Intro - I have promised to write my final argument to explain and defend why I am casting my vote for Barack Obama this Tuesday. We all mustn’t forget how blessed we are to live in a country where we are free to exercise our consciences and cast ballots to select those men and women to represent us in our government. The founders instituted a grand experiment where the belief would be tested that the people could govern themselves. The constitution, which I love, guarantees that I and every American, having met a very minimal base set of requirements, can exercise that right without interefence from anyone, be it church, family, employer or government.
It has not always been this way. It used to be that the base set of requirements to vote in our republic were narrow and restrictive. You could cast your vote if you were a member of the landed gentry. If you were a non-white, a woman, a non-protestant or poor, then you were left completely out of the political process. Indeed, If you read through the amendments to the constitution, you are often reading through a history of death and struggle where slowly, ploddingly, our nation grew to understand that government by the governed must include all of us and not just a select few. It signifies a trail of blood and heartbreak where the disenfranchised, the owned, the invisible, the outsiders gave up their fortunes and their very lives so that they could be truly free to control their own destiny.
So I know that my vote on Tuesday is part of a sacred trust given to me by the Founding Fathers and their descendants whose vision was that we the people truly could govern ourselves. It is a privilege that I shall not take lightly.
One of my goals as I make my final argument is for you to understand how I’ve come to this place. The first presidential election in which I voted was for Ronald Reagan in 1984. I have never since voted for a democrat. Much to my chagrin, I even voted for George W. Bush twice. It’s not so much that I have always voted for the Republican as I was voting for the pro-life candidate, who always happened to be a Republican. I have always been cognizant of the fact that the unborn cannot vote and that their lives cry out for justice in light of one of the most despicable and un-democratic decisions ever made by a court. A decision that cast aside laws in every state and put us on a path of strife and division from which we have never recovered. Many of us have sought and fought, vainly it seems, over the years to overcome that heinous ruling. Seemingly, our hands are tied and there is nothing we can do to reverse it. You may wonder at this point what has entered into my moral calculus that would allow me to reverse my lifelong habit. I’ll do my best to explain in my final post.
How someone gets from here to there is a pretty complicated and difficult to understand process. I have a whole post in my head where I think over the difficulty to persuade and move a heart or mind intellectually. My movement away from the traditional evangelical and conservative way of thinking has taken many years. If I could point to any one thing that precipitated that movement it was an event several years ago where my I was filled with doubt about many of my core beliefs. A lot of this had come about as a result of my own error, my own sin and desire to rebel against the status quo. During that time, there is s real sense in that my eyes were opened to see beyond the small world of reformed evangelical Christianity. I was at a place where I really didn’t care what other people believed or thought about me or my religion. I really saw that this world and this country is FILLED with people who are very very different from me, who have unbelief or different belief from my own. Whose paths had taken them to places I couldn’t even imagine. And during this time of rebellion, that was something I grew to love about my country. You see, it is a very remarkable thing to be able to see the world from a different point of view. To be able to know people who are totally and completely OTHER than yourself and find yourself loving them and appreciating their point of view.
By God’s good mercy, this rebellion ended by my coming back to Him. My brother gave me a book called “Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin.” The book agreed with me that indeed the world is not the way its supposed to be, but it also reminded me that that’s ok, because He also has promised to fix it.
But I learned some valuable lessons while I was away. In addition to the obvious ones of faithfulness to God and family, I also have never forgotten just how wide the world is outside of myself. God had given me empathy and taken away self-righteousness and had shown me minds very different from my own. He caused me to once again love the Truth but he also gave me the humility to not cling to it so tightly that I am unable to accept the possibility that I am wrong.
