I very seldom post on politics, mostly because those kinds of discussions invariably produce more heat than light.
But I am hearing a disturbing trend(to me)that is taking shape more and more as the 2008 Presidential election nears.
Before I go further, let me say that the following is not to be construed as an endorsement of anyone. I honestly don't know who I'll support at this point, and that is not the point of this post besides.
But now that most pundits seem to be conceding the Republican race to John McCain, there are a number of vocal disaffected conservative voters who, despite proclaiming their vocal opposition to ANY Democrat candidate, stubbornly vow that they will under no circumstances support John McCain for President...even asserting that they may vote Democrat rather than stay with their party.
Huh?
Let me get this straight...you despise the thought of voting for any Democrat, yet because your party(if you're a Republican)is not nominating a person you prefer, you're going to support your ideological enemy? Do the words "sore loser" mean anything to you?
Consider the logical conclusion if such a position is carried through. Disgruntled Republicans refuse to support the nominee of their party, yet since they will likely not vote for the Democrat nominee either, their voice will be missing in the political process. This essentially hands the Presidency to the Democrats without as much as a fight. Do any of those people really want that to happen?
And worse, if they vote for the Democrat in protest, that almost guarantees a Democrat victory. Are these people willing to hand over the Presidency for the next four years based on a principled objection that is not really principled?
Let's look at McCain for a moment. Granted, he is not a strict conservative(but neither are so-called American conservatives, if you really want to quibble about definitions). And granted, he prefers to position himself as a so-called maverick, an independent minded Republican who is under no one's marching orders(a very disingenuous posture, if you ask me). But just because he's those things, and has enacted legislation with Democrat legislators, does that REALLY make him a liberal Republican?
And even McCain's critics must concede that he has been an unswerving supporter of the current President's policy in Iraq and on the "war on terror". And would a McCain presidency be as frightening to the conservative wing of the Republican party as a Democrat one would be?
I doubt it. But the fact that so many seem so convinced that they will not support McCain under any circumstances and may even vote contrary to their avowed principles and philosophies is such that it's looking a bit scary right now.
The good thing is, it's a long way from November, which is the only time that all this will matter anyway. And in the course of that time, a number of these questions and dilemmas might well be solved, and things won't look so confusing.
In the meantime, I'll make up my own mind, pray, and trust God for the best.
Author: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Written: 02/08/2008
| 
Category: Misc
Comments: 14
RSS Feed
| (What's an RSS feed?)
|
Ads Sponsored by Southern Spin
John, mainly out of curiosity, do you hold that Christians must always vote for the lesser of two evils, or do you think there comes a time when abstaining is the best--or perhaps the only--option for the Christian?
Just for the sake of discussion, I'll propose an extreme case: Suppose the USSR had free elections, and the options were Lenin and Stalin.
Daniel J. Mount
Editor of SouthernGospelBlog.com
Founder and Admin Emeritus of SouthernGospelForums.com
Daniel, did I hit a nerve or something? LOL!
Now you see why I don't like to post about politics.
To answer your question as directly as possible, I feel that each individual voter in a free society ought to vote for whomever he or she feels is the best candidate for the office in question.
Now one trend that has really bothered me in recent American elections...and not just the Presidential one...is one where seemingly more and more voters are expressing the idea that the choices they are given represent a choice between the lesser of two(or more)evils.
If that's the way a person feels, perhaps he or she must get more personally involved with the system to insure that such choices don't exist in the future. That would seem to be the only way to prevent such things from happening in both the short and long terms.
Yes, your question about the USSR is extreme...especially since that nation no longer exists, therefore any speculation on it is moot by definition!
But my answer to it would be the same as above...I would hope the eligible voter would assess the relative merits of Lenin and Stalin, and choose which of the two would be better at serving the country.
Now, let's get back to reality if just for a moment.
Daniel, you and I both know that in practice, precious few Americans really care that much about who is elected President or whatever that they would be willing to get involved with the system to such an extent that they would modify it...to the point where they could insure that they have clear good choices now and in the future. (Well, you might, maybe, but I don't know anyone else, honestly, who would.)
And you also know that probably in reality, neither Lenin nor Stalin would have allowed free elections to exist to such a degree in the USSR to the point where they would actually be competing against each other on a level playing field.
So maybe the best thing to remember is Who is actually in charge(no, it's not anyone we elect)and do our best to serve Him...and not put our trust in earthly, man-made institutions.
