In “TAV” Interview Year Ago, Richard Viguerie Mocked Idea Of Third Party, Leaving GOP; Now? Well…
By John Lofton, Editor
WILL RICHARD actually jump from the burning Republican Party building and stop hitting himself in the head with the GOP hammer? Stay tuned, but don’t hold your breath until he does this — unless you look good in purple.Since Richard Viguerie and other so-called Christian/conservative “leaders” are in the news talking about Third Party possibilities, I thought you’d be interested in reading or re-reading this interview of Viguerie by me about a year ago. At the time, he was pushing his book “Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush And Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked The Conservative Cause.” For those who would like to hear this interview, it is program 79 on this site, TheAmericanView.com. Comments welcome.
Q: Well, thank you Richard, for being with us. I hope you are doing fine, you and your family, I hope.
A: Terrific!
Q: I’m going to begin with a brief, but heart-felt tirade – or at least brief for me - My first pitch will be a bean ball, then later on you’ll get some softballs. I don’t care about the “Conservative Cause” or having a conservative government. I am first a Christian, and I care about defending the crown rights of Christ in the political arena. I care about fighting for Christian, Biblical government first, and what’s interesting to me in your book regarding this particular aspect are a couple of things
In the beginning of the book – page 12 actually xii, you quote our friend, Stan Evans as writing in one of his books that it was “The Biblical conception of a transcendent Deity, who lifts up the individual and scales down the assertions of the State that conferred upon us our Western notions of individual freedom equals private worth and privacy of conscience. In short, the distinctly Libertarian, and thus distinctly Western aspects of our politics and stances are Biblical in origin.”
Also, in your dedication, which I found very moving - you – it’s dedicated to your five lovely and much loved grandchildren – you jump down and note that man does not live by bread alone, which, of course is from Scripture. Christ says it. You say:
“[Man] is a spiritual being, with an eternal soul; the collapse of moral values is perhaps the foremost threat facing my grandchildren’s generation. The amorality and greed of the entertainment industry, combined with the silence of most religious leaders, is threatening the very foundation of the free world.”
You conclude by saying your generation has done a lot of good things but we’ve also made too many things far worse. You’ve got a big challenge, you say, but reliance on God and faithfulness to the values you’ve been taught by your parents you can be victorious.
Now, my gripe isn’t so much with the Republican Party that has indeed betrayed the Conservatives, it’s with the Conservatives – most of the Conservatives, and Conservative Leaders that I ran with for thirty-five – forty years, including yourself. We’re all Christians, but my gripe is that your Christianity has had nothing to do with your politics! In other words there are no arguments in your book for Biblical or Christian government, and there’s no critique of the Republican Party or Bush because they’ve done things that are un- Christian or because the government under them is not a Biblical government. Why do you think the faith – if you do think – why do you think the Christian faith has had nothing to do with the politics of these Christian Conservatives?
A: I have not idea, John; I’ll have to leave that for your book.
Q: Really?
A: Yeah, yeah.
Q: Ok. You’re a Christian, right?
A: Yes.
Q: I don’t see anything in your book about what kind of civil government, or that civil government ought to be Christian? Why is there no Christian critique of the Republicans or Bush?
A: John, we’ll just have to leave that for your book. I mean I wrote the best book I could.
Q: Okay. Do you think that the Scripture defines or limits any kind of government, or says anything about the government?
A: Yea, I think so.
Q: Alright. I was looking at your indictment in the court of public opinion of conservative articles against President Bush, and of course, most of them are true, but there’s no accusation that he’s given us un-Godly government. Do we care about that? I don’t see any concern about these Conservatives who are also Christians. Their faith doesn’t appear to come first.
A: I can’t make that judgment. You feel comfortable doing that that’s fine, but I don’t feel comfortable making that accusation.
Q: Okay. Well, how about yourself? Have you ever written or spoken from a Christian perspective – criticizing Bush for doing something that was un-Godly or un-Christian?
A: No, I can’t do that John. You and I approach politics different. You are very quick to judge other people from a spiritual standpoint, and I am just not – quite frankly – comfortable doing that.
Q: Okay, but we agree, or maybe we don’t – do we agree that Scripture definitely specifies the kind of government we should have? Do we agree on that?
