Showing posts with label Republican Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Party. Show all posts
Thursday, January 19, 2012
I cannot support Gary Johnson, Libertarian
I spoke in support of Gary Johnson when he ran as a Republican but I cannot support his run within the Libertarian Party. In essence, I agree with Ari Armstrong recent post on The Objective Standard Blog, though of course my views on the Libertarian Party go back to the more detailed Peter Schwartz essay, which was reprinted in the excellent collection of essays The Voice of Reason. Of course the immediate retort will be that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in their own way as bad or worse than the Libertarian Party and I don't deny that. However, that will not make me vote for a candidate running under the Libertarian banner. There is a good chance I will again abstain from voting for President as I did in the previous election.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Why I support Gary Johnson for President
I have followed American presidential elections closely since 1988. I abstained in voting for a President in 1988 and 1992 because I wasn't a US citizen yet but I would have abstained even if I could vote. In 2000, I did think Al Gore deserved defeat and because I mistakenly trusted Bush on his no-nation building pledge, I voted for Bush in 2000. With considerably less excuse, but still thinking that Bush would do something further with respect to the radical Islamic threat, while Kerry would appease the world, I voted for Bush a second time. Bush, of course, ended up disappointing me.
During all these previous elections the Republican candidates were always religious or at least giving extensive lip-service to religion which at minimum means opposing the right to abortion and more recently opposing Gay marriage. All this, while at the same time not doing anything significant to cut the size of government. Yes, minor tax cuts were proposed and passed but all that meant was that we would have to borrow more to support an increasing government size with less government revenue. And George W. Bush was the worst in that respect, actually adding new departments of government and proposing major new government initiatives, while Republicans in Congress went on an unprecedented spending spree.
From a rational perspective what are the priorities of government that one would wish a candidate would stand for at this particular time? If people in society were already strongly supportive of Objectivist ideas then nothing less than a completely principled candidate would do and it would be wrong to vote for anything less. But while there have been some very encouraging intellectual trends in recent years, particularly in terms of the tea party movement but also in terms of a greater awareness of the threat of Islamic terrorism, we are still some decades or even generations from an society dominated by Objectivist ideas the way our current society is still dominated by so-called liberal ideas.
Over the last 10 years or so two issues should have dominated the political scene: The 9/11 and its aftermath in terms of foreign and defense policy (as well as affecting domestic policy if one takes into account the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA and the "Patriot" act). The financial crisis and its aftermath in terms of domestic policy.
While 9/11 was not the first Islamic terrorist attack on US soil, it was obviously the worst, with a death toll rivaling the Pearl Harbor. Thus it was no surprise that unlike previous attacks which were largely disregarded, this one resulted in two wars: Afghanistan and Iraq. In a way, what was a surprise is that no further mass casualty attack followed since that time (though of course numerous attempts were made and several smaller scale actions did result in deaths).
Both the Afghanistan and Iraq were initially presented as wars of self-defense, yet were fought in a manner and quickly became focused on altruistic purposes of our fighting for the sake of the Afghans or Iraqis and saving them from their oppressors. After a near-civil war, we managed to bribe enough people in Iraq to temporarily "stabilize" the situation, while in Afghanistan, due to the inadequacy of the initial war effort the Taliban simply relocated to Pakistan and continues to harass the weak Karzai government while US troops are still engaged in nation building efforts.
All this while the source and inspiration of the overall conflict between totalitarian Islam and Western Civilization in Iran and Saudi Arabia is largely ignored.
The financial crisis started with government housing and banking policies which led to a financial collapse. This resulted in the so-called "great recession" which we are still experiencing with official national unemployment still around 9% and unofficial "underemployment" at 18.2%. The response to the crisis was spending, spending, and more spending, as well as an easy money monetary policy. This substantially increased the deficit as well as the national debt which was already reaching records during the Bush administration. There has also been a growing awareness that with the growing debt and given the government obligations to pay for so-called "entitlement" programs (such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) there will come a point at which the United States will be literally bankrupt -- it simply won't be able to pay all its bills.
All these problems are a result of the fact we have moved far away from the proper role and functions of government, which should be limited to protecting individual rights.
Which brings me to Gary Johnson. I have spent the last few weeks investigating Johnson's positions on all the major and minor issues. Gary Johnson is clearly not beholden to the religious right. He supports a woman's right to an abortion (up to the point of viability), is in favor of civil unions for all couples, straight or gay, and wants the government to get out of the marriage business.
