Evangelical Theologian Endorses Mormon Romney. What Would Jesus Do?

In a column published on Townhall.com (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WayneGrudem/2007/10/18/why_evangelicals _should_support_ mitt_romney), evangelical theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem outlined the reasons why he, an evangelical Christian, was endorsing Mitt Romney, a Mormon, for the presidency, and why other evangelicals should also support Romney. It may not be the end of the world, but Boston radio talk show host, Gregg Jackson, also writing in Townhall.com, asked, regarding Grudem’s endorsement, “Is This The End of Evangelicalism in America ?” (http://www.townhall .com/columnists/GreggJackson/2007/11/02/is_this_the_ end_of_evangelic alism_in_ america) Writes Jackson :

A disturbing sign of the state of American evangelicalism has appeared in the seventh year of the 21st century in a Townhall.com article dated October 18, 2007, entitled, "Why Evangelicals Should Support Mitt Romney" by Wayne Grudem. One of America 's most popular evangelical theologians, Grudem is trying to persuade evangelicals to vote a Mormon for president. Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology" is the gold standard of evangelical doctrine and a sacred fixture in evangelical seminaries, pastor libraries and Bible studies.

In it, he defines Mormonism as "clearly a false church." He shows why Mormonism has never been included in the Christian Church: It contradicts major Christian doctrine regarding the person of God, Christ and His work and salvation plan. A cornerstone of the Mormon Church, Grudem writes, is the classic heresy of Saint Paul 's day – angel worship. In his book, Grudem insists that an orthodox Christian must practice the theology he reads. So why would he step forward to become part of the Mitt Romney propaganda blitz trying to mislead evangelicals into doing what would shock most evangelicals in American history: elect a Mormon for president?

It goes from strange to bizarre, considering Romney opened his campaign posing as the uber-evangelical Ronald Reagan while suggesting Reagan's evangelical base are bigots. Romney's evangelists, conservative talk show hosts Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt, among others, were much more outspoken. They angrily and repeatedly characterized evangelicals' lack of support for Romney as ugly bigotry.

Why would a major evangelical leader jump aboard a political campaign that views evangelicals as bigots?

I have a better question – two, actually: Why would anyone care whom Dr. Grudem supports for President? And why would Grudem think anyone else would care whom he supports?

Does the endorsement of a Mormon candidate by a respected evangelical theologian signal the end of evangelicalism? Probably not. One could make the case that evangelicalism has been in decline for decades (being an evangelical Christian for 35 years, I’ve seen the battle over Biblical inerrancy – and which side won that battle, by the way? – the rise of the church growth movement and program-based churches, the corresponding faddish obsession with “seeker friendliness,” the ditching of solid biblical teaching for less offensive feel-good/self- help psychology, the introduction of blaring “contemporary” worship music which tends to be fairly non-worshipful, and the general jettisoning of Jesus Christ as the center and focus of our faith and lives…but this isn’t about the atrophied nature of contemporary evangelicalism – that’s a topic for another day and another blog site). Dr. Grudem’s endorsement of a Mormon isn't evangelical Christianity’s death knell. This endorsement is too trivial and inconsequential to be the final stake in the heart of evangelicalism.

If an orthodox, theologically conservative Christian wants to support Romney, or any other candidate, fine, but one shouldn't feel compelled try to justify it from the position of their faith and theology, and it makes me wonder why Dr. Grudem thinks he needs to make that attempt. I support Rudy Giuliani mainly because he is the leader America needs at this point in our history. My support is obviously not because Rudy is a "conservative Christian," because he isn't; I don't pretend or imply that he is. At a time of war, and of creeping pessimism in the nation, I don’t think one needs to share my particular brand of faith in order to be an effective leader. In short, I don't feel compelled to make up a theological rationale for my support of Rudy Giuliani. He's ideologically conservative on the issues that really matter in this election, and that's rationale enough.

Dr. Grudem may be a marvelous theologian (in truth, I've never read him). But what does that have to do with political wisdom? Grudem may wax evangelically eloquent on matters of soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology, and epistemology, but what’s his theology of politics and government? Does he believe that hearts and minds can be won over, that people’s lives can be turned around, that America can be made more “righteous,” with the election to the Presidency of someone who holds to a particular external code of morality? This assumption violates the entire concept of redemption and sanctification as taught in Scripture and held by evangelicals. It’s bad theology.

