In praise of not voting
My Dallas Morning News column this week reflects my disgust with both political parties, and my inclination to withhold my vote this year. Last night we had some conservative friends over, and we all seemed to conclude that writing in...
Subscribe
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Rod, In 2000, I believed as you did, that there was not enough of a difference between the candidates to make the game worth the candle. I voted third party in hopes that at least one third party would gather enough votes to break the two-party monopoly.
However, the appalling events of the last 8 years had led me to believe that I was wrong. Small as the differences were, they had huge effects. I could not have imagined an unending war on people who had no involvement in our misfortune, and then such mismagement of the war. I could not have imagined such financial and managerial incompetence. I could not have imagined secret prisons, torture, and the doubling of the national debt. I could not have imagined an imperial presidency with an "Constituion-opitonal" view of gov't, and thousands of "signing statements" proclaiming his independence from the rule of law. Maybe there would have been little difference with a Gore; I can't play the alternative history game. But I know what happened with Bush, and hence I know that my vote did matter.
Along with Christopher Buckley and Frank Schaeffer, I am doing what I would prefer not to do. But two-party democracy forces this choice upon us; we have to make the best of a bad lot. We are at the edge of collapse, and could fall easily into dictatorship. Indeed, a certain kind of president would prefer that. And while neither candidate for president is of that character, I am not sure about at least one of the vice-presidential candidates, one who has a good chance of ending up as president, actuarial table being what they are.
So I will make the hard choice and hope for the best. And pray always.
Rod, Beliefnet changed your adress and you seem to have lost some readers. I hope they find their way back. I agree with you on this. If I seriously can't stomach the democrats and I think the republicans have betrayed their constituency, then the whole "your throwing away your vote and helping the other guy win" argument doesn't wash because there is no other guy anymore. I'm a conservative the Republicans aren't. they just talk the talk. Why should I let them use me anymore? Writing in Ron Paul does sound good. What I would love to see is the desaffected find some way to organize and co-ordinate our votes. I don't think we have a hope of winning, but maybe we can get the democrats and republicans scared of loosing thier monopoly. Thats the way it should be, the government scared of the people, not the other way around.
Reminds me of Wendell Berry's Letter to the Editor in 2007 when he announced he was sitting out the governor's race because the only candidate to oppose strip mining wasn't able to get enough traction to win. (I wound up sitting it out by accident, because I never got my absentee ballot -- this still irritates me.) Of course, I can't link to it because the Courier-Journal is so kind as to not have it online anymore.
I'm probably going to wind up voting for Barr as my protest -- I've thought about a write-in vote, but I felt like adding to a third-party candidate's tally would do more to get the point across. But Paul might get enough in Texas to negate that logic. But you and I have it easy: you live in Texas, and I'm registered in Kentucky, so the odds of either of our votes deciding the election are exceptionally slim.
John Médaille: Your post is so thoughtful and reasoned. I thank you for it. It spoke for so many people who have no voice of keep their thoughts within themselves. My I shake your cyber hand with a tip of my hat. Rawlins
Me too over here. Planning to not vote, unless someone shames me into it. I would like to vote for Obama, were it not for his position on abortion. His voting against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act is what keeps me from pulling the lever for him. I don't think his other policies are that great, but I am so disgusted by McCain and now Palin (for whom I had great hopes)that I don't see how Obama could be worse. McCain deserves to lose this election. I am greatly disturbed by this whole "Obama consorts with terrorists" meme that McCain started and his subsequent reprimanding of supporters who ran with it to its logical conclusion. All this while putting forth an economic plan goofier and more off-the-cuff than Obama's.
MJ
Testing the new format--hope this posts.
Anybody who thinks that Obama will be less of a would-be dictator than McCain, or, to put it less personally, that the Democrats are such shining paragons of moral nobility that they'd never ever abuse power unlike the evil Republicans, is either too partisan to see reality, or too naive to be voting. Or, possibly, too young to have studied much American history, which provides plenty of examples of both parties (and all their predecessors) enjoying various levels of malfeasance.
There's no point in fighting over who gets to head a kakistocracy, as I've said before. So long as the criteria for office is that we ought to select the least qualified and/or most unprincipled citizens, either McCain or Obama will do fine, as they both fit that description pretty equally.
That doesn't mean we ought to give up entirely, but within a short time I expect to be fighting for the right to keep my children from being taught that a marriage is an assortment of any number and any gender of adults who feel like engaging in real or simulated copulation with each other, and that our family's belief to the contrary is just bigotry; so I really don't care which moral midget is at the helm of this sinking ship.
Mark Steyn is right:
Man, it's going to be interesting to watch all the angst a few years from now from all those conservatives who hope for the best like JM does above. Personally, I'm under no illusions on what is going to happen: we Americans are going to get what we want and deserve(personally, I call it OFascism). But regardless, prepare for 8 years of Obama/Pelosi/Reid, plus a twenty year rule of liberal SC Justice activists. The Four Horsemen will ride.
In the words of Barton Biggs, keep at least 5% of your net worth in a farm or the ability to grow food. Also, cut consumption. Invest in family and friends. Keep guns. Be prepared.
Imagine the next four years being anything like the past eight. Then vote accordingly.
I have concluded that pro-life politics are corrupt to the core, and voting "pro-life" is a fool's errand.
It was a pro-life governor who signed more capital punishment death warrants than the rest of the nation's governors combined and who as a pro-life president authorized torture, all with the silent support of those who voted for him on the basis of his position on abortion. If the pro-life political movement cannot recognize God in the face of men and women prisoners who stand before them, how on earth can they claim to recognize God in the unborn?
So far as I can see, not a single abortion has been prevented by voting pro-life, but the collateral damage done to American society has been huge. Doing the same thing over-and-over again while expecting a different result is the epitome of stupidity. It's time for those of us who oppose abortion to stop being taken for a ride, and to focus our efforts where they'll actually change the culture rather than elect men and women who pander to us and then do the bidding of a different master.
If the sky is falling and you do nothing to engage those who are in charge, whose fault is it if the sky falls and brings you down?
There are never perfect choices. For people who voted not once, but twice, for George Bush, you should know that. So what's different in 2008 from the elections in 2000 and 2004? How was George Bush a morally and politically superior choice then, but there is none now?
Much as I dislike many of the recent actions of our duly elected representatives, to label them part and parcel as a "kakistocracy" is the kind of extremist statement that has helped to bring about the political dilemmas of today. I dislike the policies of George W's administration very much indeed--but is he the worst of the worst? Far from it. There's a long, long way yet to fall. If you don't want us to go over that cliff, please dial back the opprobrium a bit.
I really have trouble getting my head around the thought that because one's children may encounter the notion that marriage to a person of the same sex is considered possible, therefore all other policy issues are as nothing in the face of this catastrophe. Please. In a world where millions of other mothers see their children die as a result of failed policies, where children see their mothers raped, murdered, perishing of AIDS, starving, or prostituted as a by-product of our conflicts, the perils of sex education--in which you don't even participate--are all you can think about when you think of voting? That's an outrageously narrow vision. In fairness to you, Erin, I'll bet that's not what you really think, if you stop to think about it. But why, then, do you drag out your rhetorical drumsticks to beat up enthusiasm for a position that no sane person, including yourself, could really endorse?
Actually, of course, I should congratulate you and Rod and any other right-wing friends on your wise decision to throw your votes away--then laugh all the way to the polls. But, in conscience, as a fellow citizen, I can't applaud your decision to shirk your duty. For God's sake, quit pouting, grow a backbone, (wo)man up, and shoulder your responsibility as a citizen. And quit moaning about kakistocracies and predicting blood and fire. You've been blessed with birth in the nation that allows you more freedom of action than any human being in the history of the world has been granted. Don't go belly up because it isn't perfect! Work with it! Jeez. And you people say OBAMA "hates America"??
Amen, Sig. Sing it!!
The whining of privileged people in the most prosperous and successful nation on earth who say they have no real moral and political choices and therefore aren't going to vote is intolerable. Anyone who really believes that the greatest threat to our country is gay marriage may lack the good common sense to get out of bed and vote. Maybe they are seriously doing us a favor.
Rod Dreher's logic is summarized in this statement of his: "Mr. McCain is awful on war. Mr. Obama is awful on the sanctity of life."
