Quote of the Day

Friday, April 2, 2010

Senatorial Candidate

One George Wythe alumni (Ph.D. in Constitutional Studies, year ??) has declared himself a candidate for U.S. Senate from the state of Utah.

"Dr." Scott N. Bradley is running as a member of the Constitution Party (in other words he has no chance).

Bradley is a former administrator (what does that mean?) at Utah State University. (Anyone know what he did there?)

If you follow this link, you can learn how Bradley is better than other candidates because he doesn't "need a team of speechwriters, policy consultants, and public opinion pollsters to find out what [he] 'believes'" but instead he has "studied the issues and the Constitution."

To prove the point, he provides a list of "policy papers written by Scott Bradley, PhD."

Included on the list:

- Fasting and prayer (FYI, this is apparently also how one comes to know that TJEd and George Wythe College are "true")
- The UN and NATO: Entangling Alliances? (no mention of the New World Order)
- The Trap of Multi-Culturalism and Diversity

These are just the nuttier ones. He does make some valid points, but unfortunately, his association with George Wythe College causes him to lose all credibility with me.

Photo source: www.scottnbradley.com


Anonymous said...

TRGW, you’ve got a lot of unanswered questions piling up. What’s really funny is how your last answer to a question just redirected people to someone else’s written ideas. You’re blog rules say to avoid personal attacks, but that’s all your blog seems to be. Oh, maybe your rules just mean attacks on you personally. That makes more sense.

James F. said...

I've known (not personally) Scott Bradley for many years now. He's run for many offices through the years with the Constitutional Party and is a fairly well known figure in the area which he lives. He's put on a very popular Constitution Commemoration Pageant held at Utah State University along with a lecture every year that has been given by Apostles and General Authorities of the LDS Church among others. He teaches classes on the constitution that I've seen advertised in the paper. He is basically really in to the Constitution as you would suspect from his background and choice of party.

Yes, running as a member of Constitution Party does mean that you have no chance. But frankly most offices in Utah as a Democrat you would have no chance. Yet people still run on these parties, often just with the understanding that they'll be able to challenge the Republican candidates and bring certain issues to the debate that otherwise wouldn't be discussed.

Honestly I don't support the Constitutional Party in full, but I've still voted for Bradley in the past as I think it would be better for our country to think out of the box of two parties only.

And P.S.--linking to and quoting an anonymous comment is a kind of strange way to get your point across. You make it sound like Bradley said that fasting was how he knew GWU was "true". But really it was some anonymous commenter.

The Real George Wythe said...

Thanks for the additional information James. And no, I haven't seen Bradley say one must pray to know TJEd is true. That did only come from an anonymous supporter of GWU.

Lucy 4 Dewey said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Felidae said...

James, I suppose that's kind of you to have voted for Bradley in the past. My own recollection is of GW students rolling their eyes at him while seeking to become delegates at the Republican caucuses. Perhaps you missed the discussions on seeking to make a difference in the real debates of the real world by influencing the outcome of a real convention. Mike Lee and other candidates with solid conservative credentials (even constitutional) will frame the debate just fine without a droning windbag like Bradley.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The only commenter around here with any intellectual brains is James F.

TRGW Moderator said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lucy 4 Dewey said...

And R.C.

TRGW Moderator said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lucy 4 Dewey said...

Where’s the NCAC and EFF when you need them?

Anonymous said...

Admit it TRGW. You can dish it out, but you can’t take it. Which paragraph in your entire Bradley post isn’t dripping in sarcasm? If you’re going to start censoring posts that use your own weapons against you then you are either a coward or a hypocrite.

Fact is, I’m being no harder on you than you are being on Brooks, DeMille, Anderson, Bradley or Lefler. The difference is that I’m only attempting to make an anonymous strawman look like an idiot (no real harm done). You on the other hand are making it difficult for actual good people to do significant good for society.

Come on, admit it friend, you are not entirely opposed to what these people stand for. You yourself have said that you hope they overcome these hard times and succeed. You may disagree with their methods, but I can tell from your comments, specifically the ones in response to James F., that 20 years ago you would have been a leader with The Freeman Institute (they weren’t quite as radical as the John Birchers). Look, I’m no fan of the Constitutionalist Party. I think their heart is definitely in the right place, they just go about it all wrong. I think they make “the right” look a bit disreputable.

The reason I bring them up is because they recently released a DVD called “The Obama Deception” which in my opinion is a bit over the top. I don’t know if you’ve seen it yet, it seems to be the core of their 2010 campaigning. Anyway, they reveal “breaking news” in there, which they’d be embarrassed to know that Skousen was warning us about back in the 60’s. Things like the Rockefeller conspiracy, the JFK assassination connection, etc. etc. In later years, coincidentally right around the time Reagan was shot, Skousen (and his supporters) became more diplomatic. Something changed. Around that time, the LDS church no longer allowed political meetings to be held in their buildings (up until that point almost all of the Freemen Institute meetings were held in LDS chapels, with Pres. Kimball’s blessing I might add). As James F. points out, the church didn’t distance itself from Skousen. I still find his books in the LDS bookstores right next to the biographies of prophets.

