Alan Keyes

Since his quest to win the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004, Barack Obama’s faith has provoked controversy. In that campaign, his Republican rival Alan Keyes—a black Catholic—accused Obama of stressing his faith only “when it’s convenient to get votes.” When faith must be followed, explained, and serve as a basis for policies, Keyes protested, Obama pled the “separation of church and state”—a concept that was neither constitutional nor scriptural. “Christ would not vote for Barack Obama,” Keyes asserted, because his behavior was so contrary to that of Christ’s.

These charges prompted Obama to reassess how his faith related to his approach to politics. He concluded that his typical responses to Keyes’ criticisms—that “we live in a pluralistic society” and “I can’t impose my own religious views” on others—had been inadequate.

By 2006, Obama had decisively changed his tactics. At the Sojourners/Call to Renewal conference,he chided Democrats for refusing to talk about religious values out of fear of offending people or belief that religion had no role to play in the public arena. Ignoring “the power of faith” in the lives of Americans was “a mistake.” Obama urged Democrats to discuss “how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.”

Obama called the contention that people “should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates” a “practical absurdity.” American law, he argued “is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.” “Secularists are wrong,” Obama asserted, “when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama strove to win the votes of religiously-devout Americans by providing a biblical basis for his policies on poverty, healthcare, immigration, and other issues. He urged citizens to “heed the biblical call to care for ‘the least of these’”—America’s poor—by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, increasing the minimum wage, and supplying universal health insurance.

Jeremiah Wright

During the campaign, Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright (who pastored the United Church of Christ congregation Obama had attended in Chicago for twenty years), the widespread misperception that Obama was a Muslim, and his stances on abortion and homosexual rights called attention to his religious beliefs and created controversy.

As president, Obama has frequently testified to his Christian faith, most notably at four National Prayer Breakfasts, and linked many of his policies to biblical teachings. Contrary to the wishes of many of his supporters, he has also continued George W. Bush’s Faith-based Initiatives.

Obama’s rhetoric and actions have led to conflicting claims about his presidency. John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College, recently labeled Obama perhaps the “most explicitly Christian president in American history” because of his extensive citation of the Bible and copious references to Christian faith. Fea stressed that Obama regularly read the Bible and prayed, was being mentored by evangelical pastors (most notably Joel Hunter, Kirbyjon Caldwell, and T.D. Jakes), accentuated both faith and works, urged Americans to follow God’s command to love our neighbors as ourselves, and strove to build the kingdom of God on earth.

Glenn Beck’s criticism of Fea’s op-ed on his show brought the history professor hundreds of scathing emails and elicited numerous rebuttals. The response of well-known conservative activist and author David Barton was especially caustic. Barton denounced Obama as the “Most Biblically-Hostile U.S. President.” Barton supplied dozens of examples to support his contention that Obama has engaged in acts of hostility toward people of biblical faith, violated biblical values, and given preferential treatment to Islam.

Meanwhile, in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Mitchell Landsberg correctly observed that Obama has been both “praised—and pummeled—on matters of faith.” “Few presidents,” he added, “have spoken more often or more articulately about their religious beliefs” or been so censured by some religious groups because of their policies.

Obama has been reproached for not attending church regularly, praising Islam and the Qur’an, requiring religiously-affiliated institutions to provide coverage for contraception, and his policies on abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, and ministerial exemptions.

Because of continued confusion about his faith (45 percent of Republicans in Alabama and 51 percent in Mississippi identified him as a Muslim in recent polls), conservative charges that he is waging war against religious groups, and substantial concern that some of his policies contradict either biblical principles or long-standing American religious freedoms, Obama’s faith and religious issues are very likely to be a major issue in the 2012 presidential campaign.

Dr. Gary Scott Smith chairs the history department at Grove City College and is a fellow for faith and the presidency with The Center for Vision & Values. He is the author of “Faith and the Presidency From George Washington to George W. Bush” (Oxford University Press, 2009) and “Heaven in the American Imagination” (Oxford University Press, 2011).

The campaign offered no explanation for the drop in fundraising – actually, it didn’t mention the drop.

The cause of the decline is unclear. There doesn’t seem to have been any lessening of Obama’s personal fundraising efforts, which remained robust. And the drop off came as the Obama campaign continued to ramp up operations and as the Republican race clarified, with Mitt Romney becoming the presumptive nominee.

