Well, since there was (and still is!) some excellent discussion going on in the "economy" thread, I waited an extra day to post my sure-to-be rapturously brilliant thoughts on Tuesday's primaries.
No, really, don't thank me.
Last time I was up for a post it was Super Tuesday, and it seems to be strangely my duty again to provide a forum for discussion of the nitty gritty "political" business (strangely, because for contributing to a political blog I really am more philosophically inclined. I have a lot of energy for theoretical discussions of things that are never going to happen, but I fizzle out in grand fashion when it comes to implementing those ideas or translating them into the real world. Just ask my husband!)
Best I can figure, the Democrats are at an impasse (is anyone surprised? They have not one, but TWO candidates who stand a good chance at winning and I guess they figure the only way to screw it up is by dividing the vote, right up until the moment of the convention. Nicely done, guys).
I'm watching all this unfold with bemused disinterest, honestly. As I've said, I'm a Democrat because it's the best option given the voting structure in my state. I feel no special loyalty to either party - in fact, I think the whole two-party thing we've got going on here in really not serving the interests of the American people very well at this point, although if we can't even agree on a definition of "torture" then I suppose there's not much hope of overhauling what has become a completely arbitrary political vocabulary.
I am reassured on some level that there's still a race, at least on one side, because it does at least mean that the People haven't yet let the Media make their decision for them. This is promising. But what I am most afraid of is that the people of this country are going to face the beginning of the next Administration with as much rancor, polarity, and fatalism as we've seen the last couple of years. There's a number of scenarios under which I can imagine this outcome:
1) McCain wins it all. Liberals fear 4 more years of GWB, real conservatives and Rush Limbaugh feel falsely represented. Hey, but at least we're safe from The Enemy!
2) Clinton takes the nomination by any method. 100% of conservatives and 25% of liberals roll over with their feet in the air and proceed to discount anything that comes out of her mouth or her office, just like we've got now with GWB. I can't take much more of this defeatist climate of blame; I will lose my mind. really. Don't make me prove it.
3) Either Democratic candidate takes the nomination via some combination of Florida, Michigan, and Superdelegate votes. I don't know what they're going to do about FL and MI at the convention, but I think either way there's going to be a big stink. That's what we do best, and it's sure to have thousands of people glued to their televisions. And I do appreciate the Superdelegates' input because they are in a unique position to know the inner workings of Washington and the candidates on a personal level, but come on! They're politicians! I think the American people are tired of having their popular vote subverted and their Fearless Leader chosen via Supreme Court decision, hanging chads, and/or picking out of a hat. It's hard to imagine any positive change coming out of such inauspicious beginnings.
Unless we have another 9/11. Nothing brings people together like an enemy we can all agree on (at least for awhile) and good old-fashioned Fear and Trembling. I never thought I'd say this, but in that way I do look back on the final months of 2001 fondly. We had something in common, we were willing to sacrifice to preserve our common interests, we were on the same page - for a few brief shining moments, kind of like Woodstock or the release of the iPhone. But I guess there's no point in dwelling on the past.
Plenty to keep us busy in the present, and the ever-advancing future.
My turn again for the primary election recap!
Posted by The Wizzle on 3/06/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
Excellent post, wife. Those three scenarios are all plausible, and all equally groan-inducing.
With respect to Michigan and Florida, I think (and hope) there will be a re-vote in the near future. Howard Dean is no idiot - he doesn't want his party torn apart by infighting over a situation for which there is an obvious solution. Obama's camp is open to the idea, and Clinton's can't possibly demand to move forward with the existing results, tainted as they are. The people in the two states deserve to have their voices heard, and a re-vote is the best way to accomplish that, even though it will cost ~$18M (eek).
I am becoming more open to another Clinton white house. I do think Obama would be the better president for a number of reasons, but Hillary picked up some significant momentum in Ohio and Texas, despite the mathematical reality that she is still at a significant disadvantage in the delegate race.
Yeah - Hillary's camp is now saying a revote in MI and FL isn't such a bad idea, because although she "won" both of them her momentum, until Tuesday was considered a disadvantage. Now she's picked up steam again so they're saying bring on the redo...and Obama's probably sweating it more than she is at this point.