A: Well, John, I’m not sure – that’s a pretty broad statement. You’d have to be – probably narrow it a little bit. Does God say, you know, what the – you know, speed limit should be? I’m not aware of that. So, anyway – you just – that’s kind of a broad statement, if you want to be a bit more specific I’ll think about it.
Q: Sure, well – chapter 13 of the book of Romans tells us what the purpose of government is – what the function of civil government is – and it is to – it’s primarily justice. The bearing of the sword – it isn’t to feed anybody – it isn’t to clothe, to house or to educate – now I assume that you agree with that.
A: With what now? That it’s to bring justice?
Q: That it’s not the role of the government at any level to act as – to house, to clothe, to feed anybody.
A: Yeah, we all believe in limited government and we believe that if the people do feel that they want the government to house people or clothe people or feed people that’s within the confines of the government. Do we want a strictly Libertarian Government? I don’t think that’s what the people finally decided that they want. I don’t have a fairly Libertarian streak in me, but as to what God wants us to do regarding, you know – housing in any given local county – you have a stronger feeling about that than I do, quite frankly.
Q: Alright, but one of the things I’d like to do here, and perhaps I’ll fail, I want to take this idea that I have that as a Christian – our faith is to come first, it is to govern every area of our life. That’s not just some kind of personal little quirky thing with me, and I would suppose that with you, Richard. You would resent it and deny it if I were to say to you that you appear to put politics above your faith. You would not agree with that, correct?
A: I would say that you are quick to judge other people – me, others. That’s fine. You just feel free to do that. I’m not going to comment one way or the other.
Q: Sure, well – actually it was a question. It was a question.
A: I’ve said what I’m going to say about it.
Q: Okay….Have you ever called for Christian government? Do you think that it would be a good idea to have Christian government or are you happy…?
A: I think it’s a good idea for American’s to live as God wants us to live.
Q: Okay. That would include the government, I guess.
A: Well, the people are the government.
Q: Well, that’s an interesting statement. I would certainly agree that we have gotten the government we deserve, Richard. We have Godless government because we’ve made no Godly demands on the government. And every time I try to broach the subject you accuse me of being judgmental. Well, all judgment isn’t bad, Richard. I mean you’re book is full of judgment – political judgment. In any event, in the current issue of Washington Monthly magazine – you have an article – as several conservatives have articles, called “The Show Must Not Go On.” And the first sentence says “With their record over the past few years the big government Republicans in Washington do not merit the support of conservatives.”
Q: Well, I couldn’t agree more. So why did you vote for George Bush twice? And why did you urge Conservatives to vote for George Bush in 2004?
A: I felt at the time that it was the right thing to do. The laws are such that one of the two candidates of the two major parties is going to be elected. George Bush in 2000 was not my first, second, third choice, but after my candidate was not successful then the nominee of the Republican Party was George Bush I enthusiastically supported him over the alternative.
Q: Yes, you sure did. In fact, I believe at a National Council For Public Policy meeting shortly before the election you came into the room while Karl Rove was speaking and you were asked, were you not, (this is a question) if you were supporting Bush, and you said, “enthusiastically,” is that a true story?
A: What year was that?
Q: It was right before the 2004 election.
A: Yeah – right before the 2004 election. I have no recollection of that, John. One, I think you’ve got your time-line all wrong. Plus, two – I’d never comment, publicly, on anything to do with the National Council For Public Policy.
Q: Or you’d have to kill me, right? It triggered my memory that story – because you just said yourself, that you supported Bush enthusiastically. Why would you do that since, in this article you said the record of the Republicans over the past few years was a record of big spending and big government. I mean, you knew that when you were urging people to vote for it. Why wouldn’t you say, get out of the Republican Party – forget the Republican Party – I don’t know exactly what we’re going to do, but we’ve got to do something different!
A: Uh-huh….
Q: What’s wrong with that plan?
A: Well, it sounds like the loser plan – to – it sounds like something that John Lofton would be part of…
Q: I see. As opposed to the winner plan which is stay in the Republican Party, huh?
A: Yeah.
Q: That’s a good one, Richard. I don’t think you intended to – let me tell you the loser plan. The loser plan is voting decade after decade to vote for the lesser of two evils, Richard, that is the loser plan. You disagree with that?