There is no substantiation for the first assertion (re: McCain), but plenty for the second (re: B.O.) and the related issue of traditional family. What does it mean to be "awful on war" and is Rod Dreher suggesting that McCain is a "warmonger" and that Obama is a Ron Paul-like isolationist?
The surge has saved lives. The precipitous withdrawal that Obama and the Congressional Democrats favored would have led to a bloodbath. Even Obama promised in 2007 that a resurgence of Al-Quaeda following a withdrawal would result in a re-insertion (read: invasion) of US troops in Iraqi. And then we have Obama's support for an unannounced invasion of Pakistan and for the kind of adventures we saw in the 1990s in the Balkans, Haiti and Somalia.
Honestly, which of the two candidates is really more "awful on war" (however that is defined)? Someone who has smelled the stench of war and known first-hand the cost of sacrifice? Or someone as ruthless and opportunistic and cold-blooded as the young Senator from Illinois? The last career military officer to serve in the WH was Dwight Eisenhower. Like Ike, McCain will keep the peace.
An Obama Presidendy (allied with a Pelosi House and a filibuster-proof Senate) will be a disaster for the country. Rod Dreher may THINK he is punishing the GOP and his old friends in the conservative movement ... by sitting this one out. As if they would notice.
No, the real victim will be the good people of this country and, especially, cultural conservatives as well as those who do the actual fighting and dying for this country.
Erin...If your ultimate criteria all boils down "marriage is an assortment of any number and any gender of adults who feel like engaging in real or simulated copulation with each other, and that our family's belief to the contrary is just bigotry", your motives may be noble but they differ not from the one-note-samba love-call the GOP sang in your ears both times this century. For which you got little in return. And collateral damage on an unprecedented scale.
To vote for someone whose ticket your either condemn or fear, all in the name of two causes that, however just or noble,...that will no more be addressed by your party than in the last eight years….even when 6 of those years you had all three wings of Washington power in your camp to seal the deal if they were at all determined.
Consider Rod's column. Rather than again protect no one currently alive in the name of the cause of helping those not yet born. Or in the name of traditional marriage, a cause that is increasingly being judged constitutionally unenforceable. Increasingly, I understand your 'cause'; but do you understand the effect? Per John Médaille's post. And yes, even Rod's column to which this thread is linked.
You got to vote in your primary. You chose McCain. I still can't figure out how that happened. You had Romney, Guiliani, Thompson, Huckabee, and Paul to choose from. You guys REJECTED them all. By a wide margin. Somehow, you saw something in McCain that the others were lacking. I have no idea what that was. Military service? POW? Change? All those other candidates represented change.
Sig, I seem to have touched a nerve, somehow!
But really. Think about it. Is continuing to vote for the same vultures election year after election year really the only way to participate in the body politic?
You wrote, "In a world where millions of other mothers see their children die as a result of failed policies, where children see their mothers raped, murdered, perishing of AIDS, starving, or prostituted as a by-product of our conflicts, the perils of sex education--in which you don't even participate--are all you can think about when you think of voting?" Tell me, Sig. Do you think Obama will emerge on the world stage and suddenly the planet will heal, children will stop dying or seeing their mothers perish in a multitude of ways, and all will be sunshine and roses? Obama can't even promise to stick to his sixteen month withdrawal timetable for Iraq; and if you talk to our soldiers over there, quite a few of them are resigned to the fact that when we leave a truly hideous and bloody civil war is going to break out and destabilize the region for the foreseeable future.
Frankly, a little money in the coffers of Food for the Poor or a like organization will do more than all the votes in Chicago (especially from the graveyard contingent) in helping the afflicted. Why invest one's vote with some kind of magical talisman status it clearly doesn't have?
I'm in Texas, you know, which is already going to McCain. I'm not going to vote for the NARAL dream candidate, and adding my vote to McCain's already sufficient pile is an exercise in partisanship extremely unappealing to someone like me, who has voted third-party before and can do so again without any kind of remorse whatsoever afterword. I'm sick of being taken for granted by both sides who come courtin' once every four years and then go back to their rich wives and mistresses (in the multinational corporation sense) in between; and now they're asking us to pony up the funds to pay for those ladies' excesses! No self-respecting woman ought to put up with being treated like that, Sig, but I'm afraid we all do it from time to time.
No, I look at forty-eight million dead children, traditional marriage on the verge of being defined out of existence (and opposition defined as bigotry), the coarsening of our culture and the hatred flung at anyone who doesn't get onboard the express train for the race to the sewer, the out-of-control consumerism, the fallout from the sexual revolution and the increasing attitude that children need professional caregivers and teachers but not parents (how quaint!), and the economy teetering at the brink of disaster, and I don't see anything to vote for, or cheer for. I'm sure it will be interesting watching the next four years of all the Obamaphiles squirming when asked about The One's latest broken promise or power grab or disastrous bumbling mistakes, though; turnabout/fair play, and all that.
I submitted a reply to Sig, but it's in blog owner approval limbo. If Rod sees it I'm sure he'll set it free.
Daniel. You ask why Bush was a better choice then than McCain now? Are you serious? Look, we didn't nominate McCain then because he was not conservative then, and he isn'
Well, that was interesting...didn't post my longer comment at all, posted the shorter one twice...
Isn't the first week of a new blog look fun? Ah, "Bug Week..."
John Medaille,
What reason can you give for thinking that Sarah Palin has any desire to be dictator?
Or -- to invert the question you raise -- which of the four candidates on the two major party tickets do you think would be the person mostly likely to be *embraced* as dictator by the public, *encouraged* by the public, or some significant portion thereof, to assume a Caesar's role?
If your answer is anyone other than the man soon to be the President, then I think you are fooling yourself so badly that it would be better for you -- and for the rest of us -- if you elected not to vote.
Honestly, who has been both the subject and the object of more grandiosity in this campaign -- the Reverend or Governor Palin?
Ya, know, it happens a lot that i'm in the middle of writing a post and belief not decides to reload, or, in this case, make me look at an add. Just venting.
Anyway, Daniel, are you serious about wondering why theres a difference between voting for McCain now and Bushd then? Look, beack then we know McCain wasn't conservative. Many of us had doubts about Bush but none about Gore. Bush sounded like he might actually represent our views, Gore didn't. Its that simple. Since then we've watched the Republican party abandon any pretence at conservative principles. Why should we support them? Should we be locked into the two party system? I'm firmly convinced that Obama is a horrible choice, but McCain isn't much better. I will vote, but I figure if America is stupid enough to vote change for change's sake then let them have Obama. I will at least be able to sleep knowing I voted my concience and convictions, not out of fear. I believe that Obama can not destroy the institutions of this country in four, or even eight years. Maybe you all are right and he will be a good thing, then no problems. zif not, then maybe its time for new political parties to rise. I think it is. Neither the democrats or the Republicans represent us at all well. If Obama's as bad as i think he'll be, then the democratic party will have a massive reality check. The Republicans will probably face one anyway. Thats my hope, and the best way to aid it is to vote third party or write in.
I still wonder, though, how many democrats voted McCain in republican primaries. After all, there was no urgency in democratic primaries until after McCain had already wrapped up the nomination.
WILL Harrington: Trust me. In answer to your question, "how many democrats voted McCain in republican primaries. After all, there was no urgency in democratic primaries until after McCain had already wrapped"? Didn't happen. Democrats were very into the Hillary / Obama struggle. Their primary-voting crossover into McCain territory is about as likely as Paris Hilton writing gripping fiction. On the other hand, I know about a hundred Republicans/Conservatives who did indeed 'cross over' to vote for Obama to 'kill off Hillary' because they 1) hated her 2) were certain she was their party's biggest electoral threat.
For the record, I consider myself "pro-life" when it comes to abortion. But after eight years of Bush, I think it's time to redefine what it means to be pro-life. Among other things, it should at the very least mean the following: To be pro-life is to be against unnecessary wars, and to be pro-life is to be against torture.
I look at Obama, and while I reject his more left-wing views, I see an intelligent, capable, and reasonable man. I believe Obama would never condone torture, would never take us into an unnecessary war, and will endeavor to make health care more affordable to those of lesser means (which will reduce the number of abortions).
