Poet, Prophet, or Historian


Artist:  Conservatives’ Guide to American Politics
Album:  Poet, Prophet, or Historian
Episode Comments:  Was Paul Harvery in April 1965 predicting the future or reading the history? Should his words of old hold sway on actions of today?  Listen and decide.

These are words  from a day more than 50 years ago, controversial at the time, but truth or fiction?  Was it  prophecy or just a good reminder of history?  You decided.

“If I were the Devil . . . I mean, if I were the Prince of Darkness, I would of course, want to engulf the whole earth in darkness. I would have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree, so I should set about however necessary to take over the United States. 

I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.” 

To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. 

In the ears of the young marrieds, I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be extreme in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to say after me: “Our Father, which art in Washington” . . .

If I were the devil, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull an uninteresting. I’d threaten T.V. with dirtier movies and vice versa. 

And then, if I were the devil, I’d get organized. I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing and less work, because idle hands usually work for me. 

I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. And I’d tranquilize the rest with pills. 

If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects but neglect to discipline emotions . . . let those run wild. I would designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts in the land and I would get preachers to say “she’s right.” 

With flattery and promises of power, I could get the courts to rule what I construe as against God and in favor of pornography, and thus, I would evict God from the courthouse, and then from the school house, and then from the houses of Congress and then, in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and I would deify science because that way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not wise enough to control them.

If I were Satan, I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg, and the symbol of Christmas, a bottle. If I were the devil, I would take from those who have and I would give to those who wanted, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. And then, my police state would force everybody back to work. Then, I could separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines, and objectors in slave camps. In other words, if I were Satan, I’d just keep on doing what he’s doing.”

Paul Harvey shared words and bid us his traditional “Good Day” on April 3, 1965.  Were his words poetry, prophecy, or a recounting of history?

It took 15 years for Hitler to seize control of Germany with his songs of peace and promise.  The last three years of the rise to power were very violent with street fights and beer hall battles.  But by April 10, 1933, Hitler had secured enough votes for the Nazi party to rule Germany.  With just 38.8% of the vote, history would see another brutal mass killer assent upon the earth.  

Could Paul Harvey, in 1965, have been just re-reading old history books as a warning that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it?  Is Paul’s message even more important today?

To learn about what conservatism means, our children turn to resources like wikipedia, which defines “Conservatism in the United States is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business and anti-labor, anti-communism, individualism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by socialism, authoritarianism, and moral relativism.”

Except with the “anti-labor” reference, I pretty much agree with everything else.  But my definition my be a bit more concise.  Less government.

We must have a government and for that reason our founding fathers created a constitutional-republic (not a democracy bemoaned by liberals and main stream media).  We elect our representatives and box them in with a confine of limitations of action.  Anything not expressly forbidden by the constitution is left to the states to decide in free and democratic elections.  As a United States, people then have the ability to leave one state that is going down a path with-which they disagree and move to another with-which they have more agreement.  Liberty in action.

As brilliant as our founder fathers were, they programmed in a fatale flaw that is not discussed, would be the end of America.  Actually, in the Federalist Papers we can read the lengthy discussions on this exact topic and as the writers predicted, America eventually fought a civil war over the ideals, but that is another podcast for another day.  America is a constitutional-republic and has three co-equal branches of government.  The left has been working to over-throw all three for more than a century.  

As conservatives, we should bicker less about the minutia of platform and focus more on the bigger picture.  What do I mean by that?

Last week we explored how ignoring the protestors in the streets gave rise to their voice and now that voice is working to silence dissension.  Meanwhile we are arguing over the moral idea of abortion.  

Whoa whoa whoa…Abortion is not minutia!  

Actually, yes it is, because the focus we put on the subject is the moral grounding and not the legal methodology.  The liberals focus on the legalistic side of the discussion and focus their efforts on taking control of the system by which the rules are made.  Federal judges serve life sentences and are appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the congress.  Trying to fight the morals of the idea, when all the people in control disagree, is a fruitless battle.  Instead, we must focus on the process side of the equation and elect people who actually represent conservative ideals.  If they are fake conservatives, then at the next election, throw them out and try again.  The moral argument matters not if the representatives we elect don’t hold the same beliefs.

Here is another example of how conservatives focus more on the minutia.  Climate change.  Again, not a podcast on the idea of climate change, that I have schedule for a few weeks out.  Our problem in this argument was we tried to argue against science…like Paul Harvey explained.  Science is actual on the side of the climate change alarmists, but it is a straw-man argument.  Definition: “an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.”  Our planet, planet Earth, has experiences climate change for billions of years.  The argument isn’t about “man-made” it is about who will be in power to make the laws.

The answer is almost never in the argument, but in the ideology of the politician making the argument.  The decision point, for conservatives, should be simple.  Does the man or woman asking for our vote belief in less government or more?  Is that candidate running for office like the devil Paul Harvey described back in April of 1965?


Posted in