A: Yeah.
Q: How are we winning? How are Christian Conservatives winning in the Republican Party? Could you explain that to me?
A: John, if you could uh, at where Conservatives have come – from the time that some of us began to bring something together that was called, or was beginning to be called – in the late 50’s – early 60’s the conservative movement. When there was just a handful of us, there and we could meet in the proverbial phone booth, uh, as far as anybody thought of us in the political arena, if anybody thought of us at all – they would think of us as crazies, neo-Nazi’s, racists, bigots, etc., we were just really ignored by the establishment.
And I point all this out in the book, and then I take us through where we are now. We’ve not achieved what we’d like to have achieved, but we certainly achieved more than the Left ever dreamed that we could have achieved. We’ve come a long ways- we’ve a lot longer period to go. We’ve – this is not a sprint. This is a marathon, and the fact that we didn’t achieve everything the first day, the first year, the first decade, the first forty years and no, I’m disappointed, but ah, God does not call me to succeed, He does call me to be faithful.
Q: Amen.
A: And to keep trying, and so that’s what I’m doing and I may have made a mistake by not going the third party route as you have and get one-thousandth of one percent of the vote on election day.
Q: Oh, come on, Richard, we don’t think right and wrong comes from counting noses. That’s a cheap shot. You know that what’s right or wrong is not determined by the number of people that vote for you. Right? That’s not just the way you do it. In any event – the marathon…it would appear that we’re running the wrong way in the marathon. Let’s look at where we’ve come.
I came into politics a little bit after you and that was Goldwater – ‘64. Barry Goldwater talked about Constitutional government. Small government – he talked about people for deficit spending and a variety of other things that constituted what conservatives were never for before. People that were against that were unfit to govern. Where we’ve come to, Richard, pursuing your idea of staying in the Republican Party, working to somehow change it, and take it over – where we’ve come to – what has been produced, Richard is George Bush! — who’s given us the biggest, most expensive, unlimited, intrusive, unfair, un-Constitutional and deficit riddled and dare I say it – un-Godly government in the history of the universe. How does this represent some sort of success of where we’ve come? I’m serious. I don’t get it.
A: In my book that we’re talking about here, “Conservatives Betrayed” I talk in there that I recommend that Conservatives start taking a different look – a different approach to politics. That they no longer think of themselves as a Republican, but as a Reagan Conservative – that they withhold support from Republican National Committees, most state committees, and Republican establishment candidates – for the most part. And that they spend the finite resources that we all have on principled conservative candidates, principled, conservative organizations, and withhold support for all – at this time, for all the 2008 Presidential wannabees, and we begin the process of rebuilding the conservative movement.
Again, in the book, “Conservatives Betrayed” I point out how at least three different times we have taken over the Republican Party and I feel that we can do it again, and I lay out in the book a plan to do that. In 1980 – in 1960 – excuse me, when we tried to nominate him for President at the Chicago Republican Convention, Goldwater told us we could take the party over if we set our minds to it, and low and behold four years later we shocked Goldwater and ourselves and lots of other people and we did it. And we hid it for 4 or 5 months until the election disaster of 1964 when Nixon and Rockefeller came in and took the party over.
Then again we thought we’d taken it over for sure in 1980 when we nominated and elected Reagan, and that happened until Jim Baker and some of the other Bush people arrived at the White House, but then we knew for sure that we’d taken it over in ‘94 when the Republicans took Congress for the first time in forty years and we had a pretty good, conservative revolution going for most of 1995 until Newt Gingrich and friends went eyeball to eyeball on shutting down the government and we lost the conservative revolution again, but again – at home we are called to be faithful and keep trying, and so I think we can keep our heart and mind into it I think we can take back the Republican Party again and I lay out a plan in the book and talk of if you want to do that you go to conservativesbetrayed.com. It’s going to be a sight that’s going to help provide some leadership in that direction.
Q: Well, you can have the Republican Party as far as I’m concerned. I think the idea of taking it over and trying to do something with it has pretty much – I don’t want to rush to judgment here – it’s only been about four decades, since it’s been attempted, pretty much a failed cause.