Romney, with his glass-of-milk persona, may not be a galvanizing force for conservatives, but Obama’s fundraising drop off also suggests he’s not scaring Democrats the way a more severely conservative candidate might have.

In a video, Obama campaign Manager Jim Messina bragged about the grass roots nature of the fundraising, saying that 98 percent of donors contributed less than $250 and that the average donation was below $50.

These small donor numbers are pumped up, of course, by the relentless calls for $3 donations by the campaign, including $3 raffle tickets for a meal with the president.

But the numbers also point to what some have described as a problem for the campaign – the unwillingness of big donors whose income and industries have been vilified by Obama to give him money this time around.

Forced out of the closet by the unscripted remarks of Washington’s original gaffemeister, Vice President Joe Biden, Mr. Obama has pledged his support for same-sex marriage.  Naturally, the President is being hailed for his bold stand by the liberal media, although everyone knows that he only went public because Biden’s comments on the subject left him no alternative.  Given his druthers, Obama would have maintained his coyness and not made his sentiments public until such time as he he felt he could maximize the political benefits of doing so (i.e., right after the November election).

For better or worse however, the cat is out of the bag and Mr. O is out of the closet, and the strategists behind the Republican electoral machine are wringing their hands now that the spotlight is focused elsewhere than on the economy.  If you are one of the few remaining conservatives who believes that the Republican Party represents traditional cultural values in addition to free market principles, you’ll be disappointed to know that the current Republican leadership has little interest in advocating for traditional marriage on the public stage.  This is why they were cringing in the corner when would-be presidential aspirants like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann were stressing the importance of families headed by a mom and a dad.

For his part, Mr. Romney will find it difficult to navigate this issue because the perception is that he has been on both sides of the so-called fence at various points in his political career.  In the 90′s he pledged fealty to the radical gay agenda, promising to out-advocate his then opponent, Ted Kennedy, on all issues homosexual.  Today of course, he has a different opponent and is seeking to appeal to a different constituency, so he will try to portray himself as a consistent, lifelong supporter of traditional marriage.  Doing so without coming off as a flip-flopper will be difficult, and unfortunately he won’t find much help from Speaker Boehner or Republican leaders in the House or Senate, as they’ve made a policy of essentially ignoring all issues that are not economic.

Nevermind that marriage is an institution ordained by God that has served as the fundamental building block of human society since the beginning of time.  Nevermind that basic common sense (as well as several formal sociological studies) tells us that children need the influence of a mother and a father in shaping their understanding of the world, their sense of personal security and confidence, and their preparedness to function as healthy and productive members of society.  Nevermind that natural law, our anatomical appendages, and the reproduction of the human race all seem innately geared toward heterosexual unions.  Republican leaders in Washington today can’t be counted upon for anything more than a tip of the hat toward traditional marriage.  Such would be beneath the station of Washington elites and is dirty work better suited to the hoi poloi (those of us in fly-over country who cling to guns and religion).

But the American people understand the significance of the paradigm shift advocated by Mr. Biden and his Johnny-come-lately boss.  As recently as last week, 61% of North Carolinians voting cast their ballot in favor of traditional marriage and against extending the sanctity of this ancient institution to same-sex unions.  All in all, 35 states have come down on the side of traditional marriage when their citizens were given the opportunity to do so, indicating that while marriage is under assault from many quarters (high divorce rates and an increase in the rise of cohabitation), the American people intuitively understand that traditional marriage is nonetheless an institution not to be trifled with.

So social conservatives had better get ready to rumble.  The stakes couldn’t be higher, nor the impact of the outcome of the election greater.  It’s about more than the economy Messrs. Romney and Obama, and no, the American people are not stupid.

Unless profound changes are made in the next decade, the president warned, the world will demand more oil than it can produce. He called for “strict conservation” and switching to “permanent renewable energy sources like solar power.” Because such sources promise future energy independence—or at least according to the president—his administration would spend billions of taxpayer dollars on wind, solar, and biodiesel, plus offer massive “clean energy” subsidies.

No, the president is not Barack Obama, and the speech was not delivered in 2012. It was President Jimmy Carter, speaking on April 18, 1977.