I might hold Dr. Grudem in some esteem if he is telling me how to experience the life of Jesus Christ lived out in my life. But what qualifies him to preach on the imperatives of whom evangelicals should support in the 2008 election? And why, precisely, does he think we should care who he supports?

Are Conservative Christian Leaders Proving to Be a Detriment to the Faith?

            In an article appearing on Mediatransparency.org  published on August 8, Bill Berkowitz reports that “Despite their differences, social conservatives appear ready to give two thumbs up to…former Tennessee Senator” Fred Thompson’s candidacy – when and if he announces.  Berkowitz cites Gary Bauer, head of American Values, a social conservative public policy organization, and Tony Perkins, director of the Family Research Council in Washington, DC, as more than likely embracing Thompson’s anticipated candidacy.  The article also quotes the enthusiastic assessment of Richard Land, who heads up public policy for the Southern Baptists, toward a possible Thompson candidacy.  “It’s almost as if the man and the moment have met,” Land is quoted as saying about Thompson and his place in history.  Land also succumbs to hyperbole in saying that support for Thompson is spreading “almost like a prairie fire” and has predicted that some conservative leaders would endorse Thompson’s candidacy in coming weeks.

            This news of the impending muscle-flexing by conservative Christian leaders for Thompson has not been met with universal excitement from all conservatives.  A comment posted on the conservative forum WideAwakes.com bemoans the efforts of certain Christian leaders to play the role of kingmaker, stating that American churches haven’t been “doing their job and have, in a way, tried to put the responsibility onto the government to revive morals in the nation, using government for social engineering.” 

            I'll go even further, and analyze it from a theological perspective.  As G.K. Chesterton once said, "Once abolish the God, and government becomes the God."  Our society has become increasingly secular, and increasingly atheistic (if not in conviction, at least in practice).  This secular humanism has its most comfortable home in such leftist ideologies as socialism and Marxism (or socialism-lite...the American Democrat Party).  

            Many on the left, as they jettisoned the God of the Bible, didn't jettison God, per se, but adopted a new god -- the state -- with politics as their religion, and politicians as the priesthood.  In this analysis, Ann Coulter was correct in her book Godless.  But what Ann failed to recognize is that many on the right have also "deified" the state, and have opted for politics as a more powerful religion.  And, both sadly and ironically, most of those on the right who have followed the contemporary culture in its adoption of a political religion, belong to the "Christian right."  They look to government to do what only God can do...change hearts, and change lives.  They've given up on the power of prayer and the power of the Spirit and have opted for the power of the state and the influence of politics to accomplish what Christian religion in this country hasn't accomplished -- a reformation and revival of morals.

            So, the Richard Lands and Tony Perkinses of our society are guilty of idol worship in a sense -- paying homage to the new god of this age, the god of secular humanistic liberalism, namely, the state, and politics through which the power of the state is wielded. And like every worldly Christian down through the 2000 year history of the church, they are blind to their mistake.  

             These folks have outlasted their positive usefulness.  Jerry Falwell was on to something when he formed the Moral Majority in the late '70s.  His goal was to get pietistic Christians to start considering that they have a responsibility to apply their faith and convictions to the political realm.  And millions of Christians who had avoided politics and political involvement began to do that. They were instrumental in helping elect Reagan president in 1980.  

            But those who came after Falwell and tried to build upon what he had started never took this Christian interest and involvement in politics to the next level....helping people to think for themselves, and apply their faith in an intelligent way to their responsibilities as citizens.  Instead, organizations such as Land's, and Perkins’s Family Research Council, created a dependency of sorts, establishing themselves as the "spokesmen" for conservative Christians, and seeking to attract followers of their organizations, not enabling Christians to think critically for themselves as they integrated their faith with their political actions.  So, they've largely created a constituency of "sheep," and now they "speak" for conservative Christians.  Put more bluntly, they've created slaves who look to them and their organizations to tell them what and how to think, and they've adopted the idol worship of politics and the power of the state as means to achieve what they view as a positive Christian agenda.