But the title of your book is “Conservatives Betrayed” How George W. Bush and other big government Republicans hijacked the Conservative cause, I don’t think they hijacked it at all. The Conservatives elected these Republicans who for decades you have been denouncing. You elect them, Richard, you help elect them and then for the next 4 – 3 years and 51 weeks, you denounce the very people that you elect.
Also, I think you’ve got a foggy memory on Ronald Reagan. He seems to be your model, your paradigm, your golden age of conservatism. In the early 1980’s I worked for you – I was the Editor of Conservative Digest Magazine. The August 1981 Conservative Digest cover related Reagan’s first broken promise choosing Sandra Day-O’Connor. The July 82nd – the July, 1982 Conservative Digest devoted the entire issue to how Ronald Reagan – his appointments were not conservative. So, the idea that you want to return to some kind of Reaganism, no! No! Reagan left the government bigger, more expensive and more debt-ridden than the previous administrations, so I don’t know why you think Reagan was so great.
A: Interesting. Last week’s “Wall Street Journal” was critical of me for saying that Reagan wasn’t all that good a conservative. So, interesting, I catch it from both sides; I catch it from the Wall Street Journal and from you.
Q: Did you say that?
A: What.
Q: What the “Wall Street Journal” quoted you as saying.
A: Well, John, as you know, I was widely quoted and active in most of the 1980s in sometimes praising Reagan and sometimes being very critical of the White House. The White House was very critical of me earlier this year and I was critical of them and their responses in answering my criticism of them was to say: well, Viguerie was critical of Ronald Reagan.
Q: Right.
A: So, you know – I’m okay with it. I am not going to please you – I’m not going to please the White House or I’m not going to please this one or that one – I just do the best that I can – and I just do and we just go on from there.
Q: Well, I don’t think anybody would accuse you or any of the other people who for decades have and continue to urge the electing of Republicans and I don’t think that anyone would say you’re doing the best you can. They might say that that was really the saddest truth, that in fact you were doing the best you can. You know Conservatives have been betrayed, Richard, for at least twenty-five years by the Republican Party, and I sincerely don’t understand why staying within the party is a viable alternative.
In your book you list eight steps you can take to help free conservatism from big government Republicanism. And again, I don’t really care about Republican conservatism or big government Republicanism, I care about whether a government is Godly or un-Godly, first, because I think that Godly or un-Godly government gives us conservative or un-conservative government, but what do you mean when you say you are for conservatism? Conservatism is just a process…right now Bush says he’s a Conservative – a Compassionate Conservative. The only thing he’s been conserving is liberalism. What do you mean about Conservative? And Conservatism? What does it mean to you?
A: Well, you know – as John, as you know as well as I do, that as a general rule Conservatives believe in strong national defense – restoring, protecting traditional moral values, smaller government, we believe that government is generally best which governs the least, and that as much as anything defines the difference between a liberal and a conservative. It is the role of government in our lives and I’ve always believed that the more you limit government within certain boundaries, that mankind prospers for better
For all of recorded history, mankind, until 300 years ago, lived in caves or the equivalent or died young; life that was nasty, short and brutish and old age was maybe 40 and never had enough to eat and either cold or hungry all the time. But something happened a few hundred years ago, when that man came out of the cave and began to stand upright and generally had enough to eat and much better housing and one thing or other, was when we began to limit the power of government, was when we began to limit the power of Caesar and the Kings and the warlords.
Q: Stop-stop there, Richard…all of what you say, recently – about the limited power of government – these were all Christians. They limited the power of the civil government, because their politics was a product of their Christian religion. The idea that man has inalienable rights – that they come from God, they can’t be taken away by government – the people who settled our country went to war in self defense against the crown, because they crown violated their God-given rights. I don’t understand that at the outset of the program when I had my little tirade about what’s wrong with modern Conservative leaders, and again, almost every one of the leaders that I ran around with, including you, say they are some kind of Christian, well then I say fine, where is your Christian politics, and I thought you were just a little abrupt with the me earlier on. And if you’re a Christian, and I asked you what does your faith have to do with your government – I think that’s a fair question, Richard. How has your faith governed your politics?
A: Well, of course, John, you’re a very confrontational person…
Q: Oh, my goodness, attack me – go ahead.
