I have been passionate about elections for as long as I can remember. What I don't ever remember feeling is this incredible level of frustration! People that I know, and whose intelligence I respect, are voting Obama, but the reasons that they give are so ill-thought out. My brother has a Ph.D. and is a social psychologist. He opposes redistribution of wealth. His concern is for the working poor - for people with a strong work ethic who, for reasons not of their own making, are a paycheck away from disaster. His vote is going for Obama. Huh? Permit me a quotation:
“One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”
Obama goes on to suggest that while Americans (OF WHICH I WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE WERE I ALIVE THEN) were working to bring about the right for blacks to sit at lunch counters, they should have been been petitioning for the right to have someone else pay for the meal. Now, of course, Obama is blasting Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/) for creating a news story where none exists, in his mind at least.
When are Americans going to wake up and take note of what this man represents, and of what he wants to do? His own words condemn him over and over. Joe the Plumber has become somewhat of a caricature in this campaign, but that should not detract from the fact that Obama did tell him, in no uncertain terms, that he wanted to take from those who had to give to those who did not. There goes the incentive of every single person in this country to strive to have more and to do more than our parents. There goes the notion of self-sacrifice and any idea of a work ethic. Entreprenuership? Why? Stick my neck on the line and assume all of the risk when there is no payoff at the end? All I get at the end of the line in Obamerica is the government's hand in my pocket. I don't mind paying my taxes. I firmly believe it is my duty, and the duty of ALL citizens, to pay taxes. But don't take my taxes and give them to citizens (and non-citizens) who don't pay any taxes - citizens who don't have my drive and my work ethic and, yes, my moral fiber. I know, how dare I impose my morals on anyone. I'm very old-fashioned. I actually got married before I had children. I have four children (gasp!), but they are all with one man (gasp!) and (brace yourself!) he's my husband! If you've recovered from your faint - keep reading.
I have a problem with my husband's paycheck being given to the individual who is not contributing to society in the way that contributions to society have always been measured. Why have tax breaks always been given to families (defined as married couples with children)? Because it has been deemed that this arrangement is the one that stands most to benefit society (I won't get into the social science statistics, but let's be honest - we all know them). Why, then, are my choices now to be financially punished, while the opposite arrangement is financially rewarded! When did we all become so backward? I can actually answer that question - when we began to worship at the altar of political correctness and tolerance. Look what we've bought with our currency: Obama.
Back to my brother: Dr. Bro. He's intelligent. He's hardworking. He has come so far to be where he is today. He has said that his concern is not as much with the welfare moms of whom I speak above - his concern is for the struggling middle class, who because of their education and work ethic should be upper-middle class. Why then would he cast a vote for Obama? Taking money from those who have it only serves to quash the very sector of society that creates jobs, which is the only way out of this whole mess in which we find ourselves!
I'll say this for our illustrious Democratic candidate: he has a big mouth. He has never made any pretentions about what he wants to do with our country. If we elect him, I suppose we deserve him. Michael Novak said that we elect a President who looks like us (please, people, move beyond the idea of descriptive representation here). That is why I hope and pray that we will elect McCain, because if the American people truly think that Obama looks like us in any way, shape, or form, then I am not sure if I even recognize America anymore. Maybe we truly are a nation of Obamericans.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
And Then There Was Biden
Wow. Joe Biden. The Catholic. Or Not. Pope John XXIII is absolutely reeling in his grave as Biden asserts in an interview with the Delaware News Journal that on the issue of abortion, he is not a Pope John Paul guy, he's a Pope John XXIII guy. Okay - let's assume for the moment that we are the every man, and that we have never read a papal encyclical, or at an even more basic level, we don't know the first thing about the Catholic Church. From this statement, by a nominatively (please, please put extra emphasis on the word nominatively) Catholic man in a position of leadership, very much in the public eye, the general public is left to assume that Catholics in general, to say nothing of the head of the Roman Catholic Church on earth, have the ability, nay the authority, to pick and choose among the teachings of the Church! Bring on the smorgasbord Catholics! I'll have some social justice, a dash of Real Presence (but not too much please), hold the death penalty restrictions, and serve it up with a nice side of "women's rights". Um, not so much.