I tell you that story because it explains how I grew to love something that, in my opinion, must be protected and cherished for the proper functioning of our Republic. PLURALISM. In the circles I run in, that’s a dirty word. It is so often associated with all kinds of bad philosophies like relativism or post-modernism. But I must confess I can hardly understand why so many hate it. Protecting that principle is the foundation of mine and every citizen’s liberty to live our lives and practice our religion. Sure, in church we have to settle on our beliefs and doctrines and believe them wholeheartedly and defend them vigorously, lest truth become totally irrelevant and God be forgotten. But I am not just a Christian, I am a citizen of the United States, which holds out promises for everyone who is willing to participate. Our founders understood that and that is why they made a point to not establish any official religion. I am convinced that their desire was to allow all people to freely practice their religion or worldview without the meddling influence of government. Conversely, I believe that they wanted to make sure that no particular worldview, religion or sect would hold sway over any other. What that means practically is that my responsibility as a citizen is to pursue my own happiness, live my life freely and responsibly and to defend to the death your right to do the same. The amazing thing is that when we do this, everyone flourishes. American civil society stands out like a lighthouse of hope on the shores of the earth. I have marvelled how good we are at embracing immigrants of every color and religion and providing for them the ability to merge into our culture and succeed. We do this better than anyone else.
But I am afraid we’ve started to stray really far off that path and to be perfectly frank, I think the Republican Party, swayed by their “base” of pro-lifers, Dobsonian evangelicals, homophobes, and anti-immigrant bigots are leading the way. When your party’s base thinks that corporate hegemony, injustice, torture, kidnapping and the rejection of constitutional and human rights are perfectly within the bounds of good governance due to our difficult circumstances, then I think something is profoundly broken with your party. And I want to have nothing to do with them. They anger me. Combine that with the fact that I don’t give a damn what they think of me and we are in for some strong chemistry.
Before I end, I want to say a few thing about my “Philosophy” or approach to my vote. First, in regards to my faith, I don’t think our nation is a Christian nation nor do I believe that it was founded as such nor do I think I should vote to make it such. My Christian faith provides me with some very basic core principles that inform my vote: Protection of life and property, compassion for the poor, freedom of conscience. That last one is not in itself a biblical ideal but it is necessary for the flourishing of the gospel in a free society.
Second, in regards to country, at a bare minimum our government must protect life and liberty and seek to structure society to provide the most opportunity for as many people, for happiness, success and flourishing as is humanly possible. I think we need to strive vigorously to avoid wars and only enter into a war through a broad consensus and only after ever other avenue has been tried. I think exporting democracy will often be a failed venture. We need to restore our standing in the world. We need tax and economic policies that are wise and fiscally sound that will create real wealth, jobs and economic growth. We need to restore justice and eliminate torture and kidnapping and other damnable U.S. policies on the war on terror.
Third, I want to see the end of the culture wars. Our nations is SO DIVIDED that I am not sure we can stand for it much longer. It may not be possible, but I eagerly desire to see basic respect between the warring factions. It may not be possible, but its a hope.
This post is already WAY longer than I had originally intended. But before I end I think its only fair for you to know my influences. Here’s the list of blogs I read. Here’s my Amazon wishlist in no particular order. Many of the books I have read or am reading.
I will be writing four more essays between now and Tuesday. If you’re mostly interested in the Abortion argument, to be fair to me you need to hear me out on everything else, because its all figured into my calculus.
1. Why we need Change.
Why not McCain / Palin?
2. What I love about Obama
His Intelligence
His Rhetoric
His Thoughfulness
His Pragmatism
His Leadership
His Campaign
3. Whats wrong with Obama - (Abortion)
4. Closing Statement
GEORGE WILL
From the invasion of Iraq to the selection of Sarah Palin, carelessness has characterized recent episodes of faux conservatism. Tuesday’s probable repudiation of the Republican Party will punish characteristics displayed in the campaign’s closing days.
DAVID FRUM
Now it is Obama’s turn. He can try (as Shrum recommends) to overthrow the Reagan legacy, to establish himself as a new historical bookend, hurling himself into the kind of great campaign for economic redistribution hinted at by his own early rhetoric. If he does, his career will likely be tumultuous and ultimately doomed. This remains a basically conservative country.