I'm expecting Clinton to call for a re-vote in Michigan and Florida, and there's going to be absolutely nothing Obama can do about it, because if he (rightly) points out how unfair that is, he'll be even more likely to lose said revotes than he already is. Ugh.
Everyone is saying that this protracted Dem contest is bad for them and good for McCain, and I just don't get it. The minute McCain clinched the nomination, he stopped being interesting. The Fight of the Century, Obama-Clinton, is going to get nonstop press from here until it's decided, and McCain's going to be an utter afterthought. Some say they'll be doing McCain's job for him by digging up dirt on each other, but it hasn't really happened yet. I just can't see how 2+ months in the shadows helps the McCain campaign.
If Clinton does get the nomination, that red phone ad she ran that they're saying swung Ohio and Texas for her is going to bite her in the butt when McCain turns it right around on her.
I agree with Mike about both the Michigan/Florida situation and about how it's not really bad for Obama and Clinton to battle on and on. Even if the two do dig up a lot of dirt on each other, it's better for the dirt to turn up now than in the fall. By the time most voters are actually paying attention, that dirt will be old news. If any truly serious dirt is found on one of the candidates, it'll just knock that candidate out and ensure that the safer one gets the nomination. That's good for the Democrats, not bad.
I also think that from now until the convention, McCain will just be speechifying against a phantom rival. Until he knows who his opponent is, he'll just be sparring, while Clinton and Obama will actually be duking it out in a real fight. Just seems to me like that's better training for the main event.
I also get the feeling that the Democrats this year will wind up nominating their strongest candidate (which I don't think they did in 2004 at all). I think the strongest (as in "most likely to win the general election") Republican candidate was Romney--an ideologically moderate, smart, eloquent former governor: the formula that worked for Bill Clinton. True, Romney got eliminated by the evangelicals who wound up throwing their votes away on Huckabee, and there's some sense to the argument that a Romney campaign would have resulted in the evangelical base staying home, but it seems more likely to me that those voters would in fact turn out anyway--if not to vote FOR Romney, then simply to vote AGAINST the Democrat. Especially if it were Clinton. (I think Romney's biggest weakness was actually not the religious-based resistance, but his comparative inability to raise money.)
But I realize this is all just blather on my part. Still, it's fun to talk about, in the same way sports talk is fun, except that the stakes are higher.
FWIW, I'm predicting Obama as the next president, and the Lakers as the next NBA champs.
--David
Excellent points both, Anonymous Dave and Mike, about the Democratic race. I'm just so used to the Dems shooting themselves in the foot if it's at all possible...:)
I just read an interesting theory as to why Clinton gained ground in the March 4 primaries and I can't decide whether I agree or not. It goes like this: By the time March 4 rolled around, McCain had had his nomination in the bag for quite some time (even though he did not formally have enough delegates yet). That being the case, some Republican voters did the only thing that was resonable: they voted in the Democratic primary for the weakest candidate.
Now I'm not saying Clinton is the weakest candidate, but the polls say she would have a narrower victory over McCain than Obama would. So I guess I'm saying she's the weaker candidate.
Anyway, I know this theory is logistically difficult since, in most states people would have to reregister well in advance of the primary to vote as a Dem, but I don't think it's so far fetched as to make it impossible.
So what do you guys think? Are Republicans sabotaging the Democratic primaries, now that they have no reason to vote in their own?
Eh, I've heard that too, and I don't know if it's really mathematically possible based on the way primary registration works. In my state you have to be registered to the party for whose candidate you vote, and I think it's that way in a lot of states.
Even if someone I really *really* disliked were running in the "other" party, and "my" candidate had the thing locked up, I still don't think I could be bothered to go through the hassle of reregistering and voting just to sabotage. But that's me.
David, Romney's comparative inability to raise money compared to who? According to this site , Romney raised nearly twice as much as the nearest Republican ($105M for Romney vs. $53M for McCain). Am I missing something?