Johnson is in favor of marijuana legalization, arguing that " it is insane to arrest roughly 800,000 people a year for choosing to use a natural substance that is, by any reasonable objective standard, less harmful than alcohol, a drug that is advertised at every major sporting event."
Most importantly, Johnson is promising to submit a balanced budget in 2013. That would mean cutting 43 cents out of every dollar we are spending now. I know of no other candidate that is proposing this (with the possible exception of Ron Paul who has far greater negatives than Johnson). And he is proposing replacing the income tax (and thereby abolishing the IRS) with the fair tax.
He also supports open immigration, proposing to convert all current illegal immigrants to have a work visa so that they can work here legally. All people seeking to immigrate this country could do so after a simple background check.
He supports stopping the nation building by withdrawing from both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unfortunately, the latter bespeaks of his weakest position. He does not seem to recognize the continuing threat from Iran. While he supports the alliance with Israel, he argues that "there is no military threat from Iran. We should be vigilant to that military threat, but I don’t see it." This is strange understanding of "threat". He suggests that because we vastly outspend the rest of the world we have little to worry about from Iran and the main thing we can do to keep Iran in check is to support Israel.
While his support for Israel is laudatory, the fact is that the current regime in Iran has been attacking us beginning with the 1979 embassy taking, through the embassy and marine barracks bombings in Lebanon, the hostage takings in Lebanon, the Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, and most recently its support for the attacks on US troops by the insurgents in Iraq as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, Gary Johnson supported the war in Afghanistan, saying that "we were attacked, we attacked back" -- that suggest that he will do no worse than any other Republican candidate in protecting this country. Let's face it -- is there a Republican candidate out there who upon coming into office would list the facts about Iran's aggression and war making I listed above and declare war against Iran? Not even John Bolton would do this. Johnson is being honest here: He will defend us if we are attacked and he will support our allies in defending themselves as well as ourselves (presumably the way Israel did recently in attacking and destroying the Syrian nuclear plant). His position is not ideal but arguably not significantly worse than any other candidate.
Furthermore, while unlike Johnson I initially supported the Iraq war, I have very come to very much regret my support for this war because in the way it was handled and how played out it set back the cause of a self-interested, rational foreign policy for decades. Also, I think a significant reduction in our overseas military presence is long overdue. Yes, we are a global trading power and we should certainly ensure that our trade is not interfered with whether by pirates as near the coast of Somalia, or other threats. But our allies, who are far from poor, need to pick up much more of the cost, particularly in soldiers. Other than in exceptional cases, I would not expect the American military to fight to defend non-Americans.
It is clear that Johnson is the best Republican candidate out there particularly from a budget and tax perspective but also in terms of excellent positions on immigration, drug policy, and social issues. His foreign policy positions weaker, yet seem to be little worse than those of other major candidates. I will support him for the Republican nomination and if he achieves it will support him for US President.
During all these previous elections the Republican candidates were always religious or at least giving extensive lip-service to religion which at minimum means opposing the right to abortion and more recently opposing Gay marriage. All this, while at the same time not doing anything significant to cut the size of government. Yes, minor tax cuts were proposed and passed but all that meant was that we would have to borrow more to support an increasing government size with less government revenue. And George W. Bush was the worst in that respect, actually adding new departments of government and proposing major new government initiatives, while Republicans in Congress went on an unprecedented spending spree.
From a rational perspective what are the priorities of government that one would wish a candidate would stand for at this particular time? If people in society were already strongly supportive of Objectivist ideas then nothing less than a completely principled candidate would do and it would be wrong to vote for anything less. But while there have been some very encouraging intellectual trends in recent years, particularly in terms of the tea party movement but also in terms of a greater awareness of the threat of Islamic terrorism, we are still some decades or even generations from an society dominated by Objectivist ideas the way our current society is still dominated by so-called liberal ideas.
Over the last 10 years or so two issues should have dominated the political scene: The 9/11 and its aftermath in terms of foreign and defense policy (as well as affecting domestic policy if one takes into account the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA and the "Patriot" act). The financial crisis and its aftermath in terms of domestic policy.
While 9/11 was not the first Islamic terrorist attack on US soil, it was obviously the worst, with a death toll rivaling the Pearl Harbor. Thus it was no surprise that unlike previous attacks which were largely disregarded, this one resulted in two wars: Afghanistan and Iraq. In a way, what was a surprise is that no further mass casualty attack followed since that time (though of course numerous attempts were made and several smaller scale actions did result in deaths).