            Here’s hoping that 2008 will be an election where the Republican Party is freed from a slavish devotion to self-appointed Christian opinion leaders.  People of faith should certainly think for themselves and apply their convictions to their political actions, but I do not believe that Christians should delegate their thinking to self-appointed leaders like Richard Land and Tony Perkins.  Just as politics should be freed from the influence of statist religionists on the right, American Christianity needs to be freed from a worship of politics and the state.

A June 5th article posted on Christianity Today’s website quotes Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, saying, “I think a lot of evangelicals are just getting to know Rudy…As they get to know him—not as the hero of 9/11 but as a supporter of tax-funded abortions—his support will decline precipitously.”

What is there that conservative evangelical voters don’t know about Rudy Giuliani? His personal position on abortion, gays, local gun control regulations, his personal life, even the fact that he dressed as a woman at various fund-raising events when he was mayor of New York, have been splashed all over the internet and the mainstream media for months. And yet Giuliani continues to be the frontrunner among conservative evangelicals and other stripes of social conservatives.

A May 28 article on Politico reported a recent poll and analysis by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life showing that Giuliani is the frontrunner among conservative evangelical voters, earning the support of 30% of this group compared to 22% support for Sen. John McCain. The Pew poll also found that 44% of social conservatives believe that Mayor Giuliani has the best chance of becoming the next President. And despite Richard Land’s view that as social conservatives get to know Giuliani “his support will decline precipitously,” the Pew survey found that evangelical voters are actually much more tuned-in to this presidential election than the average voter. The Pew survey found that 31% of self-identified social conservatives have given the 2008 presidential candidates “a lot” of thought, while only 23% of other Republicans have given the race the same level of scrutiny.

To explain the frontrunner status of Mayor Giuliani, John Green, a senior fellow at Pew who compiled the survey, said, “A significant number of social conservatives have adopted a pragmatic line.” Mr. Green is quoted in Christianity Today saying that he believes issues like abortion and opposition to same-sex marriage “are fading a little bit” as many states have banned gay marriage and evangelicals turn their attention to other issues. “They still care about social issues, but many also care about national security, economic issues, and the environment. It very well may be that Giuliani appeals to evangelicals on these other issues,” Green said.

Returning to Mr. Land, there appears to be a hint of desperation in his analysis of the race and where conservative evangelicals may come down in this election. To cite the Christianity Today article, “Land believes that even if evangelicals overlook Giuliani’s abortion record, they will struggle to overcome his broken marriages. ‘He promised at least two wives that he’d love, honor, and cherish—till death do you part—and he broke his promises to them,’ Land said. ‘Three spouses is at least one spouse too many for most evangelicals.’”

The abortion red-flag doesn’t seem to be working to undermine the Mayor’s standing among evangelicals, so go to Plan B.

Aside from the odd implication made by Land that having two spouses is now perfectly OK for “most evangelicals,” the personal issue of a candidate’s divorces seems a peculiar issue over which to fall on one’s sword. Mr. Land, representing Southern Baptists in Washington, is skating on thin ice if he adopts divorce as his make-or-break issue. George Barna, the pollster who has made a career of surveying and analyzing the attitudes, beliefs, and lifestyles of evangelical Christians, noted in a report published in 1999 that among all Christian denominations, the one with the highest divorce rate are the Baptists.

Being married only once won’t balance the federal budget, enhance the security of America, reduce the size of government, defend and expand liberty, or win the war on terror. A good number of evangelical voters understand this, apparently much to the consternation of some self-appointed evangelical leaders. My wife said it best recently: “I might not want to be in a relationship with Rudy, but I want him defending this nation.”

* * * * * * *

DARWIN'S CONSERVATIVES: THE MISGUIDED QUEST
INTRODUCTION

The debate over Darwinian evolution is usually framed by the newsmedia as a clash between “right” and “left.” Conservatives are presumed to be critical of Darwin’s theory, while liberals are presumed to be supportive of it.

As in most cases, reality is more complicated.