With all due respect, Rod, abortion isn't everything. Why not just recognize that this is one issue in which you vehemently disagree with Obama, and yet vote for the better man anyway? There are hundreds of issues that matter, and abortion is just one of them. Frankly, if the financial system falls apart, the issue of abortion is going to be very low priority (and meanwhile you can be certain the number of abortions will go up). Based on the way that Obama and McCain have behaved themselves, and have run their campaigns, who would you want to be in a position of leadership at this moment in history? "None of the above" really isn't a very mature option.
It would be wonderful, truly wonderful, if we had a society where abortions never happened. In the real world that's not going to occur. But it would also be wonderful if we never get manipulated into another war as foolish and destructive as Iraq. That is something a president has far more control over.
Which is the greater number: The number of Iraqi children who have died as a direct result of our misbegotten adventures there, or the number of American abortions in the past few years? Sorry to ask something so terrible, but being pro-life should mean more than being against a pro-choice candidate who has proven himself a reasonable man in other ways. The president can do far more about taking us into war, or refusing to do so, than he can about the laws, policies, and attitudes concerning abortion in this country. The president is the commander in chief, in regards to the armed services. He has very little command over the culture.
Roe v. Wade is probably never going to be overturned, and even if it is, the vast majority of the states will keep abortion legal. That's a lost fight, Rod, and Obama's views on the issue and his past voting record are just not that relevant to choosing a president right now.
One candidate, McCain, has proven himself to be an angry, belligerent, unpredictable jackass. He may actually have a worse foreign policy than Bush once he becomes president. It is entirely conceivable that with a president McCain we will go to war with Iran, or with Russia, or with North Korea, or with some other country. The other candidate, Obama, has proven himself to be an intelligent, restrained, inspiring and virtuous leader. He has opposed Bush from the start. He would never sing about bombing Iran. He would never start a war and then joke in public, "Now where are those weapons of mass destruction?"
Bush was (and is) pro-life. Look at where that got us. Being pro-life should mean so much more than being against abortion. At the very least, it should mean that you don't play deceitful games with other people's lives. You don't start a war under false pretenses. You don't pursue a war as if it's going to be cheap and easy, and then let chaos reign. Also, you don't keep people captive for years (apart from their families) without bringing charges. You don't undo the Geneva Conventions so that you can be free to violate people's human rights. You don't condone torture by playing word games while winking at its practice. Why? Because human life is sacred. Human beings should be treated with dignity, and all human life should be protected. What else does "pro-life" mean?
Rod, you still have a few days. If I were you, I'd reconsider your decision not to vote. I love your blog, but I notice that you sometimes have a tendency to dance around in a wishy-washy fashion. Please be an adult. You must vote, and encourage everyone you know (including people who read your column) to vote. There are two possible choices in this election: Obama and McCain. To me, the choice is obvious. Frankly, I don't see how a Christian can do anything other than vote in a way that utterly repudiates Bush's policies. Abortion is just not the most important issue right now. Maybe in a few years, when the economy has recovered, America's reputation has been restored, and the country is at peace abroad. Then you can vote your conscience on abortion, including sitting an election out. But not this time.
You supported Bush for many years. You supported the Iraq war. Consider voting for Obama as an act of penance. That's one reason I'm voting for him. But there are many better reasons than that one. There is no good reason to stay at home this time. I honestly think that if McCain somehow wins, and you didn't vote at all, you will regret that decision for the rest of your life.
Bush and McCain are the ones who don't value and treasure human life. Obama may be wrong about abortion, but he is right about war and peace, and so many other things. From one Christian conservative to another, I suggest that you reject your uptightness about one single issue, and vote for the person who will make the best president in these dark times.
Sorry for the lecture.
- Treebeard
Treebird. Still another moving essay on re-trenching in life (and death) after Bush. I intend to save your post. It is like John Medaille's earlier, significant since you write as a Christian conservative. The questions you ask are those I have asked Rod and others who subscribe to 'this I believe at all cost' when voting 'on principle' as 'social conservatives. You just did it better than I. I thank you. And hope your words resonate to others. God bless you.
Several people made statements that Obama would be a terrible President, but the gave no real reason. There were a repeat of the false statement about Obama's votes on the "born alive" bills, which have been debunked by Factcheck.org, PolitiFact and other sites.
Factcheck:
'Born Alive' Baloney September 24, 2008
An abortion survivor claims she would have died if Obama had his way. She's wrong.
Obama and 'Infanticide' August 25, 2008
The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois.
"A Matter of Definition
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.""
PolitiFact
"Born alive" votes fuel abortion fight October 9, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/3v6a7c
David Brooks Praise Obama's Intellect and Skills Social Perception
"Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I'm getting nowhere with the interview, it's late in the night, he's on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he's cranky. Out of the blue I say, 'Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?' And he says, 'Yeah.' So i say, 'What did Niebuhr mean to you?' For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say.
And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception."
"He's phenomenally good at surrounding himself with a team," Brooks said. "I disagree with them on most issues, but I am given a lot of comfort by the fact that the people he's chosen are exactly the people I think most of us would want to choose if we were in his shoes."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/david-brooks-sarah-palin_n_133001.html
I admit I've been tempted to sit this one out, or at least to leave the "president" part of the ballot blank. But then I think of the recent words of Craig Ferguson, late-night talk-show host and brand-new American citizen: "If you don't vote, you're a moron." Perhaps someone who is looking forward to voting in his first election as an American citizen can remind us all how precious the right to vote really is.
You're never going to be offered perfect choices, and the fact is, whether you or I or any of us likes it or not, barring some unforeseen and unlikely event, either John McCain or Barack Obama is going to be president of this country for the next four years, starting Jan. 20. Those are the choices. Yes, the choices suck. But they're the choices we have, thanks to our primary system (now *that's* something worth complaining about).
Besides, I've always thought that voting is tantamout to Jester's License. In other words, if you don't vote, then I'm not interested in hearing your opinion about the state of the country. Because if you don't vote but sit around complaining about things, you're not a citizen, you're just a kvetching pain in the ass.
David, there's a big difference between "not voting" and "enthusiastically voting for the doomed quixotic windmill-tilting candidate of one's own." The latter has a proud tradition in American history, and once in a while produces some results, even if "results" doesn't translate to "occupancy of the White House."
Well, I sat this one out for a number of reasons, most of which have been covered here. But one reason hasn't: McCain's recent rallies have revealed a very frightening dark side of the Republican base. The bald racism and prejudice displayed by many of his ardent supporters have gotten me wondering -- is this what is behind the GOP today? I'm sure that many people who support John McCain are not racist or given to conspiracy theories. It's just that McCain (and especially Palin's) use of character destroying ads and lukewarm response to bigoted supporters etc. plays into the notion that the GOP needs to elicit base emotions just to get into office. If that's the case I wouldn't want to have anything to do with the GOP. I wouldn't anyway, since I'm liberal, but there are conservatives who are thoughtful and non-prejudiced. Where are they now to make a rational case for conservatism?
I didn't vote for Obama since I don't agree with him on the abortion thing. That aside, I would not mind him as President at all, and think he will surprise us with competency even though many might bitterly disagree with him on policy. At least Obama appeals to reason -- and the GOP party machine as of late has an aversion to rational thought.
A few comments. Rawlins and MJ, thank you for your remarks.
Eric, I have no way to see the future, but I have a fairly good grasp of the past. The "Patriot" Act is about defending the Nation from Bin Laden, but about defending the regime from troublemakers like you and me. Or at least, it certainly could be used in that way, as the pro-life people found out with the Fascist RICO statutes.
Concerning the abortion issue, there is no purely "anti-abortion" candidate, at least from a Catholic perspective. McCain supports exceptions for rape, incest and the life (and/or health? its not clear) of the mother. We know from experience that these work out to nearly abortion on demand. Further, he supports embryonic stem-cell research, which will create a market for aborted fetuses.
Further, the NRLC strategy of the last 35 years simply hasn't worked. I believe the latest Fox News poll show about 4% put abortion at the top of their list. The current strategy is really an "anti-abortion" strategy rather than a "pro-life" strategy. See http://distributism.blogspot.com/2008/09/pro-life-or-just-anti-abortion.html for the differences.
I think we are moving towards economic collapse. The attitude of the administration towards the use of power will be important in ways we haven't thought about before. Well, some thought about it, but everybody thought they were just alarmist conservatives. Now, there may be call real alarm. The same people around the Imperial Presidency of Cheney-Bush seem to be around McCain. I think there is real cause for concern. Will Obama be better? I don't know. But he could hardly be worse.
