Not all Republicans are the same. What is the difference between a good Republican and a bad one?
One of the major distinctions between a GRA-endorsed candidate and a run-of-the-mill Republican is how the candidate would determine if a piece of legislation is good or bad.
The esteemed former Congressman Dr. Paul Broun (GA-10) developed an excellent method of evaluating legislation that could serve as a model for any candidate. It was a simple four question test.
1) Is it Moral?
2) Is it Constitutional?
3) Do We Need it?
4) Can We Afford it?
Dr. Broun required the legislation to pass all four questions to receive his support. Using this grid, he earned the nickname “Dr. No” while serving in Congress because of the minuscule number of bills that passed his four question test and earned his “yes” vote.
Of course, all of these questions presuppose that the legislator has actually read the bill. In the event the legislative leadership places a large bill on your desk in the morning and expects you to vote on it by Noon, the default vote should be “No.”
In addition to Dr. Broun’s four question test, I imagine our founding fathers might ask these questions as well:
Does this legislation conform to the laws of nature?
Is this legislation in harmony with the Law of nature’s God?
Would this bill be just to all of my constituents?
By contrast, the establishment RINO candidates have a strikingly different grid for evaluating legislation that goes something like this:
1) Does the Republican Leadership approve of this bill?
2) What would my large donors think about this bill?
3) Would this legislation advance my personal political career?
4) How is the mainstream media likely to characterize this bill?
5) Would I be criticized for supporting this bill?
6) Would I be marginalized by other legislators for supporting this bill?
Another factor to consider as we attend candidate forums this year is the character of the candidate. The Bible provides a divinely inspired list of qualifications for determining whether an elected official is worthy of being entrusted with authority. Exodus 18:21 says:
“Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:”
Following the Exodus of God’s people out of slavery in Egypt, Moses was tasked with implementing a system of government for adjudicating controversies among the 3 million former slaves of the fledgling nation. It was not a centralized government. It was decentralized. (See this article.) They established rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.
This became the requirement for the rulers and judges over the people, at every level:
⁃ Able men (competence)
⁃ Fear God
⁃ Men of Truth
⁃ Hating Covetousness
Founding Father Noah Webster, who wrote the first American Dictionary, said:
“When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, ‘just men who will rule in the fear of God.’ The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”
[Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337.]
An inclination of magistrates to greed, corruption, accepting bribes or special interest lobbyists money has been a concern for more than 4,000 years. It crosses party lines and remains one of the major concerns among honest American voters today.
According to Exodus 18:21, one of the qualities you should look for in a civil magistrate is someone who has a righteous indignation and disgust for covetousness. Any candidate who truly hates covetousness is probably not, for example, going to be able to vote in good conscience for the Georgia budget next year without a massive overhaul to remove the corporate welfare handouts to Hollywood companies, among other things.
Similarly, lying politicians must have been a problem 4,000 years ago as well, because “men of truth” is another requirement. A commitment to the truth is vital among those leading in the civil realm. A man of truth keeps his campaign promises. A man of truth doesn’t tell constituents he is pro-life, then tell the feminists he supports abortion, and change his position a dozen times based on the audience present or the latest polling data.
These requirements, and the Law of God, became the foundation for the Hebrew Republic. Our founding fathers recognized the importance of these qualities as essential to the preservation of our constitutional republic. (See this article.)
So, as you attend candidate forums this year and consider which Republicans to support in the primary, try asking the candidates “If you were elected, how would you evaluate legislation?” And judge them by the Exodus 18:21 standard. What are some other questions that you have found useful? Please comment them below.
Comments: 2
Excellent guidance. We in Missouri also ask the question, “does it adhere to the current MOGOP Platform” (which we support). Branding is so important especially to the low information voters out there.
Agreed with the first comment. This is wise counsel. Wisdom tends to show up in simplicity, and this four-question litmus test (i.e., Moral, Constitutional, Helpful, and Payable/Affordable) is worthy of all decision-making constraints. Thank you.