Posted under Alan Keyes & Conservatism & Constitution Party & Political Philosophy
Below I mentioned Peg Luksik, who is challenging Pat Toomey for the Republican nomination for Senator of Pennsylvania. (* See Editor’s Note in the comment section below.)
Mrs. Luksik is an ex-Constitution Party member and candidate and as such is likely highly reliable on issues that matter to us, certainly more reliable than ex-Club for War … err … I mean Growth President Toomey. If I lived in Pennsylvania I would surely vote for Luksik.
But that said, I noticed when I was looking over her website that there are problems with Luksik’s rhetoric that are extremely common among a certain type of Constitution Party candidate and the mainstream right. While I largely agree with her on the laundry list of issues she mentions, the intro to her “Issues” page screams “Declarationism” and opens by repeating the Proposition nation fallacy. It is the very first sentence, in fact. 
Her intro has a distinctly Alan Keyesesque feel to it, which shouldn’t be at all surprising since Luksik is a strong pro-lifer, and I believe she was a former Keyes supporter.
She opens, “America was founded on an idea.” NO IT WAS NOT! This is an incredibly pernicious idea and what these misguided conservatives don’t seem to understand, it is an entirely liberal (in the first sense) idea. America was not founded “on” an idea. It was founded BY a particular people in a particular time and place. This “idea nation” universalism is fundamentally hostile to the Christian particularism that candidates like Luksik in many ways support.
Her “My Beliefs” page is better, focusing as it does on the central importance of the family, and the importance of a family-centered society vs. a government centered society. While I have issues with the philosophical and theological concept of endowed rights which she invokes frequently, that is for another essay. That reservation aside, her “Beliefs” page has shades of paleoism (societies arising out from the family) and shades of Kuyper, that should make paleocons happy. But what is baffling is how she and so many others can not see the obvious contradiction here with her promotion of Proposition Nation nonsense. Propositionalism is inherently government centered. It is inherently hostile to the blood and soil concept of the nation that arises from family-centeredness.
Steve Ryker on 08 Aug 2009 at 8:15 am #
While Peg Luksik may indeed “need to reconsider her rhetoric,” what needs “reconsideration” first, my (genuinely dear) Paleo Friends, is your own rhetoric. As you noted in the case of Pat Toomey, the simple fact of the matter is that Republicans are USUALLY two-faced liars, who “talk the Talk,” but when it comes time to deliver, they will NOT “walk the Walk.” Demo(n)crats, on the other hand, proudly shout their adherence of literal evil, and DELIVER. They aren’t afraid, and they do what they “promise” to do. Virtually every time.
My point: Right now, the largest percentage of voters is that proportion that identify themselves as “Independents.” That is truly excellent news. I for one am sick of underhanded, deceitful and deceiving, lying wimps who have no more integrity than … than what or whom?? A used car salesman? A Fifth Avenue advertiser? A securities con-man at a Retirement Villa? A … go ahead, you name it. The serious problem here is the same as the point: Repooplicans have far less integrity and honesty than that of any of the “morally challenged” individuals mentioned. Indeed, I genuinely feel it is a gross insult to put ANY of latter in with the former. And based on what you’re “sniffing in the wind” with Luksik, I am sad to say it looks like I’m right in her case as well.
My overall point: The Founders LOATHED what they called “faction,” but they now are literally enshrined as “parties.” “Parties” are nothing but vicious, self-serving groups of individuals with just enough “like mindedness” to get each other elected – to obtain access to real power. Once they attain power, “the Talk” is all-but-forgotten until the next election cycle, esp. in the case of Repooplicans. It is time for this to end, once and for all. Live by this: VOTE ONLY FOR “INDEPENDENTS.”
Anyone who belongs to a PARTY, REPRESENTS THAT PARTY – NOT YOU. And that Party “represents” the people, and esp. the organizations, THAT BUY THEM – who “pay for” the tab to get them elected and give the Party access to power. When you vote for a “party member,” you get exactly what you VOTED for – something that somebody else PAID FOR. Don’t be surprised when they vote the opposite of what YOU thought you were voting FOR.
Please – don’t vote for ANY Party again – vote FOR a HUMAN BEING. In either case, you’ll get what you vote for.
Sean Scallon on 08 Aug 2009 at 5:00 pm #
“Please – don’t vote for ANY Party again – vote FOR a HUMAN BEING. In either case, you’ll get what you vote for.”