Erin,
I don't really have a problem with people choosing to vote Quixotically. I voted for Perot in 1992. But I really don't see choosing not to vote as a viable choice.
I've had respect for John McCain since a few years ago when was the only major politician to do anything to stop the Administration's torture policies. The only quibble I have with the article is that McCain is not a Bush Republican, and there are numerous clear differences between A McCain and Bush policy.
McCain is against torture, against Quantanamo Bay, for strict campaign finance reform, for traditional anti-insurgency tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan (as opposed to the Rumsfeldian, light footprint strategy we tried for so long), fanatical about limiting unexamined spending (to the point that this is almost his whole economic policy), and less concerned with tax cuts.
On all of these issues, Bush disagrees or has come to the McCain position, not vice-versa (campaign finance reform, surge tactics). Plus the fact that throughout Bush's first term McCain was one of the strongest supporters of essentially the entire Democratic domestic agenda. Plus issues like the Gang of 14, where he stood up for Senate traditions against the White House.
Not to mention that in the GOP primaries, McCain was the only one not trying to outbid each other in support for harsh interrogation tactics, hostility to immigrants, and conservative orthodoxy.
My bottom line is, McCain may or may not be a good President. In many ways his temperment is more suited to the Senate. But he has done more than any other member of the Senate to stop or slow down some of the Bush abuses, and does not deserve to go down as a "Bush Republican."
A choice between Barack Obama and John McCain is the choice between the
lesser of two evils. It is therefore evil.
I've made no secret of the fact that I'm voting for Robert Barr this time around. I realize just who and what he is, but I cannot, in good conscience, vote for an AmNatSoc Democrat who is for all intents and purposes a Marxist or an AmNatSoc GOPer who neither has a grasp of fiscal reality nor a realistic assessment of America's situation in the world. At least Mr. Barr's party stands for something other than a Welfare/Warfare State allied with predatory megacorporate Lords that
are concerned with the abstractions of the bottom line at the expense of the real-world Human beings that they prey on. Will my vote make a difference in the outcome ? Hardly--I live in New York, which is one of the rottenest of America's "rotten boroughs", and whose GOP faction (on the provincial level, at least) differs in name only from its Dem counterpart.
Yet I see absolutely no reason to vote for either AmNatSoc candidate and thereby demonstrate complicity in this sick joke of a political process.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
P.S. I don't know if anyone else is having trouble with this site, but the "format" of the site has changed radically for the worse in the last two days---I can only see two lines of what I'm writing, and the entry-centering has apparently gone mad.
Lord Karth, to me the site looks very dark blue with black print. I can barely read it. Everything is centered, and I can only see two lines of what I'm writing too.
My eyesight isn't getting any better as I get older, and unless things improve I'm going to have to stop reading here. I'm sure I'm not the only one. The dark blue background is so close to the black print that I have to lean forward and squint, and even then I'm not 100% sure what's going on.
Whatever is the point of this new layout?
With all due respect, Rod, abortion isn't everything. Why not just recognize that this is one issue in which you vehemently disagree with Obama, and yet vote for the better man anyway?
Because for many of us, abortion is murder. We could no more cast a vote for someone who supports abortion, than we could cast a vote for someone who supports slavery or killing Jews as a national policy.
Yes, it is that stark.
Hi, Erin. Your longer comment did appear, and I'm back from my Sunday afternoon phone call from a distressed friend, while watering my garden, plus yet another grocery run to feed my guests, who will return shortly looking for a steak dinner and maybe some cake.
What caused me to boggle in your original comment was the apparent "gay marriage is the One Issue that trumps all and makes voting futile" assertion. I'm glad to see that you've retrenched to your usual "abortion is the One Issue" position, which makes a tiny bit more sense, though not really much more, as others have ably pointed out already.
In answer to your question--come on now, you don't seriously believe that that I think the sun will rise and shine out of Senator Obama's rear end once he becomes President--do ya now? MOI?? As Miss Piggy would say. Anyone with half a brain realizes that our problems are many, and of long standing, and that it is unlikely that one man will be able to turn everything around in four years. People who plan to vote for Obama know this. And you know that we know. You know that none of us believes Obama is the Messiah, and your constant assertions to the contrary are just a rhetorical trick, and a rather ineffectual one. It will, in fact, be a miracle if a Democratic administration can clean up the mess that Bush & co. are leaving behind. We know that. Obama doesn't have to be a chevalier sans peur et sans reproche. It will suffice that he's not John McCain.
As for the abortion thing, I don't want to derail down that sidewalk to nowhere yet again, so I'll just say that as far as I'm concerned, "forty-eight million dead children" is another rhetorical trick. As is the appropriation of the term "pro-life." I consider myself as pro-life as anyone, and more so than most. I care very much about human life at all stages. "Show me your faith without works, and I will show you mine by my works." I'm willing to live by that standard. Like some of the other people who have posted here, I think concern for human lives can best be shown in this election by making sure the Republicans are not returned to office.
If you think otherwise, go for it. Do what you have to do. Get out there and win some hearts and minds. But I think it's silly to wail that you are about to be silenced. I think that's highly unlikely in any event! And I say that with friendly intentions and a smile on my face. ; )
Ack--now I must rush off for my nightly phone call to my aged and very cranky parents. Who are peeved that McCain pulled out of Michigan. "A fanatical McCain supporter" is how my father recently described himself. I don't argue with them. I just breathe deeply and remember that I have a full bottle of Zantac in the cupboard. Oh, the joy . . . .
Format better. Somewhat. The dark-blue effect is gone, as is the insane centering. The name and email boxes are not labeled, so ya gotta know your way around here.
Beliefnet is a big outfit. You'd think they could do better.
Erin, I'm sure it will be interesting watching the next four years of all the Obamaphiles squirming when asked about The One's latest broken promise or power grab or disastrous bumbling mistakes, though; turnabout/fair play, and all that.
Snort. Obamaphiles don't squirm. The dude was one of the very few really sick pols who voted to allow letting living infants die on the operating table after a botched abortion, and I haven't seen his supporters squirm yet. Rather, they defend him. It's hard to believe we've really reached the point in our nation's history where people will actually vote for such a monster without shame. Power is what counts.
This is the really big difference between liberals and conservatives. Cons dump their bad guys: first Nixon and now both Bushes. Libs protected Clinton, and will also protect Obama regardless of what the Lightworker does. One thing history tells us: there will be no squirming from the Left.
What, exactly, have the Republicans done to reduce or eliminate the number of abortions since they got control of Congress and, then the presidency? Not much. I really believe that they like to use abortion as an issue to whip up their base -- but if they ever really did anything about it, they'd lose it as an issue.
I'm concerned about abortion, too, but I don't feel any moral obligation to vote for a candidate just because he happens to *talk* a good game about abortion, but isn't likely -- based on the record of his party -- actually to do much about it.
As far as I'm concerned, the issue of abortion is, in itself, pretty much a wash in this election. McCain talks a good pro-life game; Obama talks a good pro-choice game. Neither of them is likely to have any real, direct effect on abortion in this country. I don't think the nomination of Supreme Court justices really matters, because I think the chances of their overturning Roe are slim to none, and if they do it will just go back to the states anyway, most if not all of which will immediatelly enact fairly unrestrictive abortion laws.
As I think Rod said on *Speaking of Faith* this weekend, it's really about culture. The only way to reduce substantially, if not eliminate, abortion in this country is to change the culture. Trying to change the laws isn't the way to go about it. But things that the government can do that might help reduce the number of abortions include health care and economic policies.
Years ago, the student movement elected a rhinoceros as Mayor of São Paulo, Brazil. Too bad we don't have "Cacareco" on the ballot this year.
David's take on this is about right I'm afraid. If I thought McCain could or would do something about abortion, I'd seriously reconsider my intention to vote for Obama. But so far as I can tell, all the "pro-life" talk from the Repubs, including McCain, is just that: talk. An unashamed attempt to recruit voters, voters on an issue that the Repubs have no intention whatever of doing anything about. Face it. They couldn't care less.
