My old friend Doug Leblanc is a conservative pro-life Evangelical, a Republican, a Virginian and a thoughtful, critical observer of the cultural scene. He sent me and some friends the following e-mail, explaining why he's thinking of voting for Barack Obama this year. I reprint it here with his permission:
Dear friends,It's probably been clear in recent weeks that I'm conflicted about this year's presidential race. As I've written before, I can easily imagine voting for Obama if the GOP nominee were Giuliani or Romney. I would feel fewer such conflicts if Hillary Clinton were the Democratic nominee.
Reading web posts by Romney's chief evangelical Protestant sycophant, Hugh Hewitt, has become a daily source of hathos for me. I've been disturbed by my willingness to disregard so many of my policy misgivings about Obama, and to feed the hathos monster so frequently.
This week, my friend Jon Trott of Jesus People USA invited me to join a Facebook group called Evangelicals for Obama. I'm not there just yet, but I probably would sign up the very day of Giuliani or Romney capturing the GOP nomination.
I think I'm beginning to realize what these patterns mean for me:
1. For the first time since I voted in a presidential election -- for Ronald Reagan in 1980 -- I am willing to break with the GOP. This is the case because of what Obama represents: a decisive break from President Bush's foreign policy; a shattering of the racial ceiling on the presidency; youthful energy; and an exceptionally bright mind.
2. Hugh Hewitt, with his manipulative circular argument that only Romney or Giuliani has any chance of defeating Obama, embodies the elitist GOP establishment. In response to Hewitt, I want to say: What makes you so sure?
3. Hewitt has made it clear that the key issue for him is Republican victory. Again, for the first time in my life as a voter, I'm not willing to fight for Republican victory at any cost. I find myself
thinking that if Giuliani or Romney is the best my party can do, then my party's fate this year is to lose with dignity and choose better in 2012. (Stephen King wrote an exceptionally fine essay to this effect, as a Democrat, when Walter Mondale was the nominee in 1984. I keep
meaning to find it again at a public library. I do remember that it appeared in The New Republic.)4. I cannot escape the reality that personality, tone and even voice qualities are shaping my preferences. I recognize that Obama is to Hillary's left on some important points, and I find myself not caring. The thought of living with Hillary's schoolmarm demeanor, her cackle and all the baggage of Clintonism greatly agitates me. I feel no such dread about an Obama presidency. I wish I could be less driven by emotion and intuition on this, but so far sweet reason has not been able to override them.
I'm guessing I should just back away from following the primaries so closely. I think Super Tuesday will resolve both parties' nomination questions, for the most part, and Virginia doesn't vote until after then. I sure obsess about this, though. I yearn deeply for an Obama vs. Huck or Obama vs. McCain race. I would be driven to near despair by a Clinton vs. Romney ticket. With a Clinton vs. Giuliani ticket, I probably would hold my nose, vote for Rudy and throw myself on God's mercy.
Can anyone else relate to my struggles?
Doug
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Your point about cultural moves away from slavery and towards abortion is immaterial when it comes to the morality of the thing. If abortion is morally wrong it doesn't ultimately matter if only 1/10th of 1% of the people believe it to be so. I reject the notion that any move of culture in a given direction is automatically "progress." Cultures have also, on occasion, been known to decay. So really the fact that "starting in 1970 or so, Western civilization tended towards abortion" means nothing on the moral level.
I didn't say it did. But our government reflects the will of the people, at least in a somewhat loose and haphazard fashion, as long as business interests don't interfere. And hence it is...I'm going to have to go with 'stupid'...stupid to attempt to change the law to something the people do not want. It cannot happen. It will not happen. If it did happen, it would very quickly be changed back.
I actually don't mind people being 'stupid', politically. We need people trying to do the impossible to even get it into people's head.
What we don't need is a large group of people that will constantly give cover and vote for a group of people as long as they say the right words. No matter what sort of harmful asinine things they do. Like continue to screw with the middle east, or funnel government money into their pockets, or manage the economy for the benefit of large corporations and not human beings.