Perhaps the good Senator might want to familiarize himself with a little document the Vatican likes to call Mater et Magistra (that would be Mother and Teacher for the Latin-challenged). In this document, Pope John XXIII, with whom Biden explicitly identifies himself, writes, "human life is sacred...All men must recognize that fact...from its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members” (paragraph 194). **With credit to Headline Bistro
Well I, for one, sure am glad that Biden is a "John XXIII guy". Maybe I need to reconsider his candidacy. Maybe there's more there than meets the eye. Or not. The more likely scenario - in fact, the only likely scenario - is that Biden is simply doing what politicians do (in fact, his wanna-be boss does it like almost no other), and putting words and ideas in the minds of the sheeple. The sheeple hear something and they buy it. Heaven forfend that they actually go out and do the research for themselves. God forbid that they do a little thinking on their own. They hear that Pope John XXIII apparently had relaxed standards on abortion, and they begin to think that this darn Catholic Church really is going to Hell in a handbasket - doesn't it have any sympathy for the plight of women at all?? Supposedly, according to Biden anyway, at one time it did!
Politicians have such a great responsibility. Their words carry so much weight. At one time, the information costs for the average political consumer were great. The most they had at their disposal was a newspaper. The advent of radio news was a great advancement, but it was still difficult to seek out all the information that one might desire in order to make an informed decision about a candidate for public office. Now, however, the information is there for the taking. If you hear that McCain is taking money from Medicare, go to his website and read his plan! If you read that Obama is increasing taxes on the wealthy, go to his website and read his plan. Heck, in this day and age, you don't ever have to read an opinion that contradicts your own if you don't want to, which actually presents another type of information cost all its own.
Perhaps the good Senator might want to familiarize himself with a little document the Vatican likes to call Mater et Magistra (that would be Mother and Teacher for the Latin-challenged). In this document, Pope John XXIII, with whom Biden explicitly identifies himself, writes, "human life is sacred...All men must recognize that fact...from its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members” (paragraph 194). **With credit to Headline Bistro
Well I, for one, sure am glad that Biden is a "John XXIII guy". Maybe I need to reconsider his candidacy. Maybe there's more there than meets the eye. Or not. The more likely scenario - in fact, the only likely scenario - is that Biden is simply doing what politicians do (in fact, his wanna-be boss does it like almost no other), and putting words and ideas in the minds of the sheeple. The sheeple hear something and they buy it. Heaven forfend that they actually go out and do the research for themselves. God forbid that they do a little thinking on their own. They hear that Pope John XXIII apparently had relaxed standards on abortion, and they begin to think that this darn Catholic Church really is going to Hell in a handbasket - doesn't it have any sympathy for the plight of women at all?? Supposedly, according to Biden anyway, at one time it did!
Politicians have such a great responsibility. Their words carry so much weight. At one time, the information costs for the average political consumer were great. The most they had at their disposal was a newspaper. The advent of radio news was a great advancement, but it was still difficult to seek out all the information that one might desire in order to make an informed decision about a candidate for public office. Now, however, the information is there for the taking. If you hear that McCain is taking money from Medicare, go to his website and read his plan! If you read that Obama is increasing taxes on the wealthy, go to his website and read his plan. Heck, in this day and age, you don't ever have to read an opinion that contradicts your own if you don't want to, which actually presents another type of information cost all its own.
Monday, October 20, 2008
On Voting Your Conscience
What a lovely sentiment. I have heard several people voice this argument over the last months, usually in support of the Constitutionalist Party. "The lesser of two evils is still evil" they cry! Leaving aside for the moment the notion that a McPalin vote is a vote for evil (care to save some babies anyone?), I wholeheartedly maintain that none of us has the luxury of voting for our ideal candidate in this election. Welcome to our two-party system. Ever heard of it before? Duverger's Law suggests that a plurality-rule system, such as we have in this country, favors this two-party system. Ironically, significant third parties tend to arise when one of the major two parties is in a state of chaos or realignment, such as the replacement of the Whig party with the Republicans in the wake of the Civil War. However, I digress.
It generally happens that a Republican and a Democratic candidate are chosen by their respective parties to contest for the Presidency in the general election in November. Ever so often, a major third-party candidate will emerge, often only for one election cycle (Ross Perot, for example). Unfortunately, as Duverger demonstrated statistically, such candidates cannot command a plurality in our single member district voting system. Hence, all these candidates do is draw votes away from the major two parties. In some elections, and in some districts, this siphoning off of votes has no effect. Perhaps the incumbent is running for reelection and has a relatively high approval rating. In such cases, I say, "vote your conscience - go nuts!" Design your dream candidate, find the real life person who matches your description, and write her in (I think that Phyllis Schlafly would make an amazing President). There are elections, however, in which every, single vote counts, particularly if you live in a swing state. Some people, like Chuck Todd, could tell you if your vote counts based on the district in which you reside. In elections like these - like the one that we face in just a few weeks - you simply do not have the luxury of voting your conscience. Perhaps it is more correct to say that your conscience ought to be more well informed if it is telling you to vote third-party.