Since that time, American oil and natural gas production has skyrocketed. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that natural gas consumption has doubled since 1980, production is at an all-time high, imports are at a 20-year low and heating expenses are the lowest in a decade>. Meanwhile, the latest recession barely affected North Dakota, a state rich in oil and natural gas.

President Carter’s speech sounds familiar because it is based on the same flawed assumptions that underlie many current politicians’ belief that wise and enlightened central planners in Washington can manage the countless and infinitely complex transactions and calculations that comprise a $14-trillion-dollar national economy.

These politicians hold on to these flawed beliefs despite being regularly embarrassed by them. For example, a recent Capitol Confidential article and video showed President Obama and two senators from Michigan praising a heavily subsidized “green energy” battery manufacturer that is now under severe financial stress and has had its federal money pulled. Another Capitol Confidential piece reported a litany of similar embarrassments on a YouTube channel created by the Michigan Economic Development Corp.

Economist F.A. Harper once wrote, “If the planner could plan discovery for others, he probably would have made that discovery himself in the first place. If he is more able in this respect than the others, he is wasting his time not to do it himself; if he is less able, he can hardly plan it for others who are more able than he is.”

It’s much easier for politicians to make plans with other peoples’ money. It would show real leadership for government to actually do less.

Jarrett Skorup is a 2009 graduate of Grove City College and former student fellow at The Center for Vision & Values. He is the research associate for online engagement for Michigan Capitol Confidential at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Centers are properly cited. Mr. Skorup can be reached at Skorup@mackinac.org.

Cover Photo Credit: Inhabitat.com

Almost immediately after Rick Santorum dropped out of the Republican presidential hunt, David Axelrod and the Obama reelection team unleashed the class-warfare cannons. They expected to enjoy the first salvo of the season, fired by Democratic lobbyist Hilary Rosen. In a CNN interview, Rosen claimed that Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann, “has actually never worked a day in her life.”

It was a nasty blow, and the public rallied to Ann Romney’s defense. As for Ann Romney, she didn’t remain silent. “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys,” she said. “Believe me, it was hard work.” She might have noted her considerable physical sacrifices as well—such as breast cancer and MS—but didn’t.

While Hilary Rosen’s shot was still smoldering, liberal blogs were rife with fresh Democratic talking points vilifying Mitt Romney as a “one percenter,” asking whether he paid his “fair share” in taxes, and attacking him for squirreling away his vile riches in foreign bank accounts. It was total class warfare. And this was just week one!

But then came the wonderful thing: Merely six days after Hilary Rosen’s comment, major polling organizations released numbers on a head-to-head match-up between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and Romney suddenly has a lead. The most respected among them, Gallup, released numbers on April 17 showing Romney ahead by five points, 48 to 43 percent.

Why is this wonderful? It’s not that I adore Mitt Romney, but I loathe class hatred. Marx and the Bolsheviks and their disciples did it with great destruction. I don’t want it in my country.

It’s hard to pinpoint the exact reasons for Romney’s sudden surge over Obama, but no doubt some of this (particularly the swipe at Ann Romney) backfired. Or, at the least, some pollsters and pundits are interpreting it that way. If so, then maybe—just maybe—Axelrod might learn that not all forms of class warfare will resonate with Americans. Let’s hope that’s the case, because, otherwise, Axelrod and the president he serves—who Axelrod portrays as the Great Unifier and fountain of hope—will be bitterly dividing this nation along economic lines.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, not only has President Obama been unceasingly employing class rhetoric for three years now, but Axelrod has been thrilling over precisely such an assault against Mitt Romney. “Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession—a sort of political Gordon Gekko,” reported an August 2011 Politico piece titled, “Obama plan: Destroy Romney.” The piece quoted Axelrod: “He [Romney] was very, very good at making a profit for himself and his partners but not nearly as good [at] saving jobs for communities. He is very much the profile of what we’ve seen in the last decade on Wall Street.”

This had been the plan before the Occupy Wall Street movement got up and running. Axelrod and Obama see Romney as red meat to feed the Occupy movement. As the Occupiers exploded last fall, Axelrod paused to tell MSNBC: “[Romney] says he represents business, but he really represents theWall Street side of business.”

Envy is a deadly sin, but Team Obama desires it as an excellent divide-and-conquer tactic. Axelrod and Obama both cut their political teeth in Chicago, home of Obama inspiration Saul Alinsky, who preached the tactic of “isolating” a target and “demonizing” it. Romney’s riches fit the bill nicely.

