Recently, someone accused Illinois Family Action of “eating our own” for criticizing the positions of a Republican candidate for the Illinois State Senate. Here are the thoughts of one IFA reader, attorney Mark Rouleau, to the notion that conservatives ought not criticize any Republicans running for office:
The description of criticism of Republicans as “eating our own” is the product of a reprobate mind and a seared conscience. Such a charge reflects a kind of tribalism. Yeah, rah, rah for our team and our guys because they wear our colors (a la gang style). It doesn’t matter if they are upholding godly positions.
Personally, I will vote for pro-life Democrats or third party candidates who believe in traditional marriage and limited government over a Republican who doesn’t believe in those things, even if that means that they will cost Republicans on other votes.
Eating one’s own is exactly what our society does when it allows people to kill their children. When people think it is all right to kill a baby because the baby is not wanted (their only crime is not being loved enough), it is usually premised upon the thought that everyone (primarily the parents but of course the rest of society) “can live a better life” as a result of the killing. Some with this reprobate thinking extend the argument to say that the baby is better off being dead than with parents that do not want them. It is a moral decision that is bought off with money, lifestyle, or convenience. An even scarier basis for the belief that abortion on demand is a good thing is premised in eugenics (see Maafa 21) and the Nazi ideal of creating a “master race.”
IFA’s point is well made that those who think this way are not our own. Those who espouse the idea that we should support someone who morally disagrees with our very core simply because they wear the same team jersey do not have the same Father as we do. They have an entirely different father who has been a liar from the beginning of time.
The fact is that when the Republican Party backs free markets without morality the implicit statement is society should devour its young and refuse to take care of those who need our help (some people go as far as to call them “useless eaters”). This is contrary to the views of Adam Smith (an ardent Scottish Presbyterian), the father of the “Free Market” theory who clearly argued in the “Theory of Moral Sentiments” that morality was necessary to make the free markets work.
While amoral, fiscal-only Republicans argue that taking care of the poor is a role for private charity (which I agree with) then they strip morality away from governance, they also remove morality from the consciousness of the public (i.e., the culture of death). People then apply the moral ambiguity of perceived “enlightened self-interest,” and come up with all kinds of excuses for disposing of the “useless eaters.” They, in fact, devour the young.
Even the agnostic Thomas Paine recognized the moral underpinning of 1776 England when he wrote: “But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families.”
His argument is that England was devouring her young (the colonies and the people in the colonies) and, therefore, England was not the legitimate parent of the American Colonies. Rather, European Christendom was the legitimate parent. We know that the devouring was the result of “mercantilism” (controlling the means of production), which required the colonies to ship raw materials to England and to purchase their finished goods from England. We also know the outcome of this policy was a Revolution.
The person who wrote that “tribal” comment is willing to sacrifice the young for the “good of the tribe.” He is not unlike the Spartans who were willing to throw their weak and defective infants over a cliff for the good of their society.
I for one do not want to be a member of that tribe or family. My family is with brothers and sisters in the biblical Jesus Christ.