Both the Afghanistan and Iraq were initially presented as wars of self-defense, yet were fought in a manner and quickly became focused on altruistic purposes of our fighting for the sake of the Afghans or Iraqis and saving them from their oppressors. After a near-civil war, we managed to bribe enough people in Iraq to temporarily "stabilize" the situation, while in Afghanistan, due to the inadequacy of the initial war effort the Taliban simply relocated to Pakistan and continues to harass the weak Karzai government while US troops are still engaged in nation building efforts.
All this while the source and inspiration of the overall conflict between totalitarian Islam and Western Civilization in Iran and Saudi Arabia is largely ignored.
The financial crisis started with government housing and banking policies which led to a financial collapse. This resulted in the so-called "great recession" which we are still experiencing with official national unemployment still around 9% and unofficial "underemployment" at 18.2%. The response to the crisis was spending, spending, and more spending, as well as an easy money monetary policy. This substantially increased the deficit as well as the national debt which was already reaching records during the Bush administration. There has also been a growing awareness that with the growing debt and given the government obligations to pay for so-called "entitlement" programs (such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) there will come a point at which the United States will be literally bankrupt -- it simply won't be able to pay all its bills.
All these problems are a result of the fact we have moved far away from the proper role and functions of government, which should be limited to protecting individual rights.
Which brings me to Gary Johnson. I have spent the last few weeks investigating Johnson's positions on all the major and minor issues. Gary Johnson is clearly not beholden to the religious right. He supports a woman's right to an abortion (up to the point of viability), is in favor of civil unions for all couples, straight or gay, and wants the government to get out of the marriage business.
Johnson is in favor of marijuana legalization, arguing that " it is insane to arrest roughly 800,000 people a year for choosing to use a natural substance that is, by any reasonable objective standard, less harmful than alcohol, a drug that is advertised at every major sporting event."
Most importantly, Johnson is promising to submit a balanced budget in 2013. That would mean cutting 43 cents out of every dollar we are spending now. I know of no other candidate that is proposing this (with the possible exception of Ron Paul who has far greater negatives than Johnson). And he is proposing replacing the income tax (and thereby abolishing the IRS) with the fair tax.
He also supports open immigration, proposing to convert all current illegal immigrants to have a work visa so that they can work here legally. All people seeking to immigrate this country could do so after a simple background check.
He supports stopping the nation building by withdrawing from both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unfortunately, the latter bespeaks of his weakest position. He does not seem to recognize the continuing threat from Iran. While he supports the alliance with Israel, he argues that "there is no military threat from Iran. We should be vigilant to that military threat, but I don’t see it." This is strange understanding of "threat". He suggests that because we vastly outspend the rest of the world we have little to worry about from Iran and the main thing we can do to keep Iran in check is to support Israel.
While his support for Israel is laudatory, the fact is that the current regime in Iran has been attacking us beginning with the 1979 embassy taking, through the embassy and marine barracks bombings in Lebanon, the hostage takings in Lebanon, the Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, and most recently its support for the attacks on US troops by the insurgents in Iraq as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, Gary Johnson supported the war in Afghanistan, saying that "we were attacked, we attacked back" -- that suggest that he will do no worse than any other Republican candidate in protecting this country. Let's face it -- is there a Republican candidate out there who upon coming into office would list the facts about Iran's aggression and war making I listed above and declare war against Iran? Not even John Bolton would do this. Johnson is being honest here: He will defend us if we are attacked and he will support our allies in defending themselves as well as ourselves (presumably the way Israel did recently in attacking and destroying the Syrian nuclear plant). His position is not ideal but arguably not significantly worse than any other candidate.
Furthermore, while unlike Johnson I initially supported the Iraq war, I have very come to very much regret my support for this war because in the way it was handled and how played out it set back the cause of a self-interested, rational foreign policy for decades. Also, I think a significant reduction in our overseas military presence is long overdue. Yes, we are a global trading power and we should certainly ensure that our trade is not interfered with whether by pirates as near the coast of Somalia, or other threats. But our allies, who are far from poor, need to pick up much more of the cost, particularly in soldiers. Other than in exceptional cases, I would not expect the American military to fight to defend non-Americans.
It is clear that Johnson is the best Republican candidate out there particularly from a budget and tax perspective but also in terms of excellent positions on immigration, drug policy, and social issues. His foreign policy positions weaker, yet seem to be little worse than those of other major candidates. I will support him for the Republican nomination and if he achieves it will support him for US President.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Should we save the Republicans from the religious?