And just completely ignore the fact that if you win right now, you lose. It's actually sort of ironic, but Roe v, Wade gives you a central point to rally around.
If Roe v. Wade were to vanish tomorrow, you'd instantly have about a dozen fights in various states where abortion is still on the books as illegal, and you'd lose almost all of them. The pro-life movement would splinter into two dozen different states (And the rest of the states would have no functioning movement at all.) all trying for different things...some might be smart and only try to restrict abortion, not outlaw it (as that's all they'd get in that state), and they'd be stabbed in the back by other pro-life movements. It would be total chaos, and in the end you'd get nothing at all, or, in your wildest dreams, five states where it was illegal, although I'm thinking more like two.
You have to change hearts and minds first, before this goes from an national issue to a state issue. Legislature doesn't mean a damn thing, pardon my french, you will win exactly when you get a critically large segment of the population to agree with you, and not before, and there's no 'after' except doing the paperwork. And when you take out Roe v. Wade you better be very sure they're already on your side, because by removing the focal point, you'll seriously crippled yourself.
If you keep going forwards, by 2020 you'll have Roe v. Wade overturned, and by 2030 absolutely every single state will have abortion legal and the pro-life movement will consist of forty thousand people total who can't even get people elected to state government. Real good plan. (Or, rather, that's what would have happened if Bush hadn't crippled the GOP, I don't know what's going to happen with it now, you might lose everything.)
DavidTC, I'm sure you're wrong about the "every single state will have abortion legal" (on demand), after Roe is overturned and returned to the states. Like EU countries, there will be a mix of legal & less legal, as Poland & Ireland show. (I'm an American in Slovakia, and the Supreme Court here just ruled that abortion in the first trimester is not a violation of the human rights of the fetus.)
But your point about winning the hearts and minds first is a good one.
One way to do that over time is ... have more babies, in stable happy families. We have four kids, and it's a big effort. Long term demographics will be pro-life oriented.
Another issue is more economic prosperity. It is a fairly clear trend in post WW II history that lower tax countries, with a good judiciary and rule of law, have better economic growth. Which helps the poor AND the rich.
A desire to use gov't force to punish the rich with high taxes seems quite common among many Christians -- who haven't tried to start a business and actually offer a steady paid job to any poor person. The sin of envy, wanting to destroy the good fortunes of others, was also evident in commie societies. I recently read almost every Israeli Kibbutz also has problems with envy.
More Christians should be offering more jobs to more poor folk.
"And hence it is...I'm going to have to go with 'stupid'...stupid to attempt to change the law to something the people do not want. It cannot happen. It will not happen. If it did happen, it would very quickly be changed back."
David, I'm in agreement here, and with most of the rest of your last post. Basically, all I'm saying is that while the attempts at 'heart- and mind-changing' are occurring, and should be primary, the legislative/political side of things cannot be ignored. Put on a back burner, maybe? Perhaps. But not ignored completely. As a matter of fact, in the latest issue of Touchstone, David Mills has an editorial that says something very similar.
As far as the GOP goes, frankly, I don't care much what happens to it. Pro-lifers and conservatives who put so much stock in their cause being related to the future of the party are either frightfully naive, unobservant, or wrongheaded, IMHO.
Tom Grey
DavidTC, I'm sure you're wrong about the "every single state will have abortion legal" (on demand), after Roe is overturned and returned to the states. Like EU countries, there will be a mix of legal & less legal, as Poland & Ireland show. (I'm an American in Slovakia, and the Supreme Court here just ruled that abortion in the first trimester is not a violation of the human rights of the fetus.)
Let's look at current state restrictions. The toughest, right now, is 'informed consent' laws, that basically says 'If you want an abortion you get preached to for a few hours first.'. Frankly, if the state can't pass that law, there's no way on earth they're outlawing abortion.