Yes, talk show hosts in Texas were urging us Republicans to vote for Clinton to sabotage the election. I don't personally know anyone who did, and I really think that if anyone did, it wasn't enough to have an impact. The exit poll data didn't substantiate that. Clinton seems to have won Ohio and Texas due to elderly women (according to the data cited on Bill O'Reilly's radio show Wednesday morning).
Dude, Romney didn't raise that money via his campaign, he's just loaded and he paid for it himself.
Mitt Romney's own personal contributions aside, he still raised more than John McCain. Romney raised $63.6M and spent $42.3M of his own money. McCain raised $49M and borrowed $4M. See article
Speaking of sabatoge - Here in Michigan you don't register as affiliated with a party. We have an open primary. I don't know how they would logistically do a revote here. You did have to fill out a half sheet of paper that stated which ballot you wanted. So would they go through those millions(?) of sheets to make sure nobody that took a Republican ballot was allowed to vote in the Democratic redo? Did you have to vote last time, or would they open it up again?
It seems to me that from a speed and cost standpoint, you'd have to let everybody (including us who took GOP ballots in Feb) come and vote if they wanted to. If this is the case, I most certainly would make it a point to get out and vote for Clinton. I can't imagine that I'd be the only one, either.
And things like this make me think a revote just flat won't happen here. I don't know why on Earth a revote would happen in FL, either. Nobody campaigned and everybody was on the ballot. That seems like a level playing field to me... In MI, Obama and Edwards had the brilliant idea of removing their names from the ballot, so Hillary's main competition was "Undeclared". So of course she won.
And going back to eliminating certain people from eligibility to revote, how many Dems crossed over to vote for a weaker Republican (i.e. Paul) or for McCain (to hurt Romney) rather than cast a vote that didn't matter (both because not all candidates were listed and because we knew at the time that no Democratic delegates were coming out of MI)? I know if I was a Dem I certainly would have. So you'd have to eliminate those Dems from the redo if you eliminate me. I just don't see it happening.
Not to mention the $20 million that it would take... Dean coughing that up? I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to fund a second election because the Democratic National Party screwed itself in a major way. Not my problem and I will have a HUGE problem with the state funding a mulligan. Yes, many letters would get written, and I guess I would have to learn the names of my state representative and senator. And I hate making phone calls to people I don't know, but this situation would likely warrant even phone calls. Perhaps office visits. I would be pretty upset, methinks...
So after all this, how do you do it here? And why do it in FL at all?
And even though we chose not-my-favorite, I'm glad that the GOP has a nominee. He will most definitely be getting my vote in November. Now to find a running mate...
They were talking on the radio out here back in January about how democrats were registering as republicans to vote, and then re-registering as Dems to vote in time for November. A few people who did that called in and explained why (mostly so they'd have some say in who was running against their Democratic choice in November) but California still went to McCain so if they were voting for anyone else it wasn't a large enough number to impact an underdog like Huckabee or Paul.
And Romney was able to do such a great job of fundraising because he started so EARLY. He was out stumping for contributions months before Hillary even announced she was running, for example. And if you think about the LDS population, we give about 10% of our income away each year. Many people in other denominations give $100 and call it quits. So for us to give $100 one time only to a political candidate we believe in, it isn't such a big deal (at least, this is how I look at it). Get $100 from a third of the LDS members of each stake in California, and look at how much money that is. I'm not saying everyone that is LDS in California gave to him, but look at that as an illustration of how he could raise $$ quickly from the populace. And that isn't even counting money that he got from businesses (I know several people who work for companies that donated to his campaign) or non-LDS people who donated (again, I can name like 15 non-LDS people who donated.) So assume that there are a fair # of LDS, non-LDS, business in most of the states who donated early on in his campaign, then voila! He can say he's raised the most in the shortest amount of time. Then other people see that, get excited about it, and jump on board.
It snowballs. I know he did contribute personal income to his campaign, but I think all the front-runners have, and a lot of his campaign was NOT Mitt's personal money.
Not only that - his speeches were like raising the Title of Liberty. I donated to his campaign . . . again . . . and again . . . and again . . .