There always have been liberal critics of Darwin. In the early twentieth century, progressive reformer William Jennings Bryan fought for women’s suffrage, world peace—and against Darwinism. More recently, left-wing novelist Kurt Vonnegut, a self-described “secular humanist,” has called our human bodies “miracles of design” and faulted scientists for “pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.”

Just as there have been critics of Darwin on the left, there continue to be champions of Darwinism on the right. In the last few years, pundits such as George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and John Derbyshire, along with social scientist James Q. Wilson and political theorist Larry Arnhart, have strongly defended Darwin’s theory and denounced Darwin’s critics.

According to Will, “evolution” is a “fact,” and anyone who does not recognize this elementary truth endangers the “conservative coalition.” After the Kansas State Board of Education called for students to hear the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory, Will castigated board members for being “the kind of conservatives who make conservatism repulsive to temperate people.” Charles Krauthammer has likewise berated proponents of intelligent design for perpetuating scientific “fraud,” and James Q. Wilson, writing for The Wall Street Journal, has insisted that “[t]he theory of evolution… is literally the only scientific defensible theory of the origin of species....”

Some of Darwin’s conservatives even promote Darwinian biology as a way to bolster conservatism. In his book The Moral Sense, James Q. Wilson draws on Darwinian biology to support traditional morality, and writing in National Review, law professor John O. McGinnis has championed Darwinian sociobiology as a counter to left-wing utopianism.

McGinnis opines that the future success of conservatism depends on evolutionary biology: “any political movement that hopes to be successful must come to terms with the second rise of Darwinism.”

No one has been more articulate in championing “Darwinian conservatism” than professor Larry Arnhart of Northern Illinois University, who argues that “[c]onservatives need Charles Darwin... because a Darwinian science of human nature supports conservatives in their realist view of human imperfectibility and their commitment to ordered liberty....” Like McGinnis, Arnhart suggests that conservatism may be doomed unless it embraces Darwinian biology. “The intellectual vitality of conservativsm in the twenty-first century will depend on the success of conservatives in appealing to advances in the biology of human nature as confirming conservative thought.”

In his recent book Darwinian Conservatism, Arnhart offers multiple reasons why he thinks Darwinism supports conservatism, as well as responding to various objections to Darwin’s theory raised by some conservatives. As there is significant overlap between some of the reasons and objections discussed by Arnhart, I am going to group them into what I think are his seven main arguments: (1) Darwinism supports traditional morality; (2) Darwinism supports the traditional view of family life and sexuality; (3) Darwinism is compatible with free will and personal responsibility; (4) Darwinism supports economic liberty; (5) Darwinism supports “non-utopian limited government....”; (6) Darwinism is compatible with religion; and (7) Darwinism has not been refuted by intelligent design.

Analyzing each of these arguments in turn, this book will argue that the quest to found conservatism on Darwinian biology is misguided and fundamentally flawed. Contrary to its conservative champions, Darwin’s theory manifestly does not reinforce the teachings of conservatism. It promotes moral relativism rather than traditional morality. It fosters utopianism rather than limited government. It is corrosive, rather than supportive, of both free will and religious belief. Finally, and most importantly, Darwinian evolution is in tension with the scientific evidence, and conservatism cannot hope to strengthen itself by relying on Darwinism’s increasingly shaky empirical foundations.

******************

Just a thought:  When you consider that the most ardent defenders and believers in Darwin's theory (for its social implications) in the last century were atheistic Marxist and eugenic fascist regimes, and when one considers that the Darwinists' most powerful allies today are the leftist media and the ACLU, how can Darwinism be seriously considered as a foundation of conservatism?

It is a noble strategy. It's a strategy based on optimism, under girded by the belief that within the heart of every human being beats a desire for freedom and dignity. Backed by the intellectual strength of Natan Sharansky’s treatise The Case for Democracy, empowered by a sense of destiny confirmed by the lightening-quick campaign to depose Saddam, and the eventual conducting of free elections in Iraq which first elected a provisional government resulting in the adoption of a constitution, and then the election of a permanent popularly elected government, it appeared that Bush’s policy could not fail.