I think the story of Bob Barr illustrates perfectly the corruption of pro-life politics. Here's a twice-divorced thrice-married guy who did not object when one of his wives had an abortion during their marriage. He's running on a platform that states bluntly "Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state."
But he's acceptably pro-life.
I just don't get it.
mdavid: "Obamaphiles don't squirm. The dude was one of the very few really sick pols who voted to allow letting living infants die on the operating table after a botched abortion, and I haven't seen his supporters squirm yet. Rather, they defend him. It's hard to believe we've really reached the point in our nation's history where people will actually vote for such a monster without shame."
Well said, "mdavid." It's embarrassing to see the many self-described "conservative Christians" who tonight on this blog have rationalized and even defended Obama's extreme pro-abortion philosophy. A philosophy so extreme that it even contemplates the murder of an infant that has survived a failed abortion.
If you intend to vote for Obama, please don't preface your comments by telling us of your concern for abortion or your "pro-life" credentials. Doing so cheapens the meaning of the phrase "pro-life."
Many here tonight have touted Obama's intelligence. Others point to his opposition to the torture of captured terrorists and his ORIGINAL opposition to the Iraq war as sign of a humane, pro-life, philosophy.
Obama is intelligent, but let's not confuse intelligence with decency or judgement or a heart. His actions in the Illinois State Senate -- his opposition to the Born Alive Protection Act -- reveal a man with little regard for the dignity of human life. His ten-year alliance with an unrepentant domestic terrorist hardly suggests a regard for the victims of William Ayers' arrogant actions. How can a man with no regard for the protection of the MOST vulnerable among us ... be expected to be vigilant -- in the face of the pressures of the Oval office -- in his opposition to torture or to unnecessary war?
McCain opposed Bush on the torture of detainees. He opposed Reagan on the deployment of Marines to Lebanon. He opposed Bush (and the Senate Democrats) in demanding a surge in Iraq that has saved lives and averted the inevitable bloodbath that would followed a precipitous withdrawal. McCain has seen first-hand the stench of war and abhors war. What does Obama know about war beyond the genteel discussions of it over lunch at the UChicago faculty club?
Chris: after cheering Leo and Sig, et al. But specifically to your 7:38 post.
I don't get it' either. My older sister, now into her senior years, is voting for Obama. She told me that she always used birth control when she was dating her now husband of 40 years. And after when they decided to remain childless. Like me, she was raised by our mother who deplored abortion but sought women to have 'choice' rather than the terrible options available to them in her time. Yet my sister, like me, was always respectful of not risking pregnancy as a consequence of sexual activity on any level. So to her, like me, it was always about responsibility. But I digress.
Contrast this with my sister's childhood friends, many of whom she remains close to this day. She alone never had an abortion during high school or college. Two of her friends of 50 years had more 'multiple' 'more than once' abortions. This is shocking to my sister, who like me, had access to sexual literacy (in our case by our proximity to a responsible activist mother and her mother who had been a suffragette seeking women's vote.)
Now maybe you guessed it. Most of her friends, who had abortions when it was not even legal or 'protected' legally, are died-in-the-wool McCain/Palin voters. Women who only accessed abortions that were not dangerous beyond belief because they came from 'good' families. Meaning enough money to arrange it, and enough social status to make it seem 'appropriate'. Only my sister, who alone... I remind you... was sexually responsible and used care to avoid unwanted pregnancy... plans to vote for Obama. Decades after her friends aged beyond their reproductive capabilities, they wrapped themselves in a 'Christian' flag and have 'seen the light'.
Seriously...on Iraq, we're going to see a bloody civil war there whether we stay or not. staying there just delays it a bit. We've seen exactly that result hundreds of times before, dating back to the Sumerians (who were in charge of the area before at least half of the Bible was written).
on abortion...trying to affect the change in the legal system is little more than a narcissistic attempt to demonify the women who look at their options and conclude they have no choice, simply because you believe yourselves to be so much better. The arrogance is astounding. The only way for abortions to stop is to make society so fair, so just, and so even that no woman can conclude that she has no choice but to give up her child. You don't get that from the legal system, or the political system. The battle was lost for the culture long ago, but that battle, if you REALLY want to affect change in abortion, needs to be rethought, and a long-term strategy for changing the culture needs to be implemented. Short-term and short-sighted attempts on the laws won't do anything. Humility, compassion, and genuine social change will.
on gay marriage or gays in general, as Henry Rollins said, "it's a curb this high...get over it." Worrying that somehow social acceptance or judicial fiat on something your belief system disagrees with will make your belief system "wrong" says volumes about the strength of your beliefs.
As much as I am tempted to not vote (I told you people back during the primaries that not one of the candidates was worth voting for), I would be shirking my civil and civic duties in doing so even if I completely disagree with the candidates, and won't vote for one of them). Even if I have to write someone in, I'm still going to do my duty.
Just a note for people getting the 'dark blue' background problem.
Can't guarantee it'll help with you, but I find that with each individual blog, I have to 'refresh' the comments page in order to get the contrast back. Might help you.
I think both choices for POTUS are terrible; but one less so.
ONE of them will win.
Given the premise that both are bad, should one vote against the really bad?
One doesn't even have to agree on which is which to know that the answer is yes.
You're right, Karen. Reloading the comments page in Safari did bring back a black text with white background page.
I cannot refute Mr. Dreher's point.
I will vote for Mccain, strictly on a "lesser of evils" basis.
I expect he will lose.
I expect Obama with an unundivided Dem government will be a disaster.But America is a great country. We will survive.
I then I hope and pray that in 2012 Ron Paul or someone thoughtful candidate like him makes serious and substantial points about how our current method of operation is dangerous and foolish.You cannot continue with deficit spending, unfunded entitlement and endless military entangelments. And that this time that candidate will be allowed to compete ans speak rather than savaged.
"And that this time that candidate will be allowed to competed and speak rather than savaged."
There's the rub. Candidates are never "allowed" anything, and my guess is the climate won't be any easier in 2012.
"Cons dump their bad guys: first Nixon and now both Bushes"
Bush has lasted eight years. Some of the people who say they are not going to vote TWICE voted for Bush, even after it became apparent he'd lied about the war. Conservatives don't dump their bad guys until they are about to be indicted (unless you are Ted Stevens, they you are still popular in your base), let's not kid ourselves.
Christopher Mohr is really sensible. At the beginning of this year, I had three candidates on my list: Edwards, Obama and Huckabee. Neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain was among those I would consider voting for, whatever the outcome of the primaries. Logic will tell you where this leaves me now. With McCain and Palin degenerating into naked baiting, no special kind, every kind they can think of, with neither substance nor principle to offer, just panic at a probable loss, I am not unhappy with my choice. The day after the election, I will become Obama's worst critic, because of course he will not be doing everything exactly as I would have. Every voter has that problem with any winner.
Although the last few months of a general election drown every candidate in gore, much of it their own, so it becomes almost impossible to see who and what they really are, is it so improbable that when Obama said four years ago "We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents going through our library records in the red states" he was anything but sincere? Yes, I know his pastor leaves a lot to be desired -- Mallard Fillmore had Wright pegged just right exclaiming "...and white people voting for Obama are racist, because if he wins race baiters like me will be out of business." The real problem with Wright is it shook him to the core than a member of his church could actually win. I see Obama's inauguration as the end of liberalism as we know it, which does not mean it is the triumph of the Reagan Revolution, but the dawn of a whole new set of polarities. Look to the future, because Obama is not the end, only the beginning.
Incidentally, everyone I talk to who is unhappy with both candidates, when I mention my original list of three, exclaims "I LIKED Huckabee!" The Republican Party might wish to examine what qualities endeared Huckabee to northern white working class voters who are definitely NOT evangelicals. Most of the people I mention are leaning toward Obama, a few toward McCain. But in eight years???
This thread is the best Rod thread ever. I have read it start to finish. Some posts twice. So many worthwhile nuanced and thoughtful takes on what is happening and where we are with it.
It seems the posters fall into the category of the ‘resigned but unhappy’ voters for Obama vs. the few ‘McCain is the lesser of two evils’ and the very rare ‘McCain is the man’ diehard. Very little ‘my party right or wrong’ heat being generated. Unlike most other blogs, the actual thought processes are available to read. And a good read they are. Feelings regarding (what were or are still) key policy concerns. Often, how these issues have become less frontal since Bush united most of us in mass rebuke.