More recently, in January, Axelrod told George Stephanopoulos that Romney is “not a job creator” but a “corporate raider” who outsourced “tens of thousands of jobs,” “closed down more than 1,000 plants, stores, and offices,” and raked in “hundreds of millions of dollars” at the expense of the poor. Axelrod referred to this as the sinister “Bain mentality.”

Alas, here we are, April 2012, with the presidential race finally down to Obama v. Romney, and the first polls show Obama behind this rapacious capitalist reptile.

So, will Romney’s sudden surge signal to Axelrod and Obama to call off the class-warfare dogs? I doubt it. This thinking is too close to their hearts. They’ve been hungering for this; fomenting class envy is what they long to do. But maybe—just maybe—the American public won’t swallow it.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the people of this country quit hating each other, including hating people with more money? I’m hoping so, but our messengers of hope, Obama and Axelrod, are hoping not.

Several times during the debate and deliberation, my mind harkened back to the words of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Remarking on the original Obamacare bill, Pelosi infamously said that first “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Even more outrageous was another Pelosi observation, especially given the pivotal role of the Supreme Court. In October 2009, Pelosi was asked by a reporter if the healthcare legislation was constitutional. Here’s a transcript of the exchange:

Reporter: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Reporter: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi’s incredulity at that perfectly reasonable question is as telling as it is stunning. She scorned the very thought, as if the reporter were either a total idiot, an unregenerate right-wing Neanderthal, or had flown in on a flying saucer from Neptune.

And yet, as Congresswoman Pelosi learned last week, the reporter had hit the crux of the issue. So did state attorneys general nationwide, who quickly filed lawsuits precisely on whether Obamacare is constitutional.

Pelosi’s contempt for that notion—apparently shared by many of her “progressive” colleagues—has come back to bite her and President Obama and the entirety of the progressive/liberal movement. Democrats who scoff at such questions do so at their own peril. There is another branch of government in this country; it’s called the judiciary. And that branch for over 200 years has been tasked with exactly such a duty: that is, reviewing the constitutionality of legislation.

Ironically, Pelosi’s behavior does a greater disservice to the goals of her own party than to conservatives. Liberals need to step back and understand what has unraveled with Obamacare: Their party leaders flagrantly ignored legitimate constitutional objections (and numerous other criticisms) raised by opponents. These objections were so well-placed that they now hold the potential to place a dagger in the heart of their prized legislation. If the individual mandate is struck down as un-constitutional, then the entire Obamacare legislation might be finished, given that the individual mandate is the chief funding mechanism for the entire program.

Even then, the constitutional problems don’t end there. Next up, probably next year, will be the Obama-HHS mandate requiring every American, including all religious believers and institutions—with the Catholic Church at the center of the controversy—to fund contraception and abortion drugs. Here, too, President Obama and his allies are pushing another mandate that will have to be reviewed by courts because of its blatant challenge to the Constitution—in this case, the First Amendment’s freedom of religion and conscience.

Alas, this brings me to a sincere query for liberals: Why do you tolerate Democratic Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi (among others)? I could literally write a book on outrageous Pelosi comments uttered just in the last five years, from amazing statements like those quoted above to her breathtaking remarks on her own Catholic Church and its teachings on human life.

Why do Democrats accept such shoddy leadership? They are making their dearest plans vulnerable to immediate rejection by the constitutional process. If I were a progressive dreaming of universal healthcare, I would be extremely disappointed. As noted by Joe Postell, a scholar on the progressive movement, progressives have been trying to implement “universal healthcare” since literally 1912, when those words appeared in that year’s Progressive Party platform. In 2009, they finally had their big chance, but may have blown it by ridiculing or ignoring—and not dealing with—their critics’ objections.

Or, on the other hand, do they have such disrespect and disregard for their critics that they don’t care what they say? If that’s the case, it isn’t prudent leadership. Think about your own life or career or home or company: For major decisions, don’t you at least consider possible obstacles or pitfalls?

Someday, “progressives” may have a solid majority on the Supreme Court and can blithely dismiss the original intent of the Constitution. If Americans keep voting as they do, such a majority is a distinct possibility. For now, however, they ignore realities at their peril. Simply calling conservatives idiots isn’t very smart.