Seriously! People loved that he looked and acted like a president!! And he was great at answering hard questions (anyone else see the way he handled the polygamy question by pointing out his wife that he'd been married to his whole life while he competitors had 5 wives between them?)We donated several times too. And hosted Romney parties.
Mitt Romney is handsome, smart, driven, and a born leader. I hope he runs again.
Wizzle, here is a post I found that I thought was really interesting. See who contributed to various campaigns and how much. And there is a link in the comment section taking you to a website that lets you see who in your area donated to whom, if it was over $250.
Several people have already answered Stephanie's question about why I characterized Romney's fundraising as weak. But there's one other thing to keep in mind: compared to other Republicans he might have been doing well, but not compared to either Clinton or Obama.
My personal take: if Romney wants to become president, he'll have to become a Democrat. That way he would not have to get past Republican evangelicals in the primary (which might be just as difficult in the future as it was this time around). Plus, he might pull in a lot of moderate Republican votes and a lot of LDS votes that would otherwise go to the Republican candidate.
. . . and I proved them wrong by showing that Romney still raised more than any other Republican without his own contributions. The Democrats have definitely killed ALL the Republicans on fundraising, that is for sure. I think the Republicans should be VERY worried about this fact.
If Romney were to run as a Democrat, I would not vote for him. I don't believe he would. If he did, I would entirely lose respect for him.
If Romney were a Democrat, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
--David
Wait, so you two would change your opinion of him based on the party he identified himself with, even if he didn't change any of his (other) positions?
The party he identifies with DOES say what his positions are. He is a conservative. If he changed to a Democrat, then he would be changing his positions to run on the Democrat platform, and yes, that would change my opinion of him. Instead of being a person who stands up for what he believes, I would think he is a person who wants power and is willing to do what it takes to get it. I don't see Romney as that type of person.
Or, what if he were to run as a Democrat just to get elected, but then showed he was a true conservative in office? Then, he would have an approval rating like President Bush. Bush ran as a true-blue conservative and has shown some other colors since in office. I wouldn't respect him if he did that either.
Or, if he genuinely changed positions because she "saw some light" or something and was a true Democrat, I wouldn't disrespect him. He's entitled to his opinion. But, I wouldn't vote for him either. I want to put someone in office who will do my bidding.
Why not Romney as a Democrat? He's currently a moderate Republican whose positions are not that different from many a conservative Democrat. He's basically a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Plenty of room for guys like him in the big tent.
The Republican party has been drifting steadily to the right over the years and so, in some ways, has the Democratic party, and to the extent this is true Romney becomes a better fit as time goes by. And need I mention the fact that, for as long as he remains a Republican, his religion will continue to be reviled by a very significant portion of his own party's base?
And Romney HAS changed his positions on a lot of issues, and he's done so for transparently political reasons that just happen to track perfectly with his shift from Massachusetts politics to national politics. I for one don't believe for a minute that Romney sincerely wants a Federal Marriage Amendment. Of course, any self-respecting small-government conservative already hates the very idea of the government regulating what is after all widely regarded as a religious sacrament! Which I guess just goes to show how few real conservatives there are out there.... ;)
Quite honestly, on first glance, I LEAN libertarian on social issues, too, because I really hate the idea of government regulating personal behaviors. But, I believe that there are people out there with agendas that will harm my children and their futures. Plus, the Family Proclamation says, "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society". I take that call seriously.
I like the idea of both parties drifting to the right . . . :) Not sure I agree that this is what is happening, though.
I don't think both parties have been drifting steadily to the right at all. If anything I would say they are both drifting farther left.
Why on Earth does it matter which party someone belongs to? Just because someone is a Democrat or Republican does not necessarily mean the espouse all of the traditional beliefs and policies of their respective parties. Bill Clinton, for instance, is fairly universally loved by Democrats (including this one), but he is very moderate compared to the party line on a host of issues both social and fiscal. If here were to become a Republican, I would certainly still vote for the guy, assuming his positions on the issues and policies remained the same.