What comforts me is seeing people who are willing to evolve…and yes, dialog… rather than ‘stand your ground’ martyrdom playing ‘hold my breath until I die’ per the usual social con issues or our current administration's legacy. Sometimes giving up is not giving in. It’s sometimes a combo of ‘moving on’ or making note of writing on a wall while acknowledging today’s big picture and small print.
How many persons have I seen become calcified in dogma in the name of faith and party based philosophy? Mistaking intransience for maturity. Becoming old at any age because they could not grapple with the concept that those simple answers were really questions.
It is very rare for any contemporary government action make life better for people in the long run. Thus, when deciding to vote one important factor is how to create the most possible gridlock. This leads me to believe that a vote for Obama is a vote for lots more government action that will in balance make our lives and our kids lives worse.
Rawlins, Let me give you a third category. I am not so much resigned as hopeful. I disagree with Obama on a great many matters, many of which really matter. Nevertheless, I find him to be an intelligent and decent person, and I actually have some positive hope in him. I do think he is a cut above the average politician.
"Live in hope and die in despair," the old cynic says. Still, we might as well start on a hopeful note.
Well, I have heard that argument before. Oddly enough, though, nobody makes it in favor of voting for the party they do NOT ordinarily vote for, or for, while voting for a Republican president, a lot more Democratic congressmen.
Takes two to gridlock, after all. And gridlock occurs, regardless of which party is on which side.
There are several Pro-Life politicians who supported minimal or no executions. http://www.democratsforlife.org/ likely lists some.
In South Dakota, where Pro-Life Republican Mike Rounds is governor, there's only been one execution since 1976 and fifteen in their entire history.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-united-states-1608-1976-state
I don't know his personal views on executions, but suffice it to say I haven't heard he's just slathering for them.
Abortion rates have went down, although it's done so under both parties. Still in the 12 years when Republicans had Congress, 1994-2006, abortion rates declined about 19%. Pro-Life politics has allowed for some restrictions on funding, zoning, procedure, and consent.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html
John Medaille,
You sound more *optimistic* than hopeful to me.
Rather than *not* ruling out that the Reverend *might* do better than his record (or the lack thereof) suggests that he will, you make-believe *wishfully* that till such as it *can* be ruled out that he *has* done well -- that is, until such time as he does *poorly* -- one can assume that he *will* do well.
That is just the sort of magical thinking that gave us George W. Bush, just the sort of magical thinking that gave us Iraq, just the sort of magical thinking that got us into the financial crisis that we are now in.
I'm with Bugg, I'm voting for McCain as the lesser of two evils. I expect Obama to win. Will Obama be a disaster? Depends on what you mean by a disaster. The biggest challenge he's going to have to contend with is his own party in Congress. And that probably will be his undoing. The Pelosi wing will over-reach and when the Blue Dogs see their re-election chances going down the tubes in 2010, they'll turn on Obama. Which means Obama's agenda (whatever that might be) will go nowhere. But I could be wrong and he really will heal the sick and stop the tide from rising.
I, too, am writing in Ron Paul.
This isn't about being so picky as to expect a "perfect choice". It's about whether or not either candidate respects our "unalienable" rights to life and liberty. McCain is for pre-emptive war (the surge may have saved lives, but we'd already killed 70k+ non-combatants there before the surge began), and Obama is, too. It just depends on which day you catch him. McCain is pro-death penalty and ESCR. Obama is anti-death penalty, but pro-ESCR and abortion. So neither candidate has even close to a healthy respect for our unalienable right to life.
Both voted for the Patriot Act, as well. And while Obama released a speech against the Military Commissions Act when it passed, there was NO ramp-up against it from the Democratic side (and no attempt to repeal it now from either side)...much less a ramp-up anywhere near the likes of the Democratic ramp-up against Bush's Social Security idea he went on tour with in 2005-06. And Obama has made NO indication he won't use to the fullest the expanded (and illegal) executive powers the Bush Admin has grabbed, and Congress has abdicated. So they both fail on right to Liberty.
How can anyone say that those of us who refuse to go along with the false dichotomies and the divide-and-conquer politics of BOTH camps, are just expecting the "perfect candidate"? I'm sorry, but if the bar is so low that we MUST choose between two people that do not respect our most basic rights, then I won't be complicit by submitting my endorsement to either of them.
I voted for Bush in 2004 because of the "lesser of two evils" argument and the one-issue abortion stance. I got burned by that decision. Never again.
I'm voting for Ron Paul this time. I may have to write him in, and my vote may not contribute directly to who actually wins the White House (then again, neither with the 50 million-plus who vote for the loser), but it's a vote of conscience. And my voice will be heard more loudly and more accurately than anyone who capitulates on their beliefs just because they view one guy as a little less bad for America than the other. My vote will put a "1" next to Ron Paul. Yours will put a "1" next to whomever you vote for. Let's not believe the the lies of false control and power that our votes are any more than our political voices, and each represents only one voice.
By voting for McCain or Obama, will yours really be heard?
In the absence of "none of the above" I picked Bob Barr. My boys think I'm throwing my vote away, and I keep trying to explain that voting is not a popularity contest. At least my message is, "no mandate this year".
It troubles me that so many pro-lifers assume that to be consistent we need to also be against executions.
Several years ago California executed a man who was the oldest ever to be executed (in California, but perhaps in the nation - I can't remember).
The crime for which he was executed?
He was already in prison for life. He arranged for some of the people involved in his trial to be killed. Some innocent bystanders were killed as well.
I applaud his execution. He was already in prison for life. What was the state supposed to do, revoke his TV privileges?
If he had not been executed, that would have sent a message to all the other lifers in prison that they could get away with sending hitmen to kill the people who testified against them.
This is just one example among many showing that the death penalty can save lives.
A protest vote for Barr, and GOP downticket to check the Dems in Congress.
Really, anyone considering not voting should not NOT vote at all. If you don't want to vote for a presidential candidate, fine, but there are other important offices at stake. If you have qualms about the apparent winner, our new Messiah, vote for some Pharisees or Sadducee in Congress.
Sorry guys but I need to get something off my chest.
Consider this your shame for considering to withhold a vote. That is a terrible idea. You are never going to find a candidate you are 100% behind, that's why we have a legislative and judiciary system - to check and balance the will to power of any one individual or group of individuals. (at least that's what its supposed to do.)
Just remember, not voting takes away your right to pass judgment on anyone involved in the system because you didn't make your voice heard when it had the chance to really mean something. If the author wishes to abstain, he must also abstain from all critique of the system. I hope that doesn't happen because I like this blog.
My other gripe comes from the pro-lifers floating around. First and foremost, I am so glad that people realize that the term pro-life extends beyond a disdain for abortion. War is not pro-life and I feel that this contradiction has been alive and well in the Bush administration. I'll be very glad to see it end. That aside, There is one fundamental issue surrounding the "right to life".
Lets say, for the sake of argument that abortion is determined wrong by society. From a populist standpoint, our planet can support roughly 10 billion people if wealth is distributed, maximum environmental efficiency is sustained, and everyone works together. Give or take, its not much more than that. Given this information, who has the right to life when the planet is so overpopulated that one more baby will bring the entire system out of balance and risk the lives of all those who came before?
I'm not trying to be judgemental, I'm just a little unclear on the details of the anti-abortion movement. There has to be some limitation on procreation or we jeopardize destroying an already stressed ecosystem. If any and all has the right to procreate, and the majority exercises that right (as we have for centuries), we enter a moral dilemma which is open to all manner of strange interpretation and restricted freedoms.
Maybe I'm wrong but if history is any inclination, I see this becoming a worldwide pandemic within the next 75 years. (1 billion people in 1960, 6 billion today.) The math and ecosystem can't support these numbers, so fundamentally protecting the right of an incubating embryo to develop and make its mark potentially risks the lives of many more already developed beings.
Sorry guys but I need to get something off my chest.
Consider this your shame for considering to withhold a vote. That is a terrible idea. You are never going to find a candidate you are 100% behind, that's why we have a legislative and judiciary system - to check and balance the will to power of any one individual or group of individuals. (at least that's what its supposed to do.)
Just remember, not voting takes away your right to pass judgment on anyone involved in the system because you didn't make your voice heard when it had the chance to really mean something. If the author wishes to abstain, he must also abstain from all critique of the system. I hope that doesn't happen because I like this blog.