Yes, Congresswoman Pelosi, we’re serious.

The White House is desperate to repair the damage being done to Obama’s campaign by the price at the pump, and aides have suddenly begun portraying him as a great apostle of oil and gas drilling.

In what may go down as one of the worst political blunders of his presidency, Obama late last year bowed to environmentalists’ pressure and rejected the Keystone pipeline’s route through part of Nebraska, delaying by at least a year a major new source of oil just as gasoline prices started going through the roof.

Wednesday, he’ll be in Carlsbad, New Mexico to inspect oil and gas production fields located on federal lands.

Obama will be in Oklahoma Thursday – yes, Oklahoma – to “discuss his Administration’s commitment to improving and supporting the infrastructure that helps us leverage our domestic resources,” the White House said.

I assume these are code words for the infrastructure to get fossil fuels out of the ground, since he sure ain’t going to Oklahoma for votes. He’s more likely to strike oil.

According to ABC News, Obama will staging a photo op in Cushing, Oklahoma, which is on the Keystone pipeline project’s “southern route,” of which the administration approves.

Of course, the two day trip also features a solar facility and a meeting with people conducting “some of the country’s most advanced energy-related research and development.”

But the White House is clearly eager to show that Obama loves the non-advanced stuff too, since that’s what the country is going to be running on for the foreseeable future.

The document is really not a budget and Senator Reid, the majority leader, has stated that he will not bring it to the Senate for a vote. It is a political statement which expresses the general tenor of the President’s reelection platform and therefore, the platform of his party. The President foresees sharply higher taxes as the driver and fiscal support of his ambitious economic program for the next four years.

The proposed budget attempts to tap into a vein which is apparent in other countries. In many parts of Europe there is a wave of resentment against the rich which is feeding a rash of targeted tax increases against the wealthy. In France, the Socialist Party candidate for President announced his major initiative around the same time the Administration released its proposed budget. The candidate, Francois Hollande, called for a 75% tax bracket for those earning over $1 million euros a year. Earlier he proposed a higher marginal rate of 45% for those earning over $150,000 euros a year. Other European countries have initiated severe tax increases including those on income even as their economies have continued to struggle. Corporations also have been hit hard. Italy has initiated a “Robin Hood” tax aimed at the energy sector.

The Administration’s budget is not a growth initiative. To the extent that they are actually implemented, tax increases would impair the promising revival of our economy which is now underway. In a wider context, the sheer size of proposed tax increases foretells the Administration’s desire for a continuation and expansion of the big government solution.

People have asked me who I support for the GOP nomination and I answer ‘I don’t know’ not to avoid commitment or engagement (I’m always ready to engage ideas) but because, like many commentators and scholars and analysts and observers with far more intelligence than I dare claim, I do not know who the best candidate would be. But I’m willing to state the belief that any of the four candidates seeking the GOP nomination would be far more respectful of basic rights and liberties and the sanctity and dignity of human life than the current officeholder they seek to replace. That sounds like an editorial comment but is at least as much an account of factual record.

Mr. Obama has his points of merit on certain particular issues, on rhetorical skill and for some on personal likeability, though the election of a president is of far more consequence than that.

So let’s be clear on what’s at stake here. What got little to no attention in the 2008 election is, for starters, Mr. Obama’s voting record in the Illinois Senate. I talked and wrote about it, but now it’s coming more to light.

The nation’s number one talk show host drew attention to Barack Obama’s history of supporting infanticide on Friday’s show.

Discussing this week’s CNN debate in Mesa, Arizona, Rush Limbaugh told his listeners said the president’s vote against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001, 2002, and 2003 amounted to “the most shocking and underreported significant story I can ever remember.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich raised the issue of Obama’s support for infanticide after CNN debate moderator John King asked the presidential hopefuls a question about birth control.The question met with loud audience disapproval, as it was widely interpreted as intended to embarrass Rick Santorum.

Gingrich, who replied first, objected that in 2008, “not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.

“If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion,” Gingrich said. “It is not the Republicans.”

True. And astounding in its direct analogy to the Dred Scott decision. Obama said that granting protections to infants (though he used the term ‘fetuses’) would make abortion illegal, and he couldn’t do that. But that’s the same argument used against granting protection of human rights to slaves under the Constitution.