But somewhere between three successful elections and the fulfillment of the dream of a free and hopeful model in the Muslim world, something’s gone wrong. We see it in the never-ending violence in Iraq. It’s seen in the lost hope of American voters. We see it in the fact that the Democrat Party won the majority in Congress by campaiging on a failure of will. We see it in the architects and supporters of the original policy – the neo-conservative promoters of American Excellence – bailing. And most disturbingly, we see it in the desperate act of bringing in a band of foreign policy “realists” – the kind of “experts” whose “realistic” view of the way the world works resulted in us getting blind-sided on 9/11 in the first place – to figure a way out of what appears to be a quagmire after all. Somewhere along the line the Bush Doctrine has been replaced by the George H.W. Bush Doctrine, with James Baker as the acting Secretary of State and designer of a revised, more “realistic” foreign policy that assumes that everyone in the world thinks like a Yale graduate.

What’s most painful about the current and never-ending spectacle of violence in Iraq isn’t just the ongoing carnage, but having to watch the slow death of an optimistic policy and strategy that once appeared it was headed for success. With the “realists” back in charge, we’re undoubtedly going back to a policy of “strategic balance” between despots in the Middle East, and how long will it be before Syria and Iran are approached to become “partners” in bringing Iraq under control? Syria and Iran! Unbelievable – the two Hitlerian states assumed by pretty much everyone (except the "realists") to being responsible for fueling the mayhem in Iraq; the two states which, even before the Coalition deposed Saddam, dedicated themselves to strangling democratic reform in Iraq while it was still in the cradle. This is supposedly going to be our “exit strategy” – begging two of the biggest state supporters of terrorism to please help ease us out of the mess.  I'm sure they will gladly help us.

While Bush’s effort to combat terrorism by planting democracy in the Islamic world was a noble strategy, and probably worth a go, the real problem with the policy is the now-evident fact that democracy and Islam are about as compatible as oil and water. History has recorded that democracy took root in the west because democracy, freedom, a recognition and respect for the basic rights of man, flourished in the Judeo-Christian ethos of the west. Democracy grew because it was planted in good soil. In Iraq, democracy, freedom, respect for life, respect for the rights of the individual, respect for women, freedom of thought, freedom of association, may ultimately be choked-out because the soil is bad. Such things as freedom, respect for life, respect for the individual, freedom of expression, self-determination, and so forth, are anathema to Islam. Islam is a false religion. Their god is Satan. They worship oppression and glory in death. How could democracy take root in such an environment? Sharansky and Bush may be right to a point – that in the heart of every human beats a desire for freedom and dignity. But the prerequisite here is that it must beat in a human heart, and what Islam breeds is inhumanity.

I don’t fault Bush for his optimism. The leftist naysayers will now gloat that they were right all along, but they were never right. Their strategy for confronting Islamic terror was to roll up into a fetal position and question why they hate us. Regardless of Bush's good intentions, it becomes clearer with each passing day that optimism is a western virtue, something completely lacking in the soul of the Muslim world. How does one “reform” a cancer? It appears we need a new strategy for combating Islamic terror. But I’m not sure we have it in us to do what probably needs to be done.

 
From an announcement today the U.S. Mint --

"Can George Washington and Thomas Jefferson succeed where Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea failed? The U.S. Mint is hoping U.S. presidents will win acceptance, finally, for the maligned dollar coin.

"The public will get the chance to decide starting in February when the first of the new coins, bearing the image of the first president, is introduced.

"Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are scheduled to grace the coin in 2007, with a different president appearing every three months.

"The series will honor four different presidents per year, in the order they served in office. Each president will appear on only one coin, except for Grover Cleveland, who will be on two because he was the only president to serve non-consecutive terms. To be depicted on a coin, a president must have been dead for at least two years."

And then there's this:

"The images will be slightly larger than those on a quarter, because space was freed up by moving some of the traditional wording such as "In God We Trust" to the edge of the coin."

So, "In God We Trust" has literally been marginalized.

Excerpts from Steyn's latest article:

...On Tuesday, the national security vote evaporated. And, without it, what's left for the GOP? Congressional Republicans wound up running on the worst of all worlds -- big bloated porked-up entitlements-a-go-go government at home and a fainthearted tentative policing operation abroad. As it happens, my new book argues for the opposite: small lean efficient government at home and muscular assertiveness abroad. It does a superb job, if I do say so myself, of connecting war and foreign policy with the domestic issues. Of course, it doesn't have to be that superb if the GOP's incoherent inversion is the only alternative on offer. 