Has anyone bothered to apply the teachings in Romans 13 to any aspect of this discussion?:-)
Morning glory and evening grace,
Giving the world a smile each day,
john.sogospelnews.com
I've always been under the belief that American's don't have a right to vote - they have an obligation to vote - and if that means choosing between the lesser of two evils or a even placing a vote for an unlikely third party - you've done your job.
And besides that - I try not to look at it as choosing between the lesser of two evils - rather choosing the one who has the best qualifications and views for the job - regardless of how "evil" I feel they are.
Since only one candidate is actually authorized to take office and those who voted otherwise are left with the outcome, it seems to me that we vote after the same manner that we watch television; we watch the least objectionable program.
John, as you either knew or correctly guessed, I have been heavily involved in politics, as high as running county-wide campaigns and in the inner circle of a (successful) campaign for federal office. I've seen things that would horrify many Christians, including one time when a candidate offered to hire me as campaign staff with part of my job responsibilities being to tell him how to talk religious evangelical jargon to convince Christians that he was one of them.
With all due respect to those who feel differently, my position is that I will not vote for someone who I do not believe is qualified to hold the office. Occasionally this means that I do not vote either way.
Daniel J. Mount
Editor of SouthernGospelBlog.com
Founder and Admin Emeritus of SouthernGospelForums.com
Mr. Enloe posted as I was typing. I do understand your reasoning, and for that reason I do vote in most races, in every race where I can in good conscience do so. I just do not feel an obligation to vote in every single race on the ballot in those rare instances where I believe that neither candidate will do a creditable job in the office.
Daniel J. Mount
Editor of SouthernGospelBlog.com
Founder and Admin Emeritus of SouthernGospelForums.com
"And worse, if they vote for the Democrat in protest, that almost guarantees a Democrat victory."
Sounds like a good plan to me! LOL!
Dean
Congratulations John. It looks like you've found a hot button that is getting a good reader exchange.
Actually, John, I believe that the answer to your basic question is staring you right in the face, but is too troubling to be realized and acknowledged by most Christians.
The non-evangelical world looks at the present actions of national church leaders and assumes that their motivations are what they appear to be - that they have (for years now since the days of the Moral Majority) demanded that the Republican Party jump through their hoops and put forth candidates that they approve of - as a condition for them not throwing a monkey wrench into the works.
The evangelical Christian views their actions and rationalizes that things are not what they appear to be (the tail demanding the right to wag the dog) while the world clearly understands that "power" is the basic motivation of some of those who have risen to prominence withn the Church.
It is generally conceded that George Herbert Walker Bush lost the 1992 election due to the splitting of the Republican vote by Ross Perot.
Then, in 1996, the "religious leaders" influenced many Christians to vote for 3rd party candidate Alan Keyes, only because they did not like the stance of Bob Dole's running mate, Jack Kemp. They argued that they had to act according to the dictates of "their principles and their consciences", even though many pointed out that their support of Keyes would cause a Clinton win over Dole (which it did) and this would result in the ability of Clinton to continue to support abortion rights.
Their issue of "conscience" was due to their stand against abortion - yet their actions resulted in a later Clinton veto on legislation on the restriction of partial birth abortion - a bill that Bob Dole would have signed.
So, to "vote their conscience" against a vice presidential candidate they felt was "soft" on Right to Life issues, they were responsible for actions that resulted in the killing of more innocent babies - the very activity they were pledging to stop.
When this was pointed out to them, their cavalier response was that they were not responsible for the consequences of their decisions - just their decisions.
How pathetic.
Now, they're doing it again. Recently, Sean Hannity pleaded earnestly with one of our very top religious leaders to not influence people to vote in such a way that was sure to put either Obama or Hillary in the White House.
This top religious leader, heard daily on most Christian radio stations nationwide, said the following (a direct quote) in regard to his then-stance against Rudy Giuiliani:
"If Rudy Giuiliani wins, I'm telling you - the pro-life and pro-family movement is gone. If it's Hillary, as bad as she is, there will be a mobilization to fight what she has tried to do. If he is put in office by conservatives and by those who are pro-life and pro-marriage and pro-family, I'm afraid we will never recover from it."
So there you have it. It is NOT about seeing that one more baby does not die. It is first and foremost THE PRESERVATION OF THE MOVEMENT THAT THIS DOCTOR IS ASSOCIATED WITH. After that, the reduction of abortions comes into play. If more babies have to die in order for us to preserve the future of the MOVEMENT, it is the price we need to pay.