A: You – yeah…
Q: Go ahead…
A: I’m trying to…that’s what John Lofton is known for, you, – you are better than everybody else, you do everything better than everyone else, and you’re just quick to – at least for the last 20 years or so, you’re very quick to judge other people and you’re comfortable doing that, John, and quite frankly I’m just not, so…more than that, that’s all I care to say, buddy…
Q: Well, all I asked you to do was judge yourself, Richard, what has your Christian faith had to do with your ideas in shaping your ideas and proposals as to what the government ought to be doing and once again you mention me being confrontational as if all confrontation is bad – which obviously it couldn’t be because you’re confronting the Republican Party! time and time again – in your book and in your articles.
In any event our country was founded by people who were first, Christians and their idea of Christianity and what the government ought to do is what formed their politics. And what I don’t understand, and what I denounce and deplore are people whose faith have nothing to do with their politics. Is there something, Richard, outside of the Constitution of the United States, that you think should limit the Federal Government? Is there something higher than the Constitution?
A: John, you say these people were all Christians who founded the country – I’m not sure that’s so, that’s my recollection, but be that as it may – I’m sure there were John Lofton types back in those days that were outraged and offended that they would establish a government that would enslave human beings! But they did the best they could with what they had to work with and it’s worked out pretty good for mankind merely because we took what steps we could at that time with the idea in mind that we would fix it the next day – the next year – the next decade – as soon as we could.
Q: I’m sorry did you just – when I pointed out that the founders – certainly most of the founders – if you read, maybe you’ve already read it, M.E. Bradford’s book, “A Worthy Company” where he does little thumbnail sketches of the fifty-five founders – and fifty-three; fifty-four of them were Christians, I mean they were members of the Episcopal, Presbyterian, regular communions. Were you just saying that, when I pointed that out, well, they were also for slavery? Is that what you – that the point you were making?
A: Some of them were, yeah…are you saying they weren’t?
Q: I’m saying what does that have to do with them being for Godly government? I guess that’s what I’d say.
A: Well, I think that not very many Christians today would approve – of slavery – hopefully none would. But in those days, Godly, Christian men authorized their fellow human beings to be slaves because they thought it was better to get a half of loaf than no loaf…and I, when you’re attacking me for being involved with the Republican Party for the last forty plus years I refer to our founding fathers, they didn’t get everything they wanted, but after a period of time, when you look back decades – excuse me centuries later, you can see that yeah, it was a good thing that they did take a half step – even thought they couldn’t take the full step.
Q: So, you’re saying that your decade’s long enthusiasm for the Republican Party and urging Christians and Conservatives to vote for the Republican Party is like the founding fathers who were for slavery?
A: No, that’s you saying that.
Q: When I press you repeatedly – trying to see if you favor something called Godly government why do you resist this? It’s almost as if, that’s not important. Yeah, I am critical of you and every so-called Conservative leader who has been a Christian for continuing decade in and decade out to urge that people stay in the Republican Party, but of course do the following ten things while you are still in the Party. Yeah, I’m critical of that because I think that without the support of leaders like yourself, the Republican Party - it probably wouldn’t be elected. Is that an unfair criticism to suggest at some point, in some decade you stop hitting yourself on the head with the Republican Party hammer?
A: I appreciate the compliment – that people like myself and others have been responsible for these Republican victories, I take that as a compliment…
Q: Well, you have.
A: I take that as a compliment.
Q: You serious?
A: Take comfort, John, in the fact that we’re not there yet, but we may be a lot closer by getting a pro-life, traditional values majority in the courts, and if I had sat on the sidelines and thousands of my colleagues had done the same, and we had 9 liberals on the Supreme Court, that would authorize abortion, and euthanasia and cloning and everything else that’s out there, I don’t think I’d feel very good about myself, and had sat on the sidelines and not tried to stop that.
Q: Well, and I wouldn’t feel very good about myself if that was what I was in any way saying…no, I am not suggesting, Richard, that you should have sat on the sidelines.
A: But the effect of…
Q: No…
A: Not working within the Republican Party would have been that we’d have nine liberals running the Supreme Court.