Or Obama can fit himself into the American story, seeking continuity with all that came before, accepting institutional limits on his actions, innovating by inches. That may disappoint his most ardent followers, who long for a second coming of FDR. But it will emulate his wisest predecessors.
FOUAD AJAMI
A younger man, “cool” and collected, carrying within his own biography the strands of the world beyond America’s shores, was put forth as a herald of the change upon us. The crowd would risk the experiment. There was grudge and a desire for retribution in the crowd to begin with. Akin to the passions that have shaped and driven highly polarized societies, this election has at its core a desire to settle the unfinished account of the presidential election eight years ago. George W. Bush’s presidency remained, for his countless critics and detractors, a tale of usurpation. He had gotten what was not his due; more galling still, he had been bold and unabashed, and taken his time at the helm as an opportunity to assert an ambitious doctrine of American power abroad. He had waged a war of choice in Iraq.
He says:
McCain, just like Obama, believes that taxes should be levied for the purpose of funding social programs that redistribute income downwards. (We’ll leave aside, for the moment, the fact that both of them also believe that taxes should be levied for the purpose of funding a bloated military-industrial complex and other things that redistribute at least some of the income upward.) McCain and Obama may envision different forms and scopes for those programs, and those differences may or may not have profound consequences in practice. However, the McCain rhetoric is being employed to argue that just about any downward redistribution is a type of socialism. If it is (at least in McCain’s usage of the term) then McCain is a socialist. Maybe not as much of a socialist as Obama (we’ll leave aside welfare for the rich, for the moment) but a socialist nonetheless.
If the pinko pot wants to call the kettle red, well, have fun. One can argue that McCain is a lesser evil according to the manner in which he has framed the issue (leave aside welfare for defense contractors, because military spending isn’t actually spending, in the bipartisan consensus) but that’s about it. The party that expanded government spending for 8 years (even leaving aside military spending) and brought us the Medicare prescription drug benefit simply has no credibility on whining about redistribution. Of course, one could acknowledge this and still argue that at least McCain will spend less money on social programs (not so sure that’s true, and of course we’re leaving aside a whole pack of pachyderms in the room, but whatever). Still, the rhetoric as currently framed defies credibility. As McCain and Palin are currently framing the argument, any sort of redistributive social program is welfare and hence socialism (according to their usages, mind you–Gov. Palin, what do you think about Alaska’s oil fund?).
The post is HERE and the commentary over there is intelligent as usual. You should join in.
Scott
Seth has encouraged me to make the comment I made to this post into its own post. I have pasted below with some additional thoughts on the topic:
Cynthia,
Thanks for joining the conversation. You will find by a perusal of our posts that neither Seth nor I are your typical, conservative, knee-jerk evangelical Republicans.
I noticed from your website that you seem to firmly believe that Obama will reduce the number of Abortions. I think this position is incredibly out of touch with reality. Even Scott has admitted, albeit reluctantly, that taxpayer funding of abortion may increase the number of abortions. For Seth and I, it is a very simple proposition: you get more of what you subsidize. The government’s explicit reasons for subsidizing anything is to get more of the thing. Want more research into alternate energy sources? Subsidize it. Want more people to get a college education? Subsidize it. Want more people to own homes? Subsidize the owning of a home. There are many ways to subsidize something. Tax Credits. Tax Breaks. Direct funding. Grants. Payments in kind.
Obama cannot on the one hand claim that he wants fewer abortions and on the other hand push for taxpayer funded abortions. Even if it is not his intent, the effect of such a policy will be more abortions. You get more of what you subsidize. Obama is on the record as saying that he would push for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment which limits taxpayer funding of abortion.