Because parties have a PLATFORM, and for the most part, when you are elected the leader by people in your party, they expect you to do their bidding. You are supposed to represent the people who put you into office (once again, why Bush's approval rating is so low). Clinton may be somewhat moderate, but he is not moral. Above all, I would like a moral leader because I would like a leader who is worthy enough to receive revelation and guidance from God. I cannot figure out why Clinton is so universally loved - probably because I am not a Democrat. If he were to become a Republican nominee, I would revolt 10 times more than I do with McCain.
What is the point of even having a party if you are not going to pay attention to its platform?
BBD, I think party affiliation matters a lot. It's true that individual party members will not always "espouse all of the traditional beliefs and policies of their respective parties," just as individual Mormons or Catholics will not always espouse all of the traditional beliefs and policies of their respective churches.
But just as it's the church through which you get your salvation, and through which those beliefs and policies are to be realized over time, so it is the party that will get you elected and will gradually move the nation toward your own political vision.
Suppose Romney and Clinton had somehow wound up running against each other. Suppose further that I believed Romney's personal character to be far better than Clinton's. Suppose even further that I believed Clinton and Romney were both moderates and not all that different politically.
But electing a president is neither a referendum on personal character nor a reward for being a good person, so I would absolutely still vote for Clinton, because I would not want to see a Democratic Congress fail to instantiate a Democratic political agenda simply because it can't overcome the vetoes of a Republican president. As a Republican, President Romney would be under great pressure to veto a lot of Democrat-sponsored bills, even if, as a moderate, he did not oppose them all that much personally. As a Democrat, Clinton would be under no such pressure. Ditto for Supreme Court appointees.
So yeah, I think parties matter. Of course there's a limit, and I would vote for a particularly competent Republican over a particularly incompetent Democrat. (I like to think that if I'd been a Republican in 2000 I'd have held my nose and voted for Gore.)
Amy, I suspect the difference in our perception of the parties' drift might have to do with age (and thus how far back we're looking). I'm old. Might also have something to do with the particular issues we're focusing on, and the more I think about it the more I see your point. On racial issues we've all moved to the left. On abortion, we seem divided pretty much along the same lines as back in the late 70s. On welfare, Clinton moved his party a bit to the right. On Social Security, the Republicans recently tried to move the discussion to the right but mostly failed--though SS does seem less of a sacred cow than it has been. On "free" trade and labor, we've moved to the right. And on civil liberties, alas, the Republicans have moved us way rightward. When FISA was first enacted, even many Republicans thought it was potentially tyrannical. Now the debate is over whether FISA is adequate as is (Democrats) or a surrender to the terrorists (Republicans). On gay rights, the drift has been strongly to the left; 20 years ago the debate was over whether to keep tossing gay people in jail, and now it's over whether to toss gay people out of the wedding chapel. More generally, I'd say we've moved left on questions of civil rights, but right on questions of national security, regulation, etc. On the one hand the military-industrial complex and national-security state are thriving more than ever; on the other hand, there are now thousands of gay couples legally married. (Hooray for freedom!)
So the question of drift depends on the issue.
I find the idea of wanting "a leader who is worthy enough to receive revelation and guidance from God" to be truly bizarre. What kind of God would operate in the fashion implied here? What kind of God would say, "Well, because Bill Clinton is a horndog, I'm going to withhold my wisdom from him and thereby allow an entire nation and world to suffer because of his sins. It's too bad that among those will be millions of Republicans who didn't vote for him but will suffer anyway--but that's just the kind of God I am."*
Besides, how do I know whether Bill Clinton is more or less moral than, say, George W. Bush? Or Hillary Clinton more or less likely to be favored of God than John McCain? I think it would be pretty presumptuous to make that kind of judgment. It's baffling enough to make sound judgments about economic policy, foreign policy, and other things in our own sphere.
--David
* Of course I realize precisely what kind of God this is: the God of the Bible, who countenanced all kinds of evil and in whom I could not possibly believe.
I think that people who are moral are listening and asking for God's input.