Q: No, you don’t know the future, and I don’t know the future, that neither one of us can say with any certitude what would have happened had you not done something else, you can speculate – even some speculation is better than others, but we can’t do that and what I’m saying, is not that Richard Viguerie should have sat on the sideline, but the play that I would have called for Richard Viguerie and all the so-called Christian Conservatives who have been leaders is to say, look – we’re Christians first, the first thing we ought to be pressing people for candidates and elected officials for is a Christian, Godly government. That comes before Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. But, that’s the first thing we should have been pressing for and we haven’t…and that hasn’t been done.
A: John, I don’t know, maybe uh- it’s my mistake, but I thought for sure that you had asked for this interview to discuss a book. I do lots of interviews every day, and I thought we were supposed to discuss the book, but in the first thirty minutes all you’ve done is attack me. Could we in the few minutes we have left do what you said that you wanted, and keep faith there, John?
Q: Sure, ah –
A: Did you forget about that?
Q: No, actually I…
A: In your enthusiasm to attack me?
Q: I’m not attacking you, Richard, I’m not attacking you.
A: Well, what happened to the request to talk about the book? Two-thirds of this interview time has been about attacking me and other Conservatives!
Q: Okay – so you don’t see – I see that everything I’ve asked about relating to your book and about what you’re proposing. What would you like to say about your book, Richard?
A: Well, usually, people who ask for interviews ask me questions about the book, but I will be glad to go in a different direction and just talk about it myself. I think that we have as a movement lost our way as we have at different times. Things seldom go in a straight line, you climb a mountain you don’t go in a straight line and we started this thing called the Conservative Movement sometime in the second half of the 1950s and along the way we’ve had some victories and we’ve had some losses and these days the conservative cause seems to be wondering without direction, without leaders, and I think there’s an opportunity now – regardless of how the November 7th election turns out, for the Conservatives to take back the Republican Party, influence the Democratic Party to become more conservative, as I said a few moments ago, I think Conservatives should not think of themselves as Republican, but not as a third party, but as a third force so that we act independent of the two major parties out there, and see if we can be effective in pulling the entire political arena to the right.
We’ve got a lot of problems, as Conservatives, and we certainly need more elected officials, more candidates, more organizations, more activists as the grassroots level, but the thing we need most of all, if we have this one thing, everything else will fall into place, and that is leadership. As long as I can remember, we have not had the type of leadership that we as a cause, as a movement needs. And in the book, John, I also take that beyond just the political arena. We need to have good leaders in all aspects of society. People are losing faith and confidence in our institutions out there. Whether it’s the religious community, sports, business, certainly politics, people just don’t – one they’re not well lead and two…
Q: I agree…
A: They’re beginning to realize something is wrong …
Q: I agree with all that. I agree! So, what’s wrong? And I deny that the Conservatives don’t have a cause – I think that leaders like yourself, and Dobson, and Falwell and Robertson – they have a cause – they have become Republican Party cheerleaders!
A: Mm-hmm…
Q: That’s a cause. They’ve cheered on a losing team. And again, we’ve gone from Goldwater to Bush – who’s given us this biggest, debt ridden government in the history of the universe, that to me is not progress and it’s going the wrong way.
A: Well, John, what I would say to that is that you lump me with a lot of other people – many of them are friends of mine, but I am in this book, “Conservatives Betrayed” I counsel a different direction, quite frankly, than most of my conservative friends. I see that there is a need for Conservatives to pull back from such close associations with the Republicans.
Q: Well, good!
A: I thought you would want to applaud that…
Q: (Claps).
A: I appreciate the fact that you think I have done wrong all these years, when I have supported the Republican Party, but be that as it may – that’s history, but going forward, I think that Conservatives are not going to get to the political “Promised Land” with the leadership that we have now, we need new leaders and I in a very small way, through this book, through websites that are going to be starting, first one is ConservativesBetrayed.com, we are going to try to try to provide some leadership in this way or that way, to take back the culture, take back the political parties, for those who share a Conservative, Biblical worldview.
Q: Well, Godless Conservatism will not defeat Godless Liberalism, Richard, because to God they’re just two atheistic peas in a pod. What do you think of that?
A: Well, John, what I would say, you know when you say to God, they are – God communicates with you in a way He doesn’t communicate with me. So, He’s given you that message and you can speak for God.
Q: You don’t read your Bible?
A: That’s wonderful, John, that you can speak for God. I wish I could… I would be so honored…
Q: No-no-no…funny, but the sound of your voice doesn’t sound like you would be honored.