That is a demand side argument. On the supply side, Obama supports policies that would reduce the cost of abortion. He has stated that his first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which would effectively overturn many states limits on abortion. Having to tell your parent that you are pregnant and want an abortion is a cost. Obama wants to eliminate that cost. Waiting periods and other state regulations of abortion increase both the monetary and non-monetary costs of abortion. The current wording of the act would, in fact, eliminate legal protections extended to medical personnel who refuse to participate in abortion procedures or advise women on the availability of abortions. This increases the cost of abortions by limiting the supply. He wants to reduce that cost. (Not to mention the moral abomination of not offering protection for people to live according to their own consciences).
Effectively, Obama wants to increase the demand of abortions through subsidies and by lowering the costs.
Obama and his supporters have never denied that Obama said these things. There is no indication from the campaign or other sources that he was disingenuous about his statements. All we have is statements made in front of religious voters that he wants to reduce the number of abortions. And yet all his policy prescriptions would have the exact opposite effect. At some point, if Obama is sincere in his desire to reduce the number of abortions, he might actually have to support some policies that would have the effect of reducing the number of abortions.
If I told you that I wanted to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil and encourage alternative energy development but my policy prescriptions were that I wanted tax dollars to subsidize the sale of gasoline and I favored tax credits for ownership of large SUV’s, would you believe me? I wouldn’t believe me either. So why do you believe Obama’s campaign rhetoric on this issue?
I would at least like evangelical Obama supporters to admit that the evidence is that more abortions would occur under an Obama administration. Admit it and make your case for Obama on other grounds. And be prepared to defend that position.
Steve
In addition, I want to add another proposition: Obama’s policies will also increase the number of unwanted pregnancies by encouraging irresponsible sexual behavior. The reason is quite simple: if taxpayer funding of abortions are available, it effectively reduces the risk of unwanted pregnancy. By lowering the risk, it increases the risky behavior. In the 1970’s, when the government was moving to mandate passive restraint systems in automobiles, a number of prominent economists argued that the effect of such laws would be to increase the number of traffic fatalities. Drivers, they reasoned, would drive more recklessly and take on more risk. Their predictions proved to be correct. Involuntary passive restraint systems actually increased traffic fatalities.
Here is an article from TIME magazine making the point:
The point, stresses Adams, is that drivers who feel safe may actually increase the risk that they pose to other drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians and their own passengers (while an average of 80% of drivers buckle up, only 68% of their rear-seat passengers do). And risk compensation is hardly confined to the act of driving a car. Think of a trapeze artist, suggests Adams, or a rock climber, motorcyclist or college kid on a hot date. Add some safety equipment to the equation — a net, rope, helmet or a condom respectively — and the person may try maneuvers that he or she would otherwise consider foolish. In the case of seat belts, instead of a simple, straightforward reduction in deaths, the end result is actually a more complicated redistribution of risk and fatalities. For the sake of argument, offers Adams, imagine how it might affect the behavior of drivers if a sharp stake were mounted in the middle of the steering wheel? Or if the bumper were packed with explosives. Perverse, yes, but it certainly provides a vivid example of how a perception of risk could modify behavior.
There is no reason to believe that the same thing will not happen with horny 17 year olds in the back of the car. The lower risk of unwanted pregnancy, through taxpayer funded abortion, will encourage riskier sexual behavior which will lead to a higher teen pregnancy rate, higher STD infection rates, more low birth-weight babies (because some of those horny teens in the light of the day will elect not to abort) and increase all the social ills that accompany teen pregnancy.
Some readers will object to this argument on the grounds that people do not make decisions this way. In fact, all of us make dozens of calculations a day weighing risk and reward. From the TIME article:
The bottom line is that risk doesn’t exist in a vacuum and that there are a host of factors that come into play, including the rewards of risk, whether they are financial, physical or emotional. It is this very human context in which risk exists that is key, says Adams, who titled one of his recent blogs: “What kills you matters — not numbers.” Our reactions to risk very much depend on the degree to which it is voluntary (scuba diving), unavoidable (public transit) or imposed (air quality), the degree to which we feel we are in control (driving) or at the mercy of others (plane travel), and the degree to which the source of possible danger is benign (doctor’s orders), indifferent (nature) or malign (murder and terrorism). We make dozens of risk calculations daily, but you can book odds that most of them are so autom
Steve
I hope to post 3-5 long format posts before Tuesday that I am going to call - My Final Arguments. I do intend to address tough issues like abortion and other things mentioned in Steve’s Open Letter. I intend to get the first one up tomorrow morning. Lord Willing.