Worse than pathetic. Heretical, at best.
The world clearly understands that the motive is power for power's sake, while the gullible, yet conscientious, Christian looks for the deeper meaning and - trusting in his leaders - tries to "understand" how these leaders must "honor their consciences and stand by their principles" - to maintain their "spiritual integrity".
I believe whet the world believes - that these men demand that the Republican Party do what they say and will even cost them the election if their exercise of power and preservation of their t"movements: is not stroked.
It is not first and foremost about the saving of babies with these guys - it probably never was. It is about their lust for power - and their attempt to exercise it at the cost of the unborn.
If not true, they would make decisions that would result in the saving of babies - not suggesting that 4 years of Hillary might be better for their "movement" - especially when 5 or 6 Supreme Court Justices are now over the age of 70 - and some could be replaced in the next 4 years.
Let's not be gullible, as Christians.
Cliff Cerce
The Cerces, PO Box 8525, Springfield, MO 65801
417-863-8440
http://www.thecerces.com
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Cliff,
I find your description as pathetic interesting. Just where do we take a stand and say enough is enough. We are where we are today because we have voted for the lessor of two evils for many years now.
First, you are making the mistake of thinking that the Presidency is the end all of government. Remember, once we compromise our convictions we can never get them back. If we never take a stand, before too long we have the same standards and party platform as the opposing party. Then what have we accomplished. Then we have a pathetic situation.
The answer is not in voting for the lessor of two evils. If we have come to that, then we truly are pathetic. The answer is in voting the majority in for the other branches. If the House and Senate are controlled by Conservatives, then the President is limited in what judges he can appoint. Haven't we seen the reverse of that with Bush's Presidency? You do not have to vote for the President to vote for everyone else. That's why we have a balance of powers.
So, it has nothing to do with people wanting "power". It has to do with standing our ground and saying that this one is worth fighting for. IN the long run voting for the lessor of two evils does not save babies lives, it gets us closer to finally having no voice at all in what happens to those babies.
Deon Unthank
SoGospelNews.com
My Blog
Some people are like Slinkys… Not really good for anything, but they
still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs - Author Unknown
Deon, I agree that woting in the proper House and Senate is a wise move. But, it is not enough.
Judges are appointed by sitting presidents - and then ratified by Congress. I do not want another Supreme Court Justice like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who was apppointed to the court by Bill Clinton, supported abortion rights, and joined in the move to strike down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law.
Who the President apponts to the Supreme Court makes a big difference.
But you said, "IN the long run voting for the lessor of two evils does not save babies lives, it gets us closer to finally having no voice at all in what happens to those babies."
I respectfully disagree - because of the existence and reality of appointed Judges who choose to legislate from the bench. And, I am interested in the saving of every baby's life that I can. Now - as well as in the future. I am unwilling to do anything with my vote that can cause someone to get in office that can appoint new Supreme Court Justices (and other Federal Judges) who are not conservative and hold to our values.
If the evangelicals insist on demanding their perfect way with an election in the choice of a candidate (or they will withhold their support from a candidate that can guard our ever-eroding freedoms and protect the unborn better than the opposing side), then I believe God will be displeased with that choice and we have done a great disservice to our country.
We are responsible for the consequences and ultimate results of our decisions, when those results can be clearly identified as certain, if not probable.
If I see a row of dominoes lined up on a floor - and I willfully push the first one (knowing they will all flip over and certainly cause the flipping over of the last one) - I an certainly responsible for that falling of that last domino, if I willfully and knowingly pushed the first one with that knowledge.
I would not want to stand before God one day, trying to excuse my actions by describing to Him my part in some grandiose scheme to help future generations - that never worked.
I don't want to participate in a scheme that just seeks to capture more ground later. I'd rather follow a plan that refuses to give up any more ground NOW.
Cliff Cerce
The Cerces, PO Box 8525, Springfield, MO 65801
417-863-8440
http://www.thecerces.com
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
I was having trouble adequately conveying my position on this issue of not giving up ground - and then I thought of a better way to explain it.
The problem with a game plan that refuses to vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" (and therefore refusing to vote for and back your Party's nominee in the belief that this action by so many will result in the Party bringing forth better candidates in the future) is the sad fact that this action actually gives up valuable ground TODAY and robs tomorrow of the same momentum and opportunity that was available today.
Rudy Giuiliani ignored the Iowa, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Nevada and South Carolina primaries - believing that Florida was his "firewall" and his expected win there would catapult him to the top.