That's only ten states. Basically the northern midwest. (And Louisiana for some reason.) And this includes very low-population places like the Dakotas, so while you're talking about a fifth of the states, actually you're only talking about, at most, banning them for a twentieth of the population. (And, of course, 'banning' them doesn't help much when they're already not doing many abortions and the people in them are just going over state lines.)
Rob G
David, I'm in agreement here, and with most of the rest of your last post. Basically, all I'm saying is that while the attempts at 'heart- and mind-changing' are occurring, and should be primary, the legislative/political side of things cannot be ignored. Put on a back burner, maybe? Perhaps. But not ignored completely. As a matter of fact, in the latest issue of Touchstone, David Mills has an editorial that says something very similar.
If the US does not want to outlaw abortion, abortion will not be outlawed. Roe v. Wade might be overturned, but that is not the same thing.
And if the US wants to outlaw abortion, abortion will be outlawed, regardless of any constitutional hurdles or if Roe v. Wade is in effect. Worse comes to worst, there will be a constitutional amendment.
As far as the GOP goes, frankly, I don't care much what happens to it. Pro-lifers and conservatives who put so much stock in their cause being related to the future of the party are either frightfully naive, unobservant, or wrongheaded, IMHO.
The whole plan 'to get conservative judges' is doomed to failure. It was already doomed to failure, as it is quite possibly the stupidest plan imaginable. It's like planning to commute to work on the back of random horses that walk by your house. It's been three decades, you're still not at work.
And, yes, it's 'finally' coming back to bite the pro-life movement in a ass, as their enabling of the Republican party has enabled the Republican party to act like complete lunatics because they knew they'd always have someone to vote for them, which has, of course, resulted in people getting so annoyed with them they're going to be out of power for at least six years, probably more. (Of course, this won't actually hinder any pro-life progress toward their goals, as they weren't making any progress before that, either.)
If I had a time machine, and I was pro-outlawing-abortion, I would go back the 70s and tell the pro-life movement to run like hell from the GOP and their money. To spend their time running pro-life floats and marches in parades and getting on talk shows and stuff.
On the legislative front, to realize that a lot of people have abortions because they cannot care for a family, and if they'd attack poverty they'd stop a lot of them, and the people who are left who can handle a family they can portray as 'selfish'. They set up some sort of national health care that pays medical expenses for pregnancies so that people want to keep their baby and put it up for adoption do not have to decide between a few hundred dollars for abortion and a multi-thousand dollar pregnancy. (And while they're at it, they could actually make adoption work in this country. We 'protect' children out of being adopted into 'imperfect' homes...and instead shuffle them around in the foster care system their whole life.)
Seriously, pro-life folks, your current plan 'waiting for judges' is all sorts of stupid, and it's even worse because I don't think abortion should be illegal, and thus I'm advising you to do something that I don't want you to do.
So as there's not any chance of you guys making it illegal with your present direction, I honestly wouldn't care about it, except that you keep trusting the Republican party as long as they mouth the right words, no matter who or what they damage, even if they don't ever actually do anything. (Of course, they've cleverly invented a plan that doesn't require them to ever actually do anything.) This has allowed them to become more and more and more destructive, until at this point the Republic is in serious danger.
So I'm, hilariously, attempting to get the pro-life movement to see how the plan the Republicans laid out for you can't possibly work for you, although it's working for them fine. So I'm trying to come up with better plans, although at this point threating to hold your breath until abortion is illegal is a 'better plan', as it will waste less of your time and hurt less people.
I am 52 years old, a Disabled American Veteran that served not once, but twice for my country and then in the Army Reserve. One thing though, my alliegence is to God first period, then family, then country. This is the first time since I was 18 that I will not be voting in an election. I can't justify before God voting for any of the 3. Obama, Clinton or McClain. People say I'm going to have to vote for the less of the "3 evils". Well to me Evil is Evil. There is no less is better. Most of the Evangelicals I know feel the same way. As I stated in the beginning of this the Bible dictates our alliegence is to God first and foremost. Candidates that support abortion, homosexuality and the rest will not get my vote. God gets my vote first !
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.