A: I would be honored if God would speak to me…apparently like He speaks to you.
Q: Well, if you are a Christian, Richard, and you read your Bible, God is speaking to you. Did you know that?
A: Yes, John.
Q: Okay, then why you make a big thing – like I’m getting some kind of voices in my head? Come on…
A: Well, but you said – this is what God thinks…
Q: Yes. God hates Godless anything, see?
A: That’s not what you said.
Q: I said, modern conservatism has been Godless, and Godless conservatism will not defeat Godless liberalism because they’re both Godless, they’re equally offensive to God. That’s what I said. That’s what I meant.
A: No, that’s not what you said. You can go back and listen to the tape.
Q: Oh, okay, so that’s what I said now. Modern Conservatism is Godless. The leaders of the movement have said nothing of the necessity of Godly government. They’ve said nothing about that, and you have attacked me when I raise this subject with you repeatedly and let me say, for the record, that I have in this interview with you, have not attacked you personally, I’ve talked about your method and your suggestions and your plans, whereas, you have more than once, attacked me personally.
So, all I’m criticizing is your method and after four decades of trying something which has been a failure, in all honesty, perhaps it is time to try something else, and that means getting out of the Republican Party. It’s a burning building – tell them to jump out and we’ll talk later about what we’re going to do.
A: Yeah just jump out fellas; I don’t know what’s down there, but …
Q: We know its on fire though, don’t we…we know what’s failed, don’t we, Richard?
A: Yeah, but we also know this, John, is that there are not many Liberals, that don’t know that Conservatives are riding high with this sickness and that sickness, and they’re wrong, but I guarantee, but, John, just a minute…nobody’s going to say, or very few, certainly I won’t that…the Conservatives have achieved what we wanted to achieve, but – I can just guarantee you that the Left is beside themselves with frustration that we have achieved whatever it is that we have.
Q: I understand.
A: And many, many Liberals would love to trade places with us. They think we’re riding high – we aren’t, but in their opinion we are.
Q: Well, that would be puzzling, if Liberals felt that way, because George Bush has given us the most liberal, biggest government in the history of the universe – most debt-ridden, most intrusive, most un-Constitutional, he’s bogged us down in a murderous, un-Constitutional, un-Godly war, I can’t imagine why the left would be envious or angry at Bush. But, let me say this…
A: I agree with you, by the way, there…
Q: Yeah, well, yeah – makes it all the more puzzling why — we knew all this at the last election, but you still urged people – your word – enthusiastically, to vote for Bush. But, let me ask you this – you’ve said something two or three times – that indicates the different stage that you and I are on, performing. You talk about early on Goldwater – the media didn’t take us seriously – we were a small bunch of Nazi’s blah-blah-blah, now oh, boy, here’s what the liberal Left thinks about us. But, I don’t care what the media thinks, or what the liberal Left thinks. I think that Christians should first care about what God thinks about what they’re doing. Are we going to fight about that? Are you going to attack me because I said that?
A: John, there’s nothing more important than being, you know, trying to do what God wants us to do. As you know, the famous thing that Lincoln is supposed to have said, “Is God on the side of the North? He said I don’t worry about that; I just worry about being on God’s side. And I think we all agree there.
Q: Well, we do, except, Lincoln, was obviously not on God’s side, having perpetuated an unnecessary war, and committing the greatest act of terrorism on American soil. It was not 9/11; it was Mr. Lincoln’s war. But we do have to – I do have – we do have to part here, and I would like to close if possible on an agreeable note, I’m glad, although I doubt that you could care less, and be glad it’s me – but you shouldn’t not at first anyway – I’m glad to hear you say that what is primary is what God wants and what God thinks of us, and I would urge you, strongly, as I have at least 18 gazillion times, previously, in a variety of ways, to contemplate, what does God want Christians to do, in the political arena? If Christ is the Lord of all – and He is, He’s the Lord of politics, and I would beseech you, that’s a good King James word – I would beseech you to think seriously to think about what would a Godly Christian, Biblical politics look like and throw your energies into that.
A: I do it, repeatedly throughout every day. That’s my prayer, morning, noon and night.
Q: Amen. Well, good, and I thank you for your interview, and God bless you and your family and your work.