Not bad advice. Some people in this country talk about parties the way the Communists and Nazis did. No party or faction is worth blind loyalty. It’s a good thing to keep in mind.
Obviously neither Red nor I are Declarationists but that being said the only advice I can give to Miss Luksik now that Pat Toomey is going “Republican” is study Ron Paul and stay away from Alan Keyes and you’ll run a much more effective primary campaign.
RedPhillips on 10 Aug 2009 at 6:09 pm #
Steve, I’m not sure why your response was aimed at me or in response to my post on Luksik. I am a conservative. When it helps my cause to work within the GOP, I do. When it doesn’t, I don’t. The fact that I specifically said that Luksik was more reliable BECAUSE she has previously belonged to the Constitution Party should make it obvious that I am no blind Republican partisan.
Whatever the Constitution Party may or may not be, it is most certainly not “bought off” by anyone. They have minimal paid staff. I suspect they might at times wish someone would buy them off.
While the Founders dreaded “factions” that did not just mean parties. It also meant competing interests such as farmers vs. merchants, city vs. rural, North vs. South, etc. And many likely had particular factions they wished to keep at bay with their cries against them and for the common good. The Virginians likely had in mind New England merchants and the New Englanders likely had in mind Southern plantation owners.
But whether they wished for them or not, they immediately got them which arguably reflects some flaws in the project. Parties are the inevitable result of representative democracy (do any exist that don’t have them?) and our own winner take all system heavily favors two major parties. Just ask the poor Constitution Party which Luksik has now, at least, temporarily abandoned.
Tk on 29 Aug 2009 at 12:38 pm #
Why is the statement “America was founded by an idea” is any different from “America is founded by certain people at a certain time”. Did not the idea lead to action which led to the birth of the nation?
“Proportionalism is inherently government centered. It is inherently hostile to the blood and soil concept of the nation that arises from family-centeredness.”
Could you explain why you say this ? If anything, it would be the opposite, as government centered societies routinely discard established principles, including government principles, in order to stifle opposition and to keep the ruling class in power.
Pat C on 23 Oct 2009 at 3:59 pm #
This is so tragic it is almost funny.
Peg announced BEFORE Toomey and asked him multiple times if he would be running to which he responded NO each time.
So this article is suspiciously inaccurate on its face.
Try doing some homework first OR, considering the fact that you might have done it, and chose to conveniently ignore the truth for your own purposes, consider not writing at all if you cannot write the truth.
RedPhillips on 23 Oct 2009 at 5:11 pm #
Pat C., what are you talking about? Did you read what I wrote before you fired off your response? I was not criticizing Peg for running. I was not criticizing her for not bowing out. I think Toomey mislead her. He probably wasn’t intending to run until the situation started to get more hostile for Specter and then he changed his mind. If I lived in PA I would almost certainly vote for her in the primary. I was criticizing her rhetoric. My criticism is from the paleo right, and I am criticizing her use of liberal proposition nation language. Please re-read my post.
RedPhillips on 23 Oct 2009 at 5:53 pm #
Editor’s Note: It seems this sentence is what Pat C was objecting to.
“Below I mention Peg Luksik, who is challenging Pat Toomey…”
Admittedly, that could read better. She is not challenging Toomey so much as they are both vying for the same nomination. But the rest of the post still stands.
Pat C on 23 Oct 2009 at 6:08 pm #
I give you credit for that correction.
RedPhillips on 23 Oct 2009 at 7:14 pm #
For the record, and this should be entirely unnecessary because nothing I wrote should have given the indication I was somehow slighting Luksik to favor Toomey, note these comments I made at American Spectator. Note the dates of the comments. I was keenly aware of Ms. Luksik and keenly aware of who declared first.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/11/can-peg-luksik-save-arlen-spec
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/10/conservative-activist-to-chall
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/06/tom-ridge-over-troubled-waters
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/30/ridge-pushed-for-specter-seat
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/29/reagan-defeats-specter
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/15/true-grit-specter-declares-war
Matt on 23 Oct 2009 at 10:18 pm #
There is an effort to have a money bomb for Peg Luksik on Oct. 31. For more information visit http://www.pegluksikmoneybomb.com/.
Walkie Wawtmire on 03 Mar 2010 at 1:00 am #
Peg faced “Gunther” W*lsh today on WAEB, AM 790 and the hostility oozed, given that W*lsh is an obsequious worshipper of Mr Tomb-ee.
Ed on 13 May 2010 at 6:59 pm #
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying the “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” is not the foundation upon which our governmental structure and laws were based?