President Obama said he wouldn’t want his daugheters ‘punished with a baby’ if they made ‘a mistake,’ whichs till rings in the ears of Americans who recognize the sanctity of human life from conception of human life.

His administration’s HHS mandate is so radical, it has precipitated a broad backlash.

I find it unconscionable that a president, who just days previously had made it clear that he would mandate that religious organizations violate their consciences, stood before hundreds at the National Prayer Breakfast and said (1) that he is a Christian, and (2) that somehow the teachings of holy scripture in general and, in particular, Jesus’ teaching in the gospels, have a direct correlation to his presidency and moreover to the mandates he has put into place (whether healthcare-related, economic, or otherwise). Simply put, it is hard to see how Mr. Obama can mandate a violation of conscience one day, and say the following with a straight face just days later, while remaining an honest man:

Kengor argues convincingly that Obama strategist David Axelrod is salivating as he prepares to serve up Romney as a piece of “red meat for the Occupy movement.” And why not? Class warfareis the favorite team meal of the all-star progressive squad. Consider the man who wrote the playbook, Saul Alinsky. The author of “Rules for Radicals” sought to give meaning to young radicals by teaching tactics to take from the “Haves” and give to the “Have-Nots.”

I happen to agree with some of the things Alinsky says in “Rules.” Things like: “[A]ll revolutionary movements are primarily generated from spiritual values,” and, “Today’s generation is desperately trying to make some sense out of their lives and out of the world…. The young are … looking for what man has always looked for from the beginning of time, a way of life that has some meaning or sense.” It’s human nature.

Alinsky gets that. We all know that there is a spiritual meaning to life, even if we’re hesitant totalk about it publicly. In that sense, Rick Santorum may be the best Republican candidate to take on President Obama. Santorum, like Alinsky, isn’t afraid to talk about life’s core spiritual issues.

But Santorum wouldn’t agree with Alinsky or Obama on the source of our political hope. Alinsky said that the community organizer, someone he believes to be on a higher plane than a mere leader, “understands that all of life is a quest for uncertainty; and that he can live with it.” This is an idea that dates back to the mid-19th-century German philosophical roots of modern radical progressivism. The highest value of progressive leaders is never-ending, radical, societal change. Why? Because they believe a social climate characterized by uncertainty provides the best environment for societal evolution. Whether it’s Barack Obama proclaiming in October 2008, “We are five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” or Rahm Emanuel saying, “You don’t ever want a good crisis to go to waste, it’s an opportunity to do things you would otherwise avoid,” or Nancy Pelosi assuring an audience that, “We have to pass the bill before we can find out what’s in it,” radical progressive leaders seek to offer hope to their constituents by creating a climate of uncertainty.

But this runs contrary to human nature. Rather than creating hope, secular progressives create despair. And I believe rank-and-file progressives are getting wise to this.

A few weeks ago I visited a Washington, D.C., think-tank that is positioned best to understand the Occupy folks. Without any leading on my part, I asked one of the senior leaders to use one word to describe the defining characteristic of the Occupy movement. Following a few seconds of silence, he responded, “hopelessness,” and another senior operative quickly agreed.

It’s high time that we have a national discussion about the source of our political hope. We’re more likely to see that discussion if Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee. Like Ronald Reagan, Santorum eagerly discusses our hope using the language of the Declaration of Independence when he speaks of a Creator who creates us equally with certain unalienable rights. Santorum promotes this uniquely American wellspring of hope while radical secular progressives unwittingly create despair by believing in evolving, godless values (God-centered values are “dead” values) in pursuit of ongoing fundamental societal change. After all, how much rudderless fundamental change can a nation bear? Today’s radical progressives lead Americans down a dimly lit path to proven failure (e.g., massive progressive federal programs), while Santorum marches toward what he and Reagan perceive as a Shining City.

Of the two leading Republican presidential candidates, Santorum seems far more eager to lead a national discussion about the source of our country’s political hope. Either way, Americans will have that discussion some day, and we will have it soon. Progressivism will collapse under its own weight and, as Alinsky said, Americans will try to find meaning in the world. Inevitably, we’ll find it in those simple but profound words of the Declaration that created our nation—a nation that, as Lincoln said, is “the last best hope.”

Lee Wishing is the administrative director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He will be a participant in an April 19-20 conference hosted by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College on “The Challenge 2012: The Divided Conservative Mind.”