As it is, we're in a very dark place right now. It has been a long time since America unambiguously won a war, and to choose to lose Iraq would be an act of such parochial self-indulgence that the American moment would not endure, and would not deserve to. Europe is becoming semi-Muslim. Third World basket-case states are going nuclear. And for all that 40 percent of planetary military spending, America can't muster the will to take on pipsqueak enemies. We think we can just call off the game early, and go back home and watch TV. 

It doesn't work like that. Whatever it started out as, Iraq is a test of American seriousness. And, if the Great Satan can't win in Vietnam or Iraq, where can it win?...

"These Colors Don't Run" is a fine T-shirt slogan, but in reality these colors have spent 40 years running from the jungles of Southeast Asia, the helicopters in the Persian desert, the streets of Mogadishu. ... To add the sands of Mesopotamia to the list will be an act of weakness from which America will never recover.

According to the election results, Americans don’t care about liberal judges, higher taxes, or the War On Terror. I was confident that Americans knew better than to believe the illusion of the liberal media and Democrat candidates who ran pretending to be conservative. We lost because we’re listening to the wrong voices. MSM hates the military, they hate moral leaders, they hate cops, they hate Christians, they hate conservative values. Why do we listen to them? Why do we read their stuff? We should know better. We need to start listening to sources that are sympathetic with our world view, and reject the opinion of those who are hostile to what we believe.

Conservatives, (Christians,) are not going to change society through politics or elections. Christians will now only change the political, moral direction of society by getting people saved. Once people are changed through salvation, they will begin to think right, vote right, and ignore the wrong voices.

Christians are not going to accomplish this by operating like we have in the past, through passionless, unconvincing, powerless, proofless, religious words. There is a resentment for religion in America, and it is well deserved. America needs to experience the real presence and miraculous power of God, and average Christians today do not have that. We need that same thing that was on Jesus where he didn’t have to chase people around with the truth. All he had to do was make eye contact with an oppressed person and their hearts would instantly break. It was the Holy Spirit who made that possible. We can have that too, because Jesus said He would pour His Spirit on all flesh and we would do the same works that He did.

To get an observable presence and power of God, we need to pursue the presence of God ourselves, (its called prayer and worship,) and quit the habitual sins (Foley & Haggard) we use to fill the emptiness and wounds in our souls. Those wounds were created through cruelty, frustration, and disappointment. They can only be filled and eventually healed with the presence of God, and not only once a week at a church that doesn’t preach the full gospel.

Its hard work, that’s why we don’t do it. But will our nation survive any other way? This is the diagnosis of what happened 2006, and the prescription to heal our land.

Pursue the presence of God.

Quit habitual sin.

Get the observable power and presence of God.

Win souls.

Saved minds think right, vote right, and ignore the wrong voices.

Moral and political direction is corrected.

By Heaven, my Godly values will be reinforced.

My wife and I, along with another couple, have been praying for the president, for our other political leaders, the nation, the war on terror, our troops, the SCOTUS nominees, etc., for over 6 years now (we meet weekly to pray, sometimes twice or three times a week as we draw close to an election). After Tuesday's results, we got together Wednesday night, and agreed that what America needs isn't so much the victory of a political ideology, but a spiritual renewal. What we need isn't the victory of conservatism as a political ideology, but revival. 

For too long, Christians have depended (mainly) upon the ways and resources of the world (mailing lists, advertising, precinct walking, get-out-the-vote efforts) to change the nation.  I don't reject political tools in election years, but Christians need to realize that in spiritual battles, we have spiritual resources, and we need to be bringing those resources to bear against the problems of our nation and world as least as much as we bring in the resources of modern politics -- actually more.

The problems in the world are not political, but spiritual. We (I mean Christians) have largely fought the "culture war" as if it's primarily a political battle.  We need to fight these battles on our turf -- as spiritual battles, using spiritual weapons. 

As for our weekly prayer times, we will still pray for Pres. Bush, our leaders, the WOT, and the like, but the focus of our prayers will now switch to the need for the outpouring of God's Spirit on the nation, and the need for revival. If America experiences another Great Awakening like in the days of Jonathan Edwards, all the problems will right themselves.