My other gripe comes from the pro-lifers floating around. First and foremost, I am so glad that people realize that the term pro-life extends beyond a disdain for abortion. War is not pro-life and I feel that this contradiction has been alive and well in the Bush administration. I'll be very glad to see it end. That aside, There is one fundamental issue surrounding the "right to life".
Lets say, for the sake of argument that abortion is determined wrong by society. From a populist standpoint, our planet can support roughly 10 billion people if wealth is distributed, maximum environmental efficiency is sustained, and everyone works together. Give or take, its not much more than that. Given this information, who has the right to life when the planet is so overpopulated that one more baby will bring the entire system out of balance and risk the lives of all those who came before?
I'm not trying to be judgemental, I'm just a little unclear on the details of the anti-abortion movement. There has to be some limitation on procreation or we jeopardize destroying an already stressed ecosystem. If any and all has the right to procreate, and the majority exercises that right (as we have for centuries), we enter a moral dilemma which is open to all manner of strange interpretation and restricted freedoms.
Maybe I'm wrong but if history is any inclination, I see this becoming a worldwide pandemic within the next 75 years. (1 billion people in 1960, 6 billion today.) The math and ecosystem can't support these numbers, so fundamentally protecting the right of an incubating embryo to develop and make its mark potentially risks the lives of many more already developed beings.
Rod,
Due to a quirk in Texas law, only declared write-in candidates will be counted. Ron Paul is not a declared write-in candidate, so you will literally be throwing your vote away were you to write his name in.
The only sets of candidates for President and Vice President that will be counted are:
Jonathan Allen/Jeffrey D. Stath
Chuck Baldwin/Darrell L. Castle
Thaddaus Hill/Gordon F. Bailey
Alan Keyes/Marvin Sprouse, Jr.
Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente
Brian Moore/Stewart A. Alexander
Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez
"The dude was one of the very few really sick pols who voted to allow letting living infants die on the operating table after a botched abortion, and I haven't seen his supporters squirm yet.....This is the really big difference between liberals and conservatives. Cons dump their bad guys: first Nixon and now both Bushes."
Conservatives didn't dump Bush until he could no longer be re-elected. They didn't dump Nixson, either. They waited until he passed away and lionized him.
The biggest difference between liberals and conservatives is that when something, like Obama voting to let living infants die, has been demonstrated to be false, liberals stop believing it. Too many conservatives, on the other hand, use 'media bias' as a totem to let them believe what ever they want to believe, regardless of the actual evidence.
Voting for Barack Obama or John McCain is a vote for the relinquishing of the rights this nation affords me and the rest of its citizenry because both fail to protect them. Because both of them endorse and propose policies that erode our rights, relinquishing them to a government that keeps going from evil to evil (Bush 41 - Clinton - Bush 43 - Obama/McCain).
If I vote FOR the candidate who wins, what right will I have to critique about what he does? I'd be somewhat complicit!
I'm voting for Ron Paul by write-in. I'm sick of this lesser of two evils crap. All we end up getting is more evil.
I don't expect our candidates to be perfect. Far from it! That's why I'm a conservative who believes in limiting the power of the Federal Government! But I do hold the candidate I endorse to the standard that I have reason to believe my rights and the rights of all Americans will be not only respected, but expressly protected, by their administration.
I have no reason to believe that about Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama. Quite the contrary, actually.
Rep. Ron Paul is FAR from perfect. But, were he to become president, I am confident that the rights to life and liberty for all Americans would be respected and protected. That's why I'm voting for him in 3 weeks.
As for the Population Bomb theory, I don't see how that ends well for humanity. For one, this theory has been around for 40 years, and when it was first proposed it was so wide of the mark, it makes for comedic reading today.
So we continue aborting the unborn and forcing a certain level on contraception on ourselves (mostly Western...African, Arab, and Asian cultures aren't really taking to this, are they?), what happens when our population continues to mushroom? I mean, we're aborting 1 million-plus per year in this country alone. And that's not including China. Do we force other nations to abort, use contraception, force sterilization? How? Against their will? Against their religions? At gunpoint, if necessary?
What's more, babies can be born, but they'll have their whole lives ahead of them to contribute to society. Euthenizing the elderly is a much more workable option, since the cost/benefit ration makes them less productive and more needy. They're the "poorer investment". So are the infirm, injured, developmentally disabled, etc. So where do we draw the lines? And where do we stop agreeing that what Hitler did in the '30s and '40s was wrong? I'm sure he thought what he was doing would be for the good of those he ruled. How is "population control" (as though we were rats or pets) any different?
Are you willing to die so that someone 50 years from now will have enough to eat?
Every four years there is a varying segment of society that decides not voting is a principled thing to do. They just really, really don't like the two choices we've given ourselves and decide that there is a third option. It is always a different group and they always end up learning the same lesson.
I can sympathize with the emotions. You want to fix the problems of the past 8 years with a little "wilderness time." That sounds good but politics is not stagnant. I suspect that four years down the road, the problems created by the Big O and issues that advance on the liberal agenda will force a new coalition among conservatives and Republicans.
In the last 40 years, Republicans have had the executive office but for 12 of those years. Why have we not accomplished more? Because every so often, a part of our coalition decides to stay home and like a damn that breaks, the liberal floodwaters come pouring in. Happened in '76, '92 and might happen again in '08.
Just remember, not voting takes away your right to pass judgment on anyone involved in the system because you didn't make your voice heard when it had the chance to really mean something.
So many fallacies, so little time.
First, who says not voting doesn't make your voice heard? If 75 million Americans didn't show up at the polls this year, would that not send a message? Of course it would.
Second, who says voting actually sends a message? My state is going to vote for John McCain. There's zero possibility that it won't - it is as solidly Republican as they come. So whether I vote or don't vote, makes no difference. Oklahoma's electoral votes will go en-masse to the Republican slate of electors.
Third, and most importantly, who says "not voting takes away your right to pass judgment on anyone involved in the system"? You? Where does the First Amendment take away my right to speech based on whether I voted or not? It doesn't, and that line of argument is baloney masquerading as a serious statement.
I'm not voting. That's my statement. Just try to shut me up about it.
Sorry Soop,
I thought that way in 2004 and voted for Bush. Not like it mattered since I live in Oregon, and my state went to Kerry. And since the election is decided on electoral votes and not popular vote, my vote was "wasted" even though my guy won.
Anyway, voting for Bush got me more death in Iraq, less support for the people fighting there, bigger, more thoroughly corrupt and less accountable government, warrantless wiretapping, a mercinary army playing by their own rules in Iraq (Blackwater), a VP who doesn't know which branch of gov't he's in, the suspension of habeas corpus, and many of the policies that have led to this economic downturn.
Voting for the lesser of two evils did me a whole lot of good, didn't it? I am not taking a seat. My vote will be my vote. It just won't be for either of the false choices we have running in the two major parties.
Hey, Treebeard, you got quoted on Andrew Sullivan's blog! Just thought you might like to know. ; )
Wow! Thanks for letting me know, sig!
I'm a big fan of Andrew's, although I think the election has driven him a little over the deep end.
Also, thank you, Rawlins, for the kind comment earlier.
Jude @ 6:28 PM writes:
"Voting for the lesser of two evils did me a whole lot of good, didn't it? I am not taking a seat. My vote will be my vote. It just won't be for either of the false choices we have running in the two major parties."
Jude, you make the very false assumption that there ARE two major parties. There's only one: the American National Socialist party, with two not-terribly-dissimilar factions of "Republicans" and "Democrats". Operationally and pragmatically, it is very hard to tell the two factions apart.
Both factions are believers in a large and wide-ranging central government; just look at their way of dealing with the credit problem. Both sides (with the exception of a very few House Republicans) supported the expansion of central-government debt to bail out the large financial houses. Virtually no one that I heard about advocated the more realistic cold-turkey approach: "Liquidate, liquidate, liquidate".
Both factions support the maintenance of a large-scale Provider state: entitlements, central-government education spending, expanded government-provided medical care. Note well: the vast majority of wrangling between the two factions is between how much to spend on each area. No one questions the essential need for or legality of any of these programs---they are locked into a course that was decided years ago. The only difference between the two factions seems to be which areas they choose to divert (stolen) taxpayer resources to.