Scott
I wrote a fairly scathing comment over at one of my favorite blogs, Adventures in Mercy. She replied in a comment over here instead of over there. I thought I would just publish her comment front and center.
The post she was responding to and where I have written several comments is HERE.
*******************
Scott,
I’m responding to you on your blog because I don’t want to further discussion on Molly’s blog. I find your response rude and inappropriate. You are entitled to your beliefs and interpretations, but there’s no reason to name call or insinuate Christians are dumb. I’m not going to pick apart everything you say and call out Strike One, Two, etc. But I will say this. John McCain is not perfect or free from sin. I’m not voting for him because I think he is, no one is. He has said he regrets his adultery and admits he knows it’s wrong. Obamas doesn’t admit abortion is sin. He doesn’t admit homosexuality is sin. He would rather his daughters commit murder (abortion) than be “punished” with a child. That is what I meant about his morals and disrespecting the Bible. Being a “church goer” doesn’t make you right. See the following examples.
http://brotherbobsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/barak-obama-quotes-bible-sort-of.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FCNKwHRCQM
While respect for the Bible isn’t a legal requirement and clearly not your requirement for a president, it is for me because it speaks to the character of the person.
Your quote from Obama’s book sounds nice but his speeches and policies don’t adhere to it. He has clearly stated he supports hate crimes legislation that would make it illegal to just say homosexuality is a sin. He’s inconsistent at best if not blasphemous to think that he can say the Bible is wrong and still a call himself a Christian. Then no, you’re not. You say he’s humble. I find him one of the least humble persons I’ve ever met. And I find him to be very inconsistent.
Then I find his primary economic policies unethical in regard to redistribution of wealth. Even if I wasn’t a Christian I wouldn’t vote for Obama because I don’t think his economic policies will spur on economic growth and I don’t think his ideas on foreign policy are in the best interest of America. You want me to give Obama some slack, why don’t you cut John McCain some? I do find Obama personable, likeable, kind, smart, ambitious but I also believe he will be in office to serve his intentions and only consider the half of America that voted for him and not the half that did not.
I hope you find my response respectful without any name calling, just stating my beliefs on the issues and how I don’t feel Obama matches those.
As Seth has stated, he thinks Obama is just a liar and once he’s in office he will take off his nice-guy mask and show his inner-demon underneath. There are myriad reasons why I don’t think thats what will happen, including the fact that he is so well respected by pretty much everyone who has ever worked with him, including people with whom he disagrees.
But here is an example, his tenure as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. In THIS ARTICLE, Frontline interviews his fellow HLR staffers. Here’s what one of the conservatives said about Obama.
Absolutely right, absolutely right. I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there’s an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it’s our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in.
And Barack was reluctant to do that. It’s not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. And he was not going to let politics or ideology get in the way of doing that. …
He had some discretion as president to exercise an element of choice for certain of the positions on the masthead; it wasn’t wide discretion, but he had some. And I think a lot of the minority editors on the Review expected him to use that discretion to the maximum extent possible to empower them. To put them in leadership positions, to burnish their resumes, and to give them a chance to help him and help guide the Review. He didn’t do that. He declined to exercise that discretion to disrupt the results of votes or of tests that were taken by various people to assess their fitness for leadership positions.
He was unwilling to undermine, based on the way I viewed it, meritocratic outcomes or democratic outcomes in order to advance a racial agenda. That earned him a lot of recrimination and criticism from some on the left, particularly some of the minority editors of the Review. …
It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.
Scott