I recognize that people who are immoral may ask for God's input, and I believe that if they sincerely ask, He will answer because He loves all of us equally as a Father loves His children (I don't share the same view of God as you do, Anonymous David).
But, in choosing a leader, I really want a leader who will seek the Lord's guidance on issues, and for me, part of that is whether or not they choose to keep the commandments (like thou shalt not commit adultery). So, Bill Clinton does not pass my test. George W Bush? I don't have any evidence to the contrary, so he does (although if he could possibly run again, I wouldn't vote for him again because he has attempted to stiff conservatives too may times (in my humble opinion - or not-so-humble, but still my opinion).
Anonymous David, you made me realize that I need to be really careful about how I word things on here. I said "a leader who is worthy enough to receive revelation and guidance from God". What I meant is that I want a leader who will seek God's advice on things, and one way that I gauge that is how they live in accordance with God's commandments (as opposed to politicians who try to pander to religious people by talking about God but not living in accordance to His teachings). Reading over my quote, it does sound like a "presumptuous judgement". I firmly believe in repentance, and I apologize for misspeaking. I hope you believe in repentance, too, and will forgive me. :)
Anon. David,
A lot of people who say they don't believe in God because of all the atrocities he condoned in the Bible, etc and a God that could let such bad things happen to so many people, ie victims, just can't be a God of Love, or a God that truly cares about His creations, and therefore those people reject the Judeo-Christian God in favor of atheism or other pursuits. They're all focused on the minorities and refuse to look at the big picture, which in my opinion, is that it is better to destroy a small society than to let it ruin the entire population on the earth.
Similarly Democrats are very focused on meeting the ideas/opinions of minorities (I'm not referring to race, just anyone who is not in the majority's viewpoint) and they often overlook what is best for the majority of the population in their attempts to meet the supposed needs of a minuscule part of the population.
Just another reason I'm glad to be a person who happens to agree with the majority on a lot of issues.
Its when the majority starts to cater to the minority, to their detriment, that I start to worry about the state of the country.
Well, this whole "party" verbage is why I think the "party" system is just getting in the way. I mean, that's where all the money is, somehow, and the organization, and obviously a candidate has to associated with one of the Omnipotent Parties if they want to get elected, but I don't like it. I think it's counter-productive. When someone says they're a "Republican" or a "Democrat" I tihkn oftentimes it causes us to knee-jerk infer a lot of things about that person that may not be accurate. It would be more informative and useful if we could just evaluate candidates on their personal merits and beliefs rather than their loyalty to a "party line" that in my experience, a lot of actual Real Regular People don't identify with very closely.
Or maybe I'm just projecting my own personal frustration at being lumped in with half the country because of one word to which we all "subscribe" in varying degrees, when I may not share many more views in common with other "Democrats" than I do with "Republicans" or anything in between...
Wizzle, I'm with you on that. I'm a conservative but not crazy about being a Republican. For now, it's the lesser of two evils in my opinion. :) I find the whole party system fairly frustrating, but for now, it does initially tell me a lot about where a candidate is coming from to know what party's platform he/stands on.
I meant he/she in that last comment.
Amy, do you REALLY believe "it is better to destroy a small society than to let it ruin the entire population on the earth"? And how exactly were (say) the Canaanites ruining "the entire population of the earth"? By occupying a bit of land that some other group wanted? By impeding the unfolding of that other group's religious vision? (Like the poor souls in the Twin Towers who were sacrificed, if we are to believe our Wahabbist enemies, for getting in the way of Allah's work?) Are we to believe that God couldn't find some other way to achieve his ultimate ends, some way that did not require the cold-blooded slaughter of thousands of women and children?
When I read the Book of Joshua it seems pretty clear to me what it's about. It's an all-too-common story about one people coveting a bit of land and, in order to get it, killing off the people who were already there, and then, in order to justify that episode of genocide, compounding the first crime with a second by laying the blame at the feet of their God. They were only following his orders!
To buy into that sort of bloody logic takes a far stronger stomach than mine.
