are very interested in preserving our liberty as is demonstrated by their individual votes.
Statement (2) contains the logical fallacy called “hasty generalization.” Wikipedia says:
This fallacy is also known as the fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, generalization from the particular, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, law of small numbers, unrepresentative sample, and secundum quid.
An example is a person travels through a town for the first time. He sees 10 people, all of them children. The person then concludes that there are no adult residents in the town.
Statement (2) also contains the logical fallacy called “glittering generality” in its use of “liberty”. Wikipedia states:
Many political words are abused. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.
Statement (2) erroneously presumes “liberty” is universally defined and there is only one way to apply principles of natural and constitutional law within society.
Even the founding fathers varied in their understanding of liberty and government. Some proposed a monarchical government. Some felt a Democratic Republic would be a detriment, not an attribute, of liberty. They were statesmen who saw the applications of natural law differently than their fellow Americans but who wanted the same thing as their opponents: liberty and freedom.
To properly discuss “liberty” we must first accurately identify the details of “liberty” and how it applies today. Statement (2) does not do this and therefore it is meaningless to real politics.
3. “Until the American people awaken to this reality [of Statement (2)], whatever freedoms we have left in this country are doomed.”
Comment: Statement (3) is not valid because
- It depends upon Statement (2) which is invalid.
- Even if the people were so “awakened”, what then? We still must make the best choices when we vote. We still must work with a large group of voters to elect good representatives. We still must compromise and strategize to win.
- It does nothing to identify or solve the real problem. Therefore, it leads the reader astray into over-generalizations and under-solutions.
4. “When the Democrats control things, America gets more socialism; when the Republicans control things, America gets more corporatism, which is a polite word for fascism.”
Comment: Statement (4) contains the same two logical fallacies as Statement (2): “hasty generalization” and “glittering generality”. Wikipedia states:
Many political words are abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of Fascism:
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
That definition fits the Obama-Democratic socialist regime rather than anything the Republicans have implemented. The implication that Republicans are like Fascists is wrong. Statement (4) is used here to support the hypothesis that there is little fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats, and it fails in this attempt.
5. “Fascists and socialists alike hate freedomists, which is why inside-the-beltway Repubs and Dems can’t stand people like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and yours truly.”
Comment: This is a real leap in reasoning. We have moved from the statement of fact in (1) to the invalid conclusion (2), to the invalid claim (3), to the false statement (4), to the “hate” statement (5).
Statement (5) says the Republican Fascists hate “freedomists” like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin. Republicans do not “hate” Ron Paul, etc. Many of them voted for Ron Paul in the primary.
The difference is Republicans realize we must defeat the Democrats if we are to move America toward the conservative right. The Republicans are realists and the freedomists are idealists who do not understand how to win in real world politics.
The freedomists forget they must first convince a significant number of Republicans to vote for their candidate before their candidate can win. They think they can be political isolationists and win. They think they can vote for a third-party candidate and win. Therefore, they always lose. Upon loosing, they blame the Republicans. They should blame themselves for being such poor politicians.
The fact remains, the best and only path for freedomists to realize their goals is through the Republican Party.
Who are these “freedomists” anyway?
The Freedomists website has a special section on “What it means to be a Freedomist” which includes 5 essays.
The Freedomist’s “Beating the Politacracy” rails against the theme that Romney is more desirable than Obama, and claims the Republican establishment wants to stay in power even if this means re-electing Obama. But the Republican establishment is not the problem. The Freedomists are the problem.
Freedomists have their facts up-side-down. The fact is those who do not support Romney over Obama are the ones who are helping re-elect Obama. On this basis, the Freedomists are actually enemies of our freedom.
6. “The battle in Washington politics has nothing to do with preserving freedom, but everything to do with HOW government will take freedom.”
Comment: The battle in Washington is indeed a battle over power. However, this battle includes the battle to preserve our freedom. The best defenders of our freedom are the Republicans, not the Democrats. Statement (6) is clearly wrong.
7. “Except for a very precious few elected civil magistrates (like Congressman Ron Paul), there is no one on Capitol Hill or the White House who remotely understands–or fights for–the principles of liberty.”
Comment: Here is a quote from Mitt Romney’s website:
Mitt Romney believes in America. He believes that liberty, opportunity, and free enterprise have led to prosperity and strength before and will do so again. America, however, must take decisive action to roll back the misguided policies of the last three years, empower our citizens, and restore the foundations of our nation’s strength.
Statement (7) is clearly wrong.
8. “Even if Mitt Romney and the GOP prevail in the November elections, Obamacare will be replaced with Romneycare. And Romneycare will be 85% Obamacare, with a slight shift toward government control and a slight shift away from government ownership.”
Comment: Mitt Romney quote:
On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.
In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by creating a level playing field for competition.
Dr. Laurie Roth has her head screwed on right. She says:
In a few short years now if we do not repeal and destroy Obamacare we will all be in the organized clutches of a complete tyranny designed to control, redistribute wealth and destroy people – young and old.