I witnessed and fought in the original Tet Offensive mostly in and around Hue City--the old Imperial Capital. I was with Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. It was a block-by-block, house-by-house fight. There was something like 12,000, heavily armed, well trained and equipped North Vietnamese troops in the city when we got there. They had ringed the city with antiaircraft guns and even had some tanks but they were destroyed quickly by helicopter gunships. We had to call for 3.5-inch rocket launchers--which were delivered to us--because the lighter LAAWs we had been issued would not penetrate the concrete buildings in Hue. Things got ugly but there was also an air of exhilaration because we realized we were fighting the big battle that could turn the tide of the war. Saigon and Khe Sanh were experiencing the same type of big formation battles. In spite of severe damage to the ancient city, we destroyed most of the NVA forces in Hue and chased the rest out into the countryside.

 

I began talking one morning on a street in Hue to a United Press International correspondent named Al Webb. I had just received some newspaper clippings from the states that cast a gloomy light on our efforts. I asked Webb, "Do people in the states really think we are getting our a** kicked?" You couldn't walk down the street we were on for 10 feet without having to step over a dead NVA soldier. "Well," said Webb,"That's the view of some of them."

Tet was a communist miscalculation based on the doctrine of Mao and later Fidel Castro that called for guerrilla forces to capture the countryside and finally move on the cities where the residents would rise up against the government and join the guerrillas in a final battle against the oppressers. This whole plan fell apart when the South Vietnamese refused to join General Giap's offensive.

Tet broke the back of the NVA in South Vietnam and it killed off the last of the armed wing of the Viet Cong. It was a great U.S./RVN victory.  Instead it was seen as a quagmire based on the wisdom of a half-educated, functional alcoholic who was CBS's chief copy reader--Walter Cronkite. This was real-time revisionism.

Johnson called a halt to the bombing and said he would not run for re-election. The bombing halt allowed the brutally decimated NVA to replenish, rest and bring in replacements since the trails weren't being bombed. The huge U.S. momentum was allowed to grind to a halt and the White House may as well have hoisted a white flag. That was Tet.

Who says the Democrats don't have a "plan" or a platform for America this election year?  After carefully listening (and watching) their performance over the past six years, here's their platform in these mid-term elections:

The Democrat Party's 2006 Contract on America

As Mark Steyn emphasizes in his superb new book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, it's the demographics, stupid. While the West hyperventilated about overpopulation, the Muslim world got busy. In 1970, Steyn points out, developed nations had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30 percent to 15 percent. By 2000, they were on par with about 20 percent. And things ain't looking up, fertility-rate-wise, for the non-Muslim population. Coupled with the decline of the modern social-democratic state and what he calls "civilizational exhaustion," those numbers spell trouble.

Steyn:

You don't have to subscribe to the view that every Muslim is a jihadist nutcake eager to hijack a 747 and head for the nearest tall building to acknolwedge that at the very minimum these population trends put a large question mark over the future.

Linda Frum interviewed Steyn for the National Post and this q and a says it all for me (my daughter is six, too):

LF: Your book is very gloomy. After I read it, I glanced over at my three-year-old daughter and was filled with fear for her future.

MS: Well, I'm in this for the three year-olds. My youngest child is six now, but my little girl and your little girl, when they're our age, they will find a large number of places in what we think of as the free world, the developed world, far less congenial than we would. I mean, you and I would think nothing of hopping on a plane, going to London, Paris or Berlin. Those are going to be very uncomfortable places for a young, middle-aged Western woman circa 2020, 2030, and it's precisely because we've taken for granted this very unusual period in history. We take it for granted that it's a permanent state of affairs. It isn't. It requires incredible vigilance and incredible effort to preserve it.

And, as Steyn writes in his book, it starts with a simple decision:

Americans and other Westerners who want their families to enjoy the blessings of life in a free society should understand that the life we've led since 1945 in the Western world is very rare in human history. Our children are unlikely to enjoy anything so placid, and may well spend their adult years in an ugly and savage world unless we decide that who and what we are is worth defending.