David Gadbois said,
November 3, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Here are my thoughts about the election tomorrow, in no particular logical order:
1. First, I’d say that if I were in a state that had a chance of giving its electoral votes to McCain, I would vote for McCain. But since California is most definitively not in play, I’ll use the opportunity to lodge a protest vote.
2. I’m still debating who to pick for the protest vote. It isn’t terribly important since it is only symbolic. Just a way of saying “how can the Republican party have nominated this guy?!” and to send a message that the party can’t keep running RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and expect the conservative vote.
3. The most obvious protest candidates for me would be Bob Barr (Libertarian), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party), or a write-in (?). I have problems with both of those guys (3rd party candidates are notoriously loopy). At one time I would have voted for Alan Keyes, but he has gotten weirder as time has worn on. I’m open to suggestions on this one if anyone wants to offer some.
4. There is wisdom in voting for McCain, not as an approval of McCain, but as a vote *against* Obama. I do not believe it is unprincipled to vote for the guy who you think is lousy, but far less evil than the alternative.
5. McCain seems like a genuine and honest guy to me, with a respectable record of political experience (although Senators and legislators aren’t as good as governors who have administrative experience) and has rendered just about as praiseworthy a service to this country for his years in uniform as any presidential candidate ever. He is a decent guy, but he is terribly wrongheaded in his policies, inconsistent and incoherent in his ideology, and should never have been nominated. He made a political career out of being the quintessential RINO.
6. Although I lean heavily libertarian in my economic ideology, as I am sure many of my brethren on this blog do, I am somewhere between ambivalent to mildly supportive of the Iraq War, and fully supportive of the Afghanistan War. On Iraq - sorry, I just can’t see the case for it being an unjust war. Unwise? Maybe. None of our business? Maybe. But that is about the strongest negatives I can conjur up for it. I still can’t be convinced that it is unjust to depose *any* tyrannical regime like Saddam Hussein’s.
7. While I obviously don’t blame anyone for not voting for McCain, I do not consider it ethical for any Christian to give Obama their vote because of his most active support of both abortion and sodomite marriage. Even given 2 Kingdom and natural law premises, we do not leave the realm of ethics when we act in the secular kingdom, as when we step into the voting booth. We should not lend our support to a candidate whose policies and ideology violate (in commission as well as omission) natural law as summarized in the Second Table of the Decalogue so fragrantly lest we share in their culpability in the face of alternatives (yes, even lousy alternatives - like lousy candidates or at the very least casting no vote).
8. My protest vote aside, there are plenty of reasons for Californians to vote tomorrow. We have lots of idiotic propositions that will sink the state into even further debt and fiscal crisis. And there are important ones, as well, such as Prop 8, the constitutional ban on gay marriage. This sums it up:
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/wcf-says-yes-on-prop-8/#comment-3802
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/election-cycle-2008-and-the-christian/#comment-55821
David Gadbois said,
November 3, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Jason said
Most estimates say that somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 innocent civilian men, women, and children have been killed as a result of the War on Terror
There would be more force to this observation (I’ll even grant that it is accurate) if we all already agreed that the war was unjust. Or if we all thought that the war was malicious and vindictive, as opposed to simply wrongheaded, foolish, or misguided. In other words, it is hard to get all of us worked up about collateral damage that is a normal artifact of war when considered by itself (no matter the numbers involved).
Oh, and just a side note - the United States is the best in the business at minimizing collateral damage with our technology and rules of engagement. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of how we could greatly improve on this, short of going back to swords and spears.
BTW - I do wonder about the numbers. Do they include only deaths from American bombs and bullets, or do they include all of the sectarian violence and terrorist violence since the start of the war?
Anyway, I do consider it within the realm of reasonable Christian discourse to argue for or against the Iraq war and to hold varying opinions on it. If you are against it, I understand if you withold your vote from McCain. I have absolutely no problem with that. But surely things like abortion and sodomite marriage should not be a live option for Christians to support. That is not a debatable matter. So I find it quite impossible to see the symmetry and moral equivalence that some folks here are trying to draw between a vote for a war hawk and a vote for a pro-abortion and pro-sodomy candidate.
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/election-cycle-2008-and-the-christian/#comment-55822
"BTW - I do wonder about the numbers. Do they include only deaths from American bombs and bullets, or do they include all of the sectarian violence and terrorist violence since the start of the war?"
ReplyDeleteI checked into that a while back when the folks at butler-harris were bandying about the 600k deaths number. It is calculated by comparing the "expected" number of deaths in Iraq (total) with the actual number of deaths in Iraq (total).
Thus, for example, suicide bombers themselves are included in the number of deaths, as are all of their victims (and all of the women, children, and old people who die prematurely because of the loss of their providers due to death in combat against the powers that be).
-Turretinfan
"There is wisdom in voting for McCain, not as an approval of McCain, but as a vote *against* Obama. I do not believe it is unprincipled to vote for the guy who you think is lousy, but far less evil than the alternative."
ReplyDeleteSo...The people who don't want to vote for McCain because they think he's lousy.
They think about their vote in terms of voting "on principle" vs "pragmatically". They don't want to be unprincipled in their vote.
How about thinking of it in terms of voting "to make a statement" vs "to affect what happens in the country"?
Do you prefer to make a statement, or to prevent the Freedom of Choice Act, mass-production-and-destruction of human beings for embryonic stem cell research, etc.?
This Arizonan Ron Paulite just cast a vomit-stained ballot for John McCain.
ReplyDeleteI went for Chuck Baldwin, but I live in Texas--solidly McCain.
ReplyDelete