If Obama is re-elected and allowed to continue and grow his agenda and power, we will see a repeat of history as in the days of Mussolini and Hitler. I predict Obama will treat his enemies the same way.
Of course, her mistake is to run as a third party candidate, which cannot accomplish her goal of removing Obama.
There is a giant difference between any state-run healthcare system and Obamacare. For starters, Obamacare includes Obama’s promised civilian defense corps with more power than the US military. Statement (8) is clearly wrong.
9. “What neither party is talking about is that the federal government has no business being in health care.”
Comment: Statement (9) is false. See Statement (8) and this Mitt Romney quote:
Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.
Former US Senator Harrison Schmitt (R-NM) writes:
The Constitution of the United States enumerates no right to health or healthcare. Thus, on its face, Obamacare in its entirety is unconstitutional.
Statement (9), like the others before it, is clearly wrong.
10. “The federal government has no business being in over 90% of everything it is involved in today. But who do you hear saying that in Washington, D.C., except Ron Paul?”
Comment: Romney, in fact, goes into much more detail than Ron Paul about how he will accomplish this task. Here is another quote from Mitt Romney’s website:
Mitt Romney will treat regulatory costs like other costs: he will establish firm limits for them. A Romney administration will act swiftly to tear down the vast edifice of regulations the Obama administration has imposed on the economy. It will also seek to make structural changes to the federal bureaucracy that ensure economic growth remains front and center when regulatory decisions are made.
Statement (10) is clearly wrong. Romney is also against big federal government.
11. “Both the socialist-leaning Democrats and the corporatist-leaning Republicans in Washington, D.C., meet together in pointing the bayonet against the American citizenry.”
Comment: Mitt Romney is not pointing any bayonet at the American citizenry. That’s what Obama is doing. Mitt will create a smaller, simpler, smarter government that will allow business to grow so our economy can grow. Growing our economy is necessary to preserving our freedom. Statement (11) is clearly wrong.
12. “The platforms of the two major parties are completely meaningless. … Mitt Romney hasn’t read the Republican platform and doesn’t care one iota what it says.”
Comment: Then read Mitt Romney’s platform on his website. Romney’s plan for America is the best of all the candidates from a conservative point of view. The key issue here is comparing Romney with Obama. On that score, no rational person can deny that Romney’s plan is far, far better than what Obama will bring to America. Statement (12) is clearly wrong.
13. “Where they [the Rs and Ds] are twins is in their lust for power, in their approval of stripping more and more freedoms from the American people, and in their absolute and total disregard for constitutional government.”
Comment: Here is another quote from Mitt Romney’s website:
Mitt Romney’s view of the Constitution is straightforward: its words have meaning. The founding generation adopted a written constitution for a reason. They intended to limit the powers of government according to enduring principles. The job of the judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government and, where the Constitution does not speak, to leave the governance of the nation to elected representatives.
At times over the past hundred years, some justices of the Supreme Court did not carry out that duty. There were occasions when the Supreme Court declined to enforce the restrictions on power the Framers had so carefully enumerated.
As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. These justices hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called “the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected”: a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning. The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles.
Romney will appoint good judges who will support our Constitution. This is a critical difference between Romney and Obama. Romney’s judges will develop and apply sound constitutional reasoning to better protect enduring principles of freedom. Romney’s judges will adhere to core Constitutional principles as they apply to a complex and changing society.
Statement (13) is clearly wrong.
We have reviewed 13 key statements in Chuck Baldwin’s article. The first statement is a fact and the other 12 statements derived from it are all invalid. The statements are inflammatory and divert voters from helping to preserve America’s freedom. Claiming Romney is no different than Obama leaves the voter with no rational choice. This is not in the bests interests of America or our freedom.
Americans talk about how important our vote is, how our brave have died to preserve our right to vote. Yet freedomists believe in false hypotheses that will lead them to vote against their own personal interests, namely, restoring and preserving freedom in America.
Tim Baldwin, Chuck’s son, is correct in his article: “Natural Law Requires We Vote—Even for the “Lesser Evil” and he describes his correct position in detail. Tim has the correct approach to politics – the approach that allows the debate and dialogue of liberty to flesh out truth while better preserving the liberty we have. Tim Baldwin understands that politics is about principles and practice and that one cannot be sacrificed to the other.
Tim Baldwin is running for Montana’s House District 4. If you can, I hope you will vote for him. I also hope you will go to his website and contribute to his campaign. Tim is a Republican, not a freedomist, and his Democratic opponent is a flaming liberal. We need Tim to represent us in the Montana legislature.
The best way to preserve America’s freedom is to vote for the candidates who will best promote freedom and who can win. These criteria will almost always lead to the Republican candidate.
The real great awakening that must occur is for freedomists to realize the errors in their hypotheses, reject them, and to join Republicans in voting for America’s best choice for freedom.