The last two months I have remained relatively quiet on all issues pertaining to politics. With the elections a week away, I thought I would offer a few observations on our current political environment and the decision before us.
On the political affiliation of evangelicals: The story that evangelicals are leaving Republicans for Democrats has been written every four years. This time around, a new wrinkle has been added: the tension within evangelicalism is generational, as younger evangelicals are shifting toward Barack Obama. Whether there is any substance to the story remains to be seen.
On the miseducation of younger evangelicals about pro-life issues: If a significant break by younger evangelicals with Republicans occurs in 2008, it would indicate a lack of education by the pro-life community on the importance of the Presidency to their cause and the gains that have been made. Let me be blunt: I am at a loss as to how Christians can claim to be pro-life but vote for Barack Obama.
To that end, here are the two most important articles on the issue:
Robert George on Obama’s Abortion Extremism: George carefully articulates why it is more fair to describe Obama as “pro-abortion” than “pro-choice.” The conclusion:
In the end, the efforts of Obama’s apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn’t even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.
Michael New on the effect of Pro-Life laws: I have referenced Dr. New’s work before, but this article is worth highlighting in full. The conclusion:
During the past 35 years, the pro-life movement has made some real progress–progress that pro-lifers could at times do a better job of advertising. During the 1990s more states enacted parental-involvement laws, waiting periods, and informed-consent laws. More importantly, the number of abortions has fallen in 12 out of the past 14 years and the total number of abortions has declined by 21 percent since 1990. These gains are largely due to pro-life political victories at the federal level in the 1980s and at the state level in the 1990s, both of which have made it easier to pass pro-life legislation. Furthermore, since the next President may have the opportunity to nominate as many as four justices to the Supreme Court, the right-to-life movement would be very well advised to stay the course in 2008.
The lesser of two evils argument: Why vote for John McCain? One reason is Barack Obama. Is someone being the lesser of two evils sufficient grounds to cast a vote for that person? Would the nature of the evils being discussed affect the deliberation? To both questions, I would answer “yes.” If an Obama presidency would wipe away years of victories by the pro-life cause (it would), this is sufficient reason to vote for John McCain. I’ll defend being a single-issue voter on this one (though there’s little reason to—Obama’s economic policies are nearly as problematic as his social policies).
The divided house argument: For at least the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency, Congress will be run by Democrats. It may even be the case that Democrats have a filibuster proof majority. Why does this matter? At the end of the day, Barack Obama’s social and economic policies matter little (though they are problematic enough on their own). What matters is what he would sign and what he would veto—which may or may not be the same as his stated policy positions. With a Democratic congress, Barack Obama could have the opportunity to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, to end 401(k) plans, and to institute the largest increase in government spending since the first New Deal, the effects of which would take generations to undo.
Who is John McCain? The irony of this political season is that John McCain’s argument that the American public knows who he is—which is true—conflicts with the rest of his campaign. His avoidance of policy (well-documented by Ross) makes him something of an unknown quantity, which is precisely why Republicans are less-than-enthusiastic about his campaign.
On Obama’s qualifications to be President: What are they again?
In case you needed more: The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama.
The massive amount of government money that the Bush Administration has spent to stave off an economic collapse brought on by its refusal to regulate credit-default swaps will certainly constrain Obama’s spending so that concern should be ameliorated somewhat. Obama does not shrink from the seriousness of the problems facing our country and has offered a vision of them that the American has found more realistic than his opponent’s vision.
Obama’s call to national service is overdue. Are we not our brother’s keeper?
In the ‘comprehensive argument against Barack Obama’ the authors cite ACORN’s activism on behalf of lower-income individuals seeking to own a home as setting the stage for the home-mortgage crisis, which is just ridiculous. Considering conservatives’ apparent disdain for community organizing, its quite a stretch to ascribe that much power to ACORN.
And no one is ever qualified enough to become President of the most powerful country in the world. It is too much power for any one man to hold. The most we can hope is that they use that power for the public good and within the bounds of the Constitution.
Yes, that last point was directed at the current Administration.
“The massive amount of government money that the Bush Administration has spent to stave off an economic collapse brought on by its refusal to regulate credit-default swaps will certainly constrain Obama’s spending so that concern should be ameliorated somewhat. Obama does not shrink from the seriousness of the problems facing our country and has offered a vision of them that the American has found more realistic than his opponent’s vision.”
That’s a nice hope. But when asked in the debate what he would cut, Obama only listed programs he would puruse. What grounds do we have to think that his administration would spend less than it has promised?
“Obama’s call to national service is overdue. Are we not our brother’s keeper?”
The irony of your allusion is humorous to me. A “call” to national service is great. Use the bully-pulpit all you want. Just don’t bully people into paying more as though that it were somehow ‘service’ and ‘meritorious’ for people to give money to the government. It’s not.
“And no one is ever qualified enough to become President of the most powerful country in the world. It is too much power for any one man to hold. The most we can hope is that they use that power for the public good and within the bounds of the Constitution.”
I think it obvious that some men are more qualified to assume the immense responsibilities of the job than others. Since you seem to think that qualifications don’t matter, I’ll expect your vote in 2012.
In the debates, the moderators tried to get the candidates to describe how the financial crisis and its impact on federal deficits would curtail their spending. Neither candidate would do it because they could not afford to remove planks from their platforms, which would harm their campaigns.
I think that there will be programmatic support of Obama’s call to service, unlike Bush’s “call to shop” in the recession following 9/11. If one has prospered in our country, paying taxes is a civic responsibility to maintain the order that enabled them to prosper. Here’s a good articulation of that position.
Regarding qualifications, I do think that vision is a vital part of one’s readiness to lead the nation and Obama’s vision is more compelling to me.
Good points. I am not opposed to paying taxes–I am opposed to paying more taxes than I ought. 35% seems plenty high to me (and just so you know, I am not in that tax bracket), especially with social security and capital gains on top of that.