--David
I don't believe that parties don't matter; of course they matter, and I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement. I just found it humorous that some of you find it so black and white - would you never vote for someone of the opposing party? To me, it's about the issues first, the candidate second, and the party a distant third. Yes, I usually vote for Democrat, since the party platform more closely represents my personal beliefs than does the Republican platform. However, I certainly have voted for the odd Republican here and there; Jeff Flake (my US Representative) is a Republican I support, for example, not because I agree with most of his stances (I don't), but because he is taking a hard line against Congressional earmarks and I think he could do some real positive things for legislative ethics in this country.
Hmmm. For me it's party first, issues second, candidate third. It's nice to think that an individual could get the Congress to give up the pork and spiff up on its ethics. And it's nice to think we could all stop our fussin' and fightin' and wake up in the morning with peace love and understanding, plus a brand new pony. My own thinking involves an analysis of probabilities, of what's more likely to happen: how likely is it that my voting for a Republican of fine character and high ideals will "clean up Washington"? That would be great if it would happen--maybe even worth giving up on the realization of some part of my favored political platform. But it ain't gonna happen, so what I'm gonna end up with is zilch. (Should I drop out of college and join that garage band and maybe, just maybe, become the new Eddie Van Halen? Or should I give up on that possibility and stay in school and accomplish my less idealistic but more pragmatic desire to become a high school band director?)
How likely is it that my voting for a Democrat of the usual sort of character will cast the deciding vote enacting some part of my desired platform? Still not all that likely, but at least within the realm of possibility. (And it's definitely not going to happen if my party loses its Congressional majority, and thus the speakership, and thus the ability to bring up its agenda in the first place.) Certainly better than zero.
Maybe you're just more idealistic and I'm more pragmatic.
Here's a concrete example of what I'm talking about. According to ontheissues.org, Jeff Flake has voted exactly the way I would want mine to vote on several issues. He voted yes on restricting no-bid defense contracts. He voted no on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. He voted no on emergency $78B appropriation for war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Good for him! (I mean that.) But a Democrat in his seat might have voted the same way, and be more likely to override the Republican president's veto, and be in a position to block what I consider to be an obnoxious Supreme Court nomination, and, of course, be part of the legislative majority necessary to get a Democrat in as Speaker of the House.
--David
I don't think there is a formula I could use. In each election, I look at all the information I can gather to make my decision, and I don't take it lightly. I am not THAT old, so I haven't been through too many election cycles, but so far I have voted for Republicans and Independents. I don't like the Democrat platform. I don't anticipate ever voting for a Democrat, but I can't say never. I am ticked off at RINOs. Personal character is extremely high on my list. I guess that's why politics is so fun. You can't predict what everyone will decide to do.
Anon. David,
With my previous comment I was merely replying to your comment "What kind of God would operate [like this]? * Of course I realize precisely what kind of God this is: the God of the Bible, who countenanced all kinds of evil and in whom I could not possibly believe."
The Bible, in many areas, has examples where the Lord needed to preserve His people. This is where the logic comes into play. This same logic is used in the first book of Nephi. You claim to be familiar with the Book of Mormon right? Remember the story of Nephi and Laban? The Lord tells him "the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief." (1 Nephi 4:13). Mortal death is nothing compared to spiritual death.
Whether you personally believe that these people in the Bible and BOM made up the commandment to do what they did as an excuse to get away with murder is irrelevent. The logic of a God to tell His people to do that is a rational argument given their beliefs. You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to condone it. But don't hate other people for believing that it is possible for the Lord to issue such a command.
This is a political blog, not a philosophical one, or else we could easily get into a huge discussion over the definition of evil.
Sorry, that last comment was by me. I didn't realize my husband was signed in.
Amy, I understand the logic you're referring to--it's just that I repudiate it (and repudiate religions that embrace it, just as you repudiate my atheism).
I would also suggest that the quote ("the LORD slayeth the WICKED to bring forth his righteous purposes") is not to the point, unless one believes that the young children slain in the conquest of Canaan were "wicked," which of course I don't. And unless one believes that a bunch of human beings slaughtering innocents because they think the Lord wants them to is the same as the Lord himself slaying those people. The Lord might be infallible, but human beings, even those who claim to be God's chosen people, are not.