This strategy took him from being the long-term frontrunner to becoming the "also-ran" who had to drop out of the race after his poor showing in Florida.
He didn't realize that his decision to not compete in early primaries and to willfully concede them (as unimportant) eroded his influence - so that he was no longer viewed as the frontrunner as a result by the time Florida had arrived for him - and the ground he gave up stopped his momentum. Without the influence and momentum he had previously had for so many months - he was unable to do later what he could have more easily done earlier.
Hillary Clinton is making the same mistake today. Once the frontrunner, she pretty much ignored Virginia, Maryland and Washington, DC - looking to Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas. The problem with this strategy is - her loss of momentum and significance by the time those primaries roll around will likely cause her to not be able to accomplish what she could have done there - if she hadn't given up so much ground earlier and lost so much momentum.
That is the problem with not doing what is necessary TODAY to occupy all of the ground that you can. The theory is that the Party will "learn their lesson" and put forth candidates in the future that are more palatable to us - having sustained a loss because of the withdrawal of our support in a previous election.
The opposite actually happens. We demonstrate to the Party that we cannot be counted on. They believe that we vote in order to have control over the Party's agenda - and not for the candidate that will most bring us the desired results. They see that as an unreasonable position. Believing they cannot win without the support of all factions (including conservatives, religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Independents and cross-over Democrats), we are judged the least predictable and dependable to them - and so - our clout is eroded. We lose our momentum and influence - and the Party moves in the future to trying harder to please factions other than us.
The solution? We should never TODAY give up any ground. I did not vote for McCain in the primary - but I will vote for him in the election. He was not my choice - but he is pro-life and can defend our country against Radical Islam. He is a fiscal conservative.
It is interesting to me how we differ from the way God looks at things. We exclude someone because there are areas where we disagree - while God, at times, chooses to use someone because of areas of agreement - in spite of areas of disagreement.
In Revelation 2, the Spirit's message to the Church at Ephesus was that they were in danger of having their candlestick removed from them, because they had left their first love. Yet, even though this serious condemnation and disapproval was levied against them, they were commended for their works, labor and patience - not tolerating evil doers and for exposing false apostles - and for even hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans.
Their shortcomings did not disqualify them from God's using them, even though they were in danger of losing the overall influence they enjoyed because of the things He disapproved of.
Kings Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah and Jotham all were commended by God for walking in His ways and were labeled as good kings.
Yet, each of them displeased God greatly by not doing away with the "high places" where the people burnt incense to false gods.
It could not be more clear to me. God has shown Himself to be willing to work through rulers that were basically good - in spite of His dispeasure at some of their actions.
My standard cannot be set higher than God's.
And, if I give up ground today - I must realize that I risk squandering the ability to have momentum and influence within the Party in the days ahead - and we may never gain that ground back again.
I will only support a candidate who is ELECTABLE - and is pro-life, on the right side of defense and the Iraq war, and is a fiscal conservative. It appears that John McCain is the only man who will fit that description - and I will therefore vote for him.
To vote otherwise would be to help elect a pro-choice, anti-war, fiscally irresponsible candidate.
So, to not vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" is to actually help elect the one who is more evil - and I cannot justify doing that as a Christian.
Cliff Cerce
The Cerces, PO Box 8525, Springfield, MO 65801
417-863-8440
http://www.thecerces.com
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Cliff, you mentioned "your party's nominee." What about people who do not choose to be affiliated with a party?
Granted, I vote in GOP primaries, but I consider myself a conservative who often votes for Republican candidates, not the other way around (a Republican who often votes for conservatives).
Daniel J. Mount
Editor of SouthernGospelBlog.com
Founder and Admin Emeritus of SouthernGospelForums.com
Good point, Daniel.
I was referring to myself, a registered Republican.
My point is - I will vote for someone who is actually viably electable (who really has a chance to actually win ) and who most closely shares my values and beliefs.
Otherwise, I am helping the other side.
For those who don't agree - don't we generally hold that the German people were responsible for looking the other way as Hitler rose to power - not wanting to go against their leader? Did they not help that madman by not opposing him before he got strong?
How do you think God looks at it - considering that 6 million of His people were slaughterd?
Amd today - the other side advocates the American Holocaust - the slaughter of babies.
Cliff Cerce
The Cerces, PO Box 8525, Springfield, MO 65801
417-863-8440
http://www.thecerces.com
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Page 1 of 1 Comment Pages