I understand about the desire to preserve the Constitution. I understand Framer's Intent. I understand frustration with current tax policy and immigration policy. What I do not understand is the certain knowledge that a vote for Chuck Baldwin is a vote for Barack Obama! Can not a Constitutionalist extrapolate beyond his simple vote in the voting booth? By voting his conscience, and punching his card (what a quaint, out of date image!) for Baldwin in a desire to eliminate the federal income tax, eliminate illegal immigration, get the U.S. out of the UN, eliminate the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, and BEST OF ALL outlaw abortion and euthanasia, he has just taken a potential McCain vote. His vote obviously would not have gone to Obama, lacking the Baldwin choice. In a true two-party system, he would have had before him Obama or McCain. Which candidate comes closer to his preferences? I'll be the first to stand up and argue that McCain is no conservative, but there's no arguing his stance on life! That vote could have gone toward upholding states' rights on life and toward continuing the march away from the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade (carved out of the "penumbra" of several different amendments - try actually finding the right to privacy in the Constitution. You'll be looking for awhile - better bring a snack). Instead the vote has gone toward someone who will not gain enough votes to carry even one district, much less a state. In political terms - it's a wasted vote. Perhaps not a catstrophe in Texas (please God), but could be very problematic in Florida. But, hey - you voted your conscience. At least you'll be able to sleep tonight. The rest of us will begin ticking away the hours that we have to live in Obamerica.
It generally happens that a Republican and a Democratic candidate are chosen by their respective parties to contest for the Presidency in the general election in November. Ever so often, a major third-party candidate will emerge, often only for one election cycle (Ross Perot, for example). Unfortunately, as Duverger demonstrated statistically, such candidates cannot command a plurality in our single member district voting system. Hence, all these candidates do is draw votes away from the major two parties. In some elections, and in some districts, this siphoning off of votes has no effect. Perhaps the incumbent is running for reelection and has a relatively high approval rating. In such cases, I say, "vote your conscience - go nuts!" Design your dream candidate, find the real life person who matches your description, and write her in (I think that Phyllis Schlafly would make an amazing President). There are elections, however, in which every, single vote counts, particularly if you live in a swing state. Some people, like Chuck Todd, could tell you if your vote counts based on the district in which you reside. In elections like these - like the one that we face in just a few weeks - you simply do not have the luxury of voting your conscience. Perhaps it is more correct to say that your conscience ought to be more well informed if it is telling you to vote third-party.
I understand about the desire to preserve the Constitution. I understand Framer's Intent. I understand frustration with current tax policy and immigration policy. What I do not understand is the certain knowledge that a vote for Chuck Baldwin is a vote for Barack Obama! Can not a Constitutionalist extrapolate beyond his simple vote in the voting booth? By voting his conscience, and punching his card (what a quaint, out of date image!) for Baldwin in a desire to eliminate the federal income tax, eliminate illegal immigration, get the U.S. out of the UN, eliminate the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, and BEST OF ALL outlaw abortion and euthanasia, he has just taken a potential McCain vote. His vote obviously would not have gone to Obama, lacking the Baldwin choice. In a true two-party system, he would have had before him Obama or McCain. Which candidate comes closer to his preferences? I'll be the first to stand up and argue that McCain is no conservative, but there's no arguing his stance on life! That vote could have gone toward upholding states' rights on life and toward continuing the march away from the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade (carved out of the "penumbra" of several different amendments - try actually finding the right to privacy in the Constitution. You'll be looking for awhile - better bring a snack). Instead the vote has gone toward someone who will not gain enough votes to carry even one district, much less a state. In political terms - it's a wasted vote. Perhaps not a catstrophe in Texas (please God), but could be very problematic in Florida. But, hey - you voted your conscience. At least you'll be able to sleep tonight. The rest of us will begin ticking away the hours that we have to live in Obamerica.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
All is Not Lost
I am still hopeful that this blog will not be necessary. At this point in 1980, Mondale enjoyed a 10 point lead over Ronald Reagan, and the latest polls put McCain within the margin of error of Obama. I am, however, a realist. To that end, I have established this blog to document life in Obamerica, a land which I fear may bear little resemblance to the Capitalist Democracy under which we now live. Should McCain prevail, I will return my Ph.D. in Political Science to the shelf and resume blogging solely as a Catholic homeschooling Mom - my preferred identity. Until then, however, I will come here to vent at the sheer idiocy that is the Obama candidacy. I feel better already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