Both factions support a vast military complex (although some of the more dewy-eyed Dem-faction would mildly cut spending on it). The mainstream of both factions supports maintaining the presence of American troops in the 750 or so bases they maintain all over the world---and meanwhile, our southern border bears a strong resemblance to a rusty sieve.
Both factions support and maintain the ballot-access laws that keep them in privileged positions when "election" time rolls around. Except in a few (partial) cases, it is virtually impossible for a second party like the Libertarians or Constitutionalists to compete with AmNatSoc in attracting voters, or even in simply getting on the ballot.
Under such circumstances, and factoring in the effects of the Electoral College, actual voting in a "Presidential" election is little more than a bagatelle in most places. The real contest, to the extent that there is one, is between the members of the various factions for attracting campaign donations. As with so many other things in this degenerated culture we are surrounded by and marinated in, it is the sheer volume of propaganda that often decides matters, and the more money available for TV ads, the greater the chance of winning. John McCain is finding this out.
The one good thing about all that is this: sooner or later, the entire edifice will collapse, from both its own weight and of its sheer disconnect from the realities of the American situation. So go ahead, vote for whoever you want. (I may write in Bugs Bunny, or possibly Daffy Duck---"Flip 'Em The Bird In 2008 !") It doesn't really matter all that much. The real decisions about the course of the country have already been made, years and years ago.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
I feel exactly the same way and it was very encouraging to find that you feel this way. I read your book and loved it. I'm at UT Austin and people definitely resent that I am talking about not voting for either candidate. No you cannot write in candidates other than the approved "write in" candidates. I may cast a protest vote for Chuck Baldwin. Thanks. Peace
"It troubles me that so many pro-lifers assume that to be consistent we need to also be against executions." anon
In my case I was just respecting those who feel that way. I do not personally have a blanket objection to the death penalty. Although I think we should use it a restrained matter.
I favor limiting it to people who are still a dangerous or disruptive force even after imprisonment. Like your lifer who contracted a killing. Or people who escape from prison then commit murders. Or child-rapists and serial-killers who are so hated that their mere presence creates undue harm in prisons. Still when I looked into it I found that the majority of states with a death penalty seem to use it in a fairly restrained way. The highly Republican states of Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Nebraska have had a total of 38 executions since 1930 and coincidentally seem to have a total of 38 currently on death row. In the last 30 years those states have had about a dozen executions. Most of what I consider excessive in the death-penalty occurs in the former Confederacy and Oklahoma.
I said this over at the Dallas Morning News, and I want to say it here too. I cannot understand why people limit the issue of life to abortion. Yes, life begins at conception BUT it does not stop at birth! Capital Punishment, unnecessary wars, the environment, healthcare, child care--they are ALL life issues. So in my opinion, neither party or candidate is really pro-life. For those who seem to care more about the pro-life label than actual lives, what do you do with the fact that abortion rates went DOWN during Clinton's tenure, and back UP while Bush was in charge? This time around, I believe one man's policies, looked at as a whole, will save more lives than the other. That's why I'm voting for Obama.
Sorry about the double posting above. Submitting my first comment gave me an error message, so I assumed it was lost and then I submitted the second comment. Lots of trouble with the new format, unfortunately...
There's no choice any more. McCain is not fit to be President, and this election is too darned important to sit out. I suggest reading Christopher Hitchens piece "Vote for Obama - McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace."
http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/
Like him or hate him, I think Hitchens is dead-on about McCain and Palin.
Darn this new Beliefnet. It's even harder to post than before.
As I tried to post a minute ago, this election is too important to sit out. There is no question that I am going to be voting for Obama, because I don't believe McCain is fit to be President.
Check out Christopher Hitchens's piece in today's SLATE Magazine endorsing Obama:
"Vote for Obama - McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace."
Lord Karth,
Sir, you are as usual, near perfect.
Your admirer,
fbc
But what if the choice is between wrong and evil? How does one then choose to vote?
Slate? A totally unbiased centrist objective magazine, sure.
Jude,
Again, I can sympathize but I cannot agree. You're worried about Blackwater and the suspension of habeas corpus and wireless wiretapping? And in the mean time your bank has been "nationalized." The company that made your car has been "nationalized." The financial firm that held your retirement accounts/investments has been "nationalized." And what's coming with the Big O is going to make that look like small potatoes.
Which issues have more effect on your daily life?
Yes. I know. What has taken place occurred under a Republican President. But you certainly cannot call this a conservative or even Republican environment. Whether the "crisis" was real or imagined, once the hysteria was ginned up, something was going to be done. And had certain factions decided not to show up in Congressional elections of 2004 and 2006, I think we would have had a decidedly less big government "solution."
Which gets right back to my original point, a part of our faction breaks down, the liberal floods come pouring in resulting in an even bigger mess.
MSP said: I cannot understand why people limit the issue of life to abortion. Yes, life begins at conception BUT it does not stop at birth! Capital Punishment, unnecessary wars, the environment, healthcare, child care--they are ALL life issues. So in my opinion, neither party or candidate is really pro-life.
MSP, you may be right - in fact, I believe you are. Neither party is pro-life, which is why I cannot in good conscience vote for either the Republican or the Democratic ticket even though I am a lifelong member of the GOP.
But even if I weren't a Republican, I could not in good conscience vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Look at it this way, hypothetically what if Obama (and McCain too) were in favor of slavery, but held all the other positions that attract you to him today.
Could you still support him? I don't think so. Such a position is anathema and disqualifies a person from being elected to high office.
That's the position that abortion holds for me and for millions of pro-life religious conservatives. It is a threshold issue and continues to be unacceptable even when both major party candidates are unacceptable because of it.
Unless the Democrats pass anti-childbirth laws, their leniency on abortion will only cause the number of Democrats and religious liberals to diminish, eventually leading to their political demise. Hence, in the long term, liberal abortion laws will result in anti-abortion victories.
So either way (i.e., Dem win or Pub win) the anti-abortion forces win; maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but in a couple or a few generations. Jesus has been biding his time for 2,000 years and has still not come back, so there is apparently no need to get panicky if things don't turn out right (both politically and morally) right away.
Chill.
Soop,
My bank hasn't been nationalized and neither has the company that made my car. I bank at WF and I own an '89 Saab. Rights are rights. And I will not vote for policies that continue to erode them just because one candidate might have a less big-government solution to the economic crisis. Oh wait, John McCain DOESN'T.
You say that the policies that are in place aren't Republican. Thing is, these policies didn't just appear in 2006. They were pushed by a Republican president and signed off on by a largely Republican Congress before Congress was controlled by the Dems.
So WHY ON EARTH would I vote for John McCain, who supports just as much big government as George W. Bush did? As a conservative, were I to endorse McCain, I'd be MARGINALIZING my beliefs, just like Pat Robertson did when he endorsed Rudy Giuliani and his pro-choice stance when Giuliani was the front-runner.
If I vote for someone that does not represent my views (and, more often that not, runs counter to them), I marginalize those views. So I will not.
EricW, do you only read magazines that you know in advance will agree with your perspective? How boring that must be.
Christopher Buckley has endorsed Obama!
Darn this new system - it's much more graphically pleasing but that was not "Your Name" above, that was me.
EricW, do you only read magazines that you know in advance will agree with your perspective? How boring that must be.
Christopher Buckley has endorsed Obama!
Alicia (AKA "Your Name"):
To answer your question:
No, I have other ways to bore myself - like answering annoying questions.
Congratulations, Rod. I ended up the same place as you, for many of the same reasons. A plague on both their houses, Republican & Democratic alike. Writing in Ron Paul for President is not a bad idea. However, Ron Paul has caused his name to be taken off of the Montana general election ballot, and has thereby indicated that he does not really want people to vote for him for President for the general election. I am writing in Joe Schriner. He is consistent life, namely, he is pro-life, anti-war & anti-death penalty. Look him up and consider him. His website is at http://voteforjoe.com .
What if Berg is right - i.e., that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen?
youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
Conspiracy theory? Whacky idea? You decide.
EricW, I decide that you have shit for brains.
not a wacko:
I'm rubber, you're glue.
Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks on you.
Someone didn't get enough home trainin', it seems.
Have a nice day.
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.