In other words, the justice of the LORD slaying the WICKED has nothing to do with the justice of HUMAN BEINGS slaying the INNOCENT.
Oh--the idea that "Mortal death is nothing compared to spiritual death" was also the idea that justified the tortures of the Inquisition. After all, what's a few days of physical torment, compared to the infinitely greater tragedy of spiritual death? The Puritans used the same logic to justify the mass killing of Native American women and children. And more than a few suicide bombers have embraced it as well. I know, of course, that from your perspective the use of this logic in your religion is acceptable, because from your perspective your religion is true and those others are not--but I trust you can see why the whole thing makes me so nervous.
And please note that I don't "hate other people for believing" such things. I disagree with them, and were I to live in a place where such beliefs were backed up by the authority of a government, I would very much fear them. But I don't hate them, whether they're Mormons, or Muslims, or Raelians. OK, I will admit to an occasional head-shaking moment of bewilderment or incredulity. And I admit that I contest these ideas vigorously. But that's different from hate.
Finally, you're right that this is a political blog. But there are political dimensions to people's beliefs about God's morality--consider the explanation of John McCain's good buddy John Hagee of why God wiped out New Orleans. To my way of thinking, McCain's refusal to repudiate (or even recognize) the evil of Hagee's logic really calls McCain's character into question. Politics and religion are not so easily separable.
--David
Anon. David, I can certainly see your argument, and most of the time I think we would arrive at the same conclusion with respect to specific candidates.
In my case with Jeff Flake, it very much depends on who runs against him in the next election. If there happens to be a good Democratic option whose views very closely resemble mine, I will probably vote for the Democratic candidate for all of the reasons you mentioned (to achieve a Democratic majority, to oppose crappy nominations, etc.).
However, I do see the value in electing a bit of a rogue Republican - he is really ruffling feathers in the House at the moment, and he made a bid (a failed bid, unfortunately) for an Appropriations Committee seat. He is as mad at the Republican Party as I am for being so fiscally irresponsible. Since one of my core beliefs is that we need to separate money from politics wherever possible, having an anti-establishment Republican in a position of power could be tremendously beneficial.
Anon. Dave - thank you. The theory that Amy outlined about it the death of the infidel so that truth is not stifled is not my feelings at all. There is one passage in the book of mormon where this is outlined - but that is in reference to one person, rather than a group of people (and that one person happened to be a tyrant.) In ref. to the Old Testament and the violent, bloody God of the old Testament, let me just say (and I know I'm probably in the minority here) but I feel that the old testament is not in a state of preservation to tell us anything about the character of god. The stories portrayed in Joshua and the rest of the Deuteronomistic History are stories that much later nationalistic strictly Yahwistic Jews likely from the time of Ezra the Scribe passed down to solidify their position as "God's Chosen People." That claim was a dangerous claim for proto-Judaism to espouse, and, in it's vast incorrectness is a dangerous pov for any religonist - just as David has pointed out.
If we want to talk about God's sanction of war, lets look at the BOM - war is sanctioned only when there is a direct threat (as in overt homeland fighting and invasion) - our country still has never gotten there(except the Revolution and the Civil War). And remember the Anti-Nephi-Lehis - who felt that honoring god's living creations was worth laying down their lives rather than fighting. They worshipped the same God I do for sure - but not the God shown in Joshua and a vast amount of the OT (remember "as far as it's translated correctly, Amy).
Rick,
Please don't read anything more into my comments than what I explicitly stated.
In case you missed it, what I was saying was that in my opinion, those people felt like they were doing the will of God. I don't think it is right to judge them for that. After all, if it was the will of God, then the argument stated is a very reasonable argument. Anon. David was saying that man can use that as an excuse to get away with murder. Well, man has perverted the word of God and blasphemed in that case.
At any rate, the argument is a logical one given their beliefs, should God exist and be protecting His people from corruption, etc. I don't find that reason enough to reject the Judeo-Christian God, which is the point Anon. David made which I was addressing.
Post a Comment