Anyway, any good latter-day saint is going to defend the Declaration and Constitution as sacred. Those two political documents have been discussed and quoted in General Conferences countless times since the beginning. Ezra Taft Benson was one of Skousen’s closest friends and most public supporters (they ate many lunches together while working in D.C.) until he had to go “neutral” upon his call to the First Presidency. I can tell, where it matters the most, you (like Benson) agree with that tempered Skousen (of whom DeMille and his creations are all just a continuation, carried on now by new patriots).

There is a war going on my friend. It’s been going on since before the creation of this world. I think you may be fighting the wrong side. Why fight fellow conservatives? Why not put your time and energy into fighting the real enemy? We each have to build the kingdom in our way. We don’t have to criticize each others efforts. Doing so is actually counterproductive.

Anonymous said...

If however you do persist, try not to get so upset when someone uses your own words against you. The blatant double standard you uphold on your blog is beneath you. You’d think that with a name like The Real George Wythe, you would list the good with the bad in order to tell the whole story, but the good is no where to be found here. That is the reason you don’t get too many supporters commenting here, which leaves your blog incredibly unbalanced. You’d think since you are trying to show “another side” to the GW story that you’d let both sides have a voice.

And while I’ve got your ear, I don’t think you are showing the proper respect for America’s first law professor. Show some dignity man. End this bitter vendetta. At least Ahab had a reason to go after the white whale. What did Skousen and DeMille ever do to you? For one who likes to speak his mind, you sure are opposed to free speech. Either shut down your blog or put my censored comments back up. They don’t violate your “blog rules” anymore than your original posts do. And they’re not going to offend anyone’s delicate sensibilities either.

A couple more things… Don’t try to separate religion from politics. God doesn’t. And don’t give me that whole, DeMille isn’t a prophet speech. No one ever said he was. Those are just words you put into other peoples mouths. I know you don’t agree with JLL and Felidae about that whole prayer thing. I can sense that you actually believe, like all other good latter-day saints, that prayer works on everything, not just church related questions.

For the record, obfuscation is a great word. You may over use it a bit, but don’t let my harmless teasing offend you. All jesting aside friend, pride is the universal sin. I sincerely pray for your success and happiness. May the counsel of the Arbinger Institute be your guide. Now “Jean-Luc, blow up the damn ship.”

The Real George Wythe said...

Anon, your judgment about what I should or should not pray about is none of your business.

I will not allow trolls on this board. I deleted your comments because you were acting like a critic without disclosing that you are a supporter. Posts must be made in good faith.

Felidae said...

I'm not sure which "anonymous" made the lengthy post above, but it reeks of the zealot from before. (If at the very least you would manually generate a name for yourself, and not change it, you might give us a better option for referencing you.)

While this may sound harsh though, it's quite clear to me that you represent the DeMille and Brooks fanboys that many of us at GW are so tired of. If anyone has desecrated the noble name of the man George Wythe, it's those two men. Good intentions do not compensate for dishonest shortcuts. The means do not justify the ends. Of all people, someone promoting statesmanship should know better and act accordingly. Even Skousen at least earned legitimate degrees and played by the rules. I highly doubt that even he would have condoned the shortcuts.

Incidentally, as for separating religion from politics, I recall reading a wise admonition by a man from Nazareth to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" which implies at least some small degree of separation. Perhaps not the chasm pursued by the ACLU, but at least something.

In a similar vein, the problem with DeMille, Brooks, and TJED is the undiscerning cult of personality that arises in their followers, which ends up smelling like religion and is ultimately even defended like one. Causes are always injured most by their fringe elements, not their opponents. Unwittingly, such people sabotage the very thing they promote. Unfortunately, this is precisely the role DeMille and Brooks have assumed in everything they touch, along with those who defend them.

Interestingly, I witnessed Cleon Skousen address this issue at a College Republican fundraiser right after the 1992 election. He had grown concerned over the fringe taking root among his readers and harming the cause of liberty. In his keynote speech he quite sincerely lambasted them for their unhealthy obsession, for squandering their potential and for wrecking their families in the process. I suspect this realization of his (and surely others) had been emerging for several years and it may explain the "change" you referred in leadership circles regarding their approach to the politics of liberty.

Meanwhile, many students at GW -- alumni too -- see the problem quite clearly and do NOT support past leadership. We see their legacy as the primary impediment to what otherwise could become a decent school. You and a few others may still be hanging on "religiously" to the past, but the rest are moving on with open eyes.

Lucy 4 Dewey said...

Felidae, in the spirit of seeking first to understand, let me see if I can accurately and sincerely summarize what you are saying about the school and its worth. Feel free to correct me if I get something wrong.

So you believe that the GWU of yester-year left much to be desired, while the GWU of today is much closer to being a worthy institution of importance and great value to society. You agree that GWU is still not for everyone, but for now, for you, it is the right place for you to be and could be the right place for others depending on their own personal needs and missions. You also claim that over time GWU will become even more credible and therefore of worth to society (perhaps after proper accreditation). In your opinion, the GWU dogma of the past really didn’t help create any statesmen, but over time, as GWU makes the changes they are currently working on, it is quite possible that statesmen could be created and the school’s mission will finally be realized.

