Seriously, go read the evil empire speech and be amazed at how the bulk of it is about social issues at home and not the evil empire.

I have the Diaries, his radio transcripts, speeches and memory of the times handy, btw. smile

I think we have had this debate before where you try and paint Reagan as David Frum, and I’m not going to that Alice in Wonderland with you again.

smile

btw, Reagan also has a sense of humor. Live it.

I think I’m still misunderstood when it comes to your logic chain, but I am seeing your point. That we can enlist non-Christians electorally is an angle I didn’t address, and I’m glad you brought it up.

But my emphasis is two-fold. 1) Reagan conservatism without it’s spine, that being God, will have nothing to hold it up in the end. And, 2) This nation’s spiritual condition is its biggest priority. Until it is addressed, we are in danger of our endeavors being in vain.

Reagan’s words agree (and they are worth quoting again):

“We cannot expect Him to protect us in crisis if we turn away from Him in our everyday living. But you know, He told us what to do in II Chronicles. Let us reach out to Him. He said, ‘If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land’.”

He also said this:

“Without God there is no virtue because there is no prompting of the conscience,…without God democracy will not and cannot long endure.”

I get the strategy that says, “Leave God out of this so we can enlist the non-Christian sector.” If anyone has read my blog these past five years, you’ll see it’s a strategy I’ve employed. But I’m starting to wonder if, by taking God out of my own rhetoric (getting to a personal level here), am I really doing what I’m supposed to be doing for my country? How am I encouraging people? Is taking our only real chance for this country’s restoration out of the battle a smart move? Militarily speaking, it isn’t (according to my husband).

Reagan was an optimist, and it wasn’t due to his “policies”, it was due to his faith in God. And he continually drew his country’s attention back to Him. I’m just trying to bring Reagan’s strategy to light.

I’ve got my copy of the Reagan Diaries handy, so help me out.

Where can I find in Reagan’s daily diary a concern for the social agenda and reclaiming this country for “Christian values” that you state those of us who were actually Republicans who actually voted for Reagan might remember?

Lots of entries by Reagan on the state of the world, the place of this country in the world and international relations, lots of writings about fiscal and military matters, but I don’t see a whole lot of entries about social conservative matters.

Don’t get me wrong here, Reagan was a spiritual guy, shows up in his writings for sure in small ways, but a culture warrior in the terms that it means today, hardly.

Do you really oppose Reagan’s policies?

Also, let me point out that:

I am not maligning Rush.
I am not maligning Reagan.
I am not maligning those who want to reinstate Reagan’s policies (I am among them.)
Reagan IS dead. I was not invoking some sort of leftist hate speech by saying that.

That said, let me parse your comment, if I may.

(Forgive me, I’m not sure how to italicize for quotes in the comment section.)

YOU: “I think the author:
Reads too much into the congresswoman’s “God is on the throne” line;”

I’m really not sure how this could be. This isn’t exactly something your average congressman/woman would say to a constituent who is worried about the goings on in Washington. This remark from Fallin wasn’t flippantly said, nor was it meant to be taken lightly. In fact, when I heard it, it filled me with a lot of hope and encouragement because I got to see that there is someone in the Beltway who truly knows, “from whence our help comes.” If she had said, “Well, we are really working to bring back conservatism and Reagan’s ideals,” it wouldn’t have had nearly the impact on me that it did. In fact, I probably would have thought to myself, “Great, another republican playing the Reagan card in a room with more medals than the Olympics.”

YOU: [The author] Reads too much into the Rush caller’s line, who really meant that our only hope are Rush’s ideas, which include Reagan’s which are inexorable tied to God and Judeo-Christian principles;

CALLER: “But our only hope is the encouragement that you, especially you, are giving us, and if there’s no hope for you where does that leave all the rest of us?”

That is the caller’s line that ‘inspired’ my diary. Our only hope is NOT Rush’s ideas. Our only hope is in God. This is tantamount to those teams who lose their star player and end up performing dismally the rest of the season. So, if Rush loses hope, we are left high and dry? I sure hope not.

But let me see if I get this straight. You point out that Rush’s ideas are tied to Reagan’s ideas which are tied to Judeo-Christian principles.

Your logic chain actually proves the point I was trying to make. There are conservatives who tout Reaganism, but wouldn’t be caught dead admitting, like Reagan (and Fallin) did, that this nation is accountable to God. They fear it would be intellectual suicide. So, while some might actually (rightly) believe we are accountable to God and He is in charge, they won’t use their outside voice and say those words; they’ll wax eloquent on Reaganism instead. And by your reasoning, it’s the same thing.

The problem is, and the point I tried to make is that… it’s not the same thing.

My clarion call, my warning flag to conservatives is that we must be as bold AS Reagan in pointing this country to our only hope and Deliverer. Pointing people to Reaganism isn’t going to cut it. God won’t take a back seat to an ideology built around a man.

YOU: [The author] “Ignores that the vast majority of human history in which God has been on the throne has been tyranny on Earth.”

I am an avowed historian, so ignoring history just isn’t in my gene pool. That there has been tyranny on earth is patently obvious. But a look at history will show you that, for all nations, their periods of prosperity, individual liberty, and influence was/is inexorably tied to their allegiance to God. Period. If America hopes to be restored back to what it once was, an all out allegiance to God is the only way, not a veiled nod through Reagan’s policies. And what I am saying lines up EXACTLY with what Reagan said. Reagan’s own words prove this.

YOU: [The author] Imagines some vast number of conservatives that want Reaganism without God, when in fact, the elitist Republicans are the ones that want neither God nor Reaganism.”

I don’t think there are vast numbers of conservatives who want Reaganism without God, but I do contend that there are many who want Reaganism without having to ACKNOWLEDGE God. Reagan unabashedly acknowledged God, and took considerable heat for doing so.

YOU: “The most telling line that reveals the lack of logic in the column is its penultimate:

” It isn’t Reagan’s policies that should be restored and infused into this nation, but, rather, his zeal for and faith in God.”

I stand by this. Reagan’s policies devoid of an all out turning back to God will not save this nation. I know that is a brazen statement, but Reagan himself said as much. And only history will prove me right or wrong. So, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if I’m some kind of a whack job or…a true Reagan Conservative.

And if it sounded like I was chucking Reagan’s policies in the bin, I wasn’t. And I wasn’t insinuating that Reagan conservatives are Reagan-bots.

YOU: “God is alive and he wants our souls in Heaven. But I think he also wants us to have peace on Earth, and for that task against the Prince of Darkness, ie Satan, he has left that task in our hands as men and for success we have to go beyond slogans about God and into the weeds of politics and policy.”

“…He has left that task in our hands as men…go beyond slogans about God and into the weds of politics and policy.” I’ll go into the weeds for this country, but I will not foolishly go in thinking this battle rests in the hands of men. And when people start saying things along the lines of “we have to go beyond slogans about God” it smacks of the very sentiments of those elitist republicans you mentioned who don’t want God or Reaganism.

YOU: “And we are better off in politics in making the sale objectively based on what policies work, and not mere appeals to God.”

I’ll take both, thank you. But I’ll put them in their proper order…like Reagan did so faithfully.

I see what Mike is saying too. The two are not mutually exclusive, and both are required for success. I had to read the title twice, and the diary to be sure I knew where she was going with it. I think you and Mike are nicely broadening the points of the diarist.

At the end there seems to be a statement of choosing not both hope from God and change from Reagan, but instead choosing only hope from God.

Haystack wrote it the best in his parable diary…

Hope comes from God and Change comes from Man

The majority in our nation needs to understand and embrace what Haystack wrote.