In summary, while the world may not have been a better place with GWU in it 10 years ago, it is certainly better now and will continue to increase being so. Even though GWU is not quite there yet, it is heading in the right direction.

Is that close to how you feel Felidae? Would you say that you agree with that summary of your thoughts toward GWU?

If TRGW has any of these same opinions, then it is becoming increasingly apparent that his criticisms (and yours) are now more pointed at the school’s founders, its early graduates and the TJED movement. In fact, I’ve noticed that most of the biggest contributors to this blog actually have a beef with TJED and its followers and not so much with GWU and its ultimate mission to create statesmen.

Felidae said...

Three things, Lucy:

1. If you supplant any instances of the word "great" with something a little more modest and unassuming...
2. If you reverse the order of the words credibility and worth... (the latter is what generates the former)
3. If GW returns to either the Oxford and Webster definitions of the word "statesman" (take your pick) and assumes an additional 30 years minimum after anyone graduates...
4. If you recognize the fact that ALL liberal arts schools in the "classical tradition" more or less seek this same mission, regardless of what they call it...

... then yes, that's a fair summary of my take on it. Time will tell.

Anonymous said...

Felidae, you keep trying to somehow separate the direction GWU is headed now from the direction of its founding. The goals of the current administration are still exactly in line with where the school always hoped to end up. You would argue that Lincoln just mysteriously happened to become a great president. I would argue that he was the man he became because of the many failures of his earlier life. If GWU ever becomes something truly great, it will be because of, not in spite of, its founding years. Try as they might, the founders couldn’t put the cart before the horse. Furthermore, you can’t esteem the tree, while condemning the roots.

Although Lincoln’s doctrine is sound, Douglas is currently still beating him. Some people can’t see past the ridiculous hat and the high squeaky voice.

Felidae said...

Anon said: "Furthermore, you can’t esteem the tree, while condemning the roots."

Sorry, faulty metaphor. Trees spring from a single code of DNA. They are individuals, analogous to sole proprietorships in the world of legal structure. By contrast, a board structure consists only of slots, and is indifferent to who sits in them. People come and go, and policy changes along the way. The passage of time and people makes it inevitable.

So, have administrative goals changed over time? Of course they have, just like in any organization with voting members. It's not a church. Have some goals remained the same? Well, none of the goals were actually unique to begin with, so yes. After all, Shimers, Hillsdale and many others had already shown the way, and GW was trying to reinvent the wheel. The only reason they've struggled is that they deviated away from correct models via their shortcuts -- and that always backfires. Only as they remedy those shortcuts and return to the proven path for any classical liberal arts college, will they rise beyond their situation.

The root was never DeMille's anyway, so that's irrelevant. If GW succeeds, it will be in spite of the hardships that resulted from the founders' shortcuts.

Anonymous said...

Felidae, whether you care to acknowledge it or not, as a current student at GWU, you are as influenced by DeMille as Aristotle was by Socrates. He might not be your teacher (you’re clearly not at that level yet), but he has directly indoctrinated every teacher you have there. You scorn the Center for Social Leadership, but you would be hard pressed to find a single article there that you completely disagree with.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and everyone has to move the cause of liberty in their own way. Since I have no idea how (or if) you are moving it, I would never presume to judge how effective you are being. Don’t show your ignorance by guessing at what you know nothing about. Personally, I pray every day that my study of the classical philosophers never diminishes my reliance on the teachings of the prophets and founders one iota. Where given the choice, I will pick the inspirations of god over the philosophies of men (including my own) every time.

It is so easy to quote or criticize the words and works of another. It is infinitely more difficult to stick your neck out and say or do something of original worth. It is very kind of the commenters on this blog, to continually compare the education model of GWU with the likes of Hillsdale, St. Johns, etc. I know they are not quite there yet, but I’m confident they grow closer with each passing year. What GWU has that the other schools lack is an awareness of and reverence for the teachings of the restored gospel. If they ever lose sight of that, then I will have to wonder just what it is they are trying to be effective at.

As for me… I think I’ve said my bit here and I feel that my time can now be better spent on more effective things elsewhere. I hope anyone reading this blog will not take the words of TRGW, Felidae or myself as any indication of what awaits them at GWU. It is after all a very individual experience, clearly better for some than for others. Good luck to all of you on your quest for effective statesmanship. Heaven knows we need more statesmen. They are the dying breed.

Lucy 4 Dewey said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Felidae said...

Holy spam, Batman! Why this blog would allow Anon-of-zeal's duplicate post to sit on three threads is beyond me, but for unwary visitors I responded on the Brooks Bio thread. I had hoped the duplicates would be deleted, but alas... it's been over 48 hours.

In sum, divisions at GW are as inevitable as anywhere else, and faculty have their disagreements -- even major ones with DeMille. Factions being inherent to human nature is even a basic tenet that freshmen are introduced to in Madison's Federalist #10. Anon has either forgotten, or he naively ignores this reality in his imaginary world in which institutions remain monolithic and forever unchanged. Anon appears not only to be a relic from a from a bygone era, but one who will increasingly feel out of place at GW.