With this somewhat presumptuous title, I am referring to efforts by many Objectivists to influence the internal soul-searching of the Republican party in light of their defeat in the 2008 U.S. elections. Efforts have ranged from Paul Hsieh's op-ed published in the Denver Post, to various letters to the editor. But while these worthwhile efforts serve a purpose beyond the nature of the Republican party, I have been considering whether on the political level, the future will not leave us ultimately with a very different political situation.
I have recently had the pleasure to read C. Bradley Thompson's Antislavery Political Writings, 1833-1860: A Reader in which the activist and political history of the abolitionist movement of the 19th century are recounted. It was fascinating to see how at first, in the early 1830s the abolitionist movement avoided politics altogether, and focused on "moral suasion," via public lectures and publications. In this respect, there is a clear parallel to the spreading of Ayn Rand's ideas throughout the culture. After the first few years of this effort, however, the movement split with some members pursuing political change directly and others continuing to try to influence the culture from the outside. The initial political efforts were by all accounts pathetic, though eventually a completely new party emerged that supported the essence of the abolitionists ideas: The Republican party which went on to win the 1860 elections. What is interesting about this is that when the abolition movement started with the publication of the Liberator in 1831 that party did not exist.
Why should we assume that we can change the Republican party so as to adopt our ideas? From listening to talk radio recently it appears that religious Conservatives have no intention of leaving the party. If anything, it might be claimed that the de-emphasis on religious ideas at the top of the most recent presidential ticket (despite the Palin selection) lead to a decrease in evangelical enthusiasm for McCain and help bring about the Obama victory. Also, while the religious trend in the culture continues it appears highly unlikely that the Republicans will choose to be less sympathetic to the concerns of what appears to be their single largest constituency.
These are depressing times for many reasons. The financial crisis is likely to get worse because a government dominated by Democrats is unlikely to pursue massive cuts in spending, taxes, and regulations so as to free the economy and allow a recovery. Culturally, we are still split between despicable nihilist and potentially dangerous religious elements. From a national security perspective numerous challenges remain. And yet, I would say I am optimistic about the future because it seems we have never had a better chance to successfully expand our influence and thus ultimately to change things for the better.
I am not here arguing for the immediate formation or support of a third party. Clearly, the Libertarian party has never been either right or viable. Nor are there any alternative realistic possibilities presently. However, if, as I expect, we are successful in our efforts and manage to increase our numbers and the numbers of our sympathizers substantially in the next 10 years, then we will face a choice as to the correct political path to take. If at that time the Republicans are still the party where religious Conservatives feel at home then I think we should, perhaps with support from many frustrated Republicans and perhaps even some Democrats form a viable alternative principled, secular pro-Capitalist party. Thus I believe we should let the religious have the Republican party and hopefully, they will ultimately go the way of the Whigs of the 19th century.
I have recently had the pleasure to read C. Bradley Thompson's Antislavery Political Writings, 1833-1860: A Reader in which the activist and political history of the abolitionist movement of the 19th century are recounted. It was fascinating to see how at first, in the early 1830s the abolitionist movement avoided politics altogether, and focused on "moral suasion," via public lectures and publications. In this respect, there is a clear parallel to the spreading of Ayn Rand's ideas throughout the culture. After the first few years of this effort, however, the movement split with some members pursuing political change directly and others continuing to try to influence the culture from the outside. The initial political efforts were by all accounts pathetic, though eventually a completely new party emerged that supported the essence of the abolitionists ideas: The Republican party which went on to win the 1860 elections. What is interesting about this is that when the abolition movement started with the publication of the Liberator in 1831 that party did not exist.
Why should we assume that we can change the Republican party so as to adopt our ideas? From listening to talk radio recently it appears that religious Conservatives have no intention of leaving the party. If anything, it might be claimed that the de-emphasis on religious ideas at the top of the most recent presidential ticket (despite the Palin selection) lead to a decrease in evangelical enthusiasm for McCain and help bring about the Obama victory. Also, while the religious trend in the culture continues it appears highly unlikely that the Republicans will choose to be less sympathetic to the concerns of what appears to be their single largest constituency.
These are depressing times for many reasons. The financial crisis is likely to get worse because a government dominated by Democrats is unlikely to pursue massive cuts in spending, taxes, and regulations so as to free the economy and allow a recovery. Culturally, we are still split between despicable nihilist and potentially dangerous religious elements. From a national security perspective numerous challenges remain. And yet, I would say I am optimistic about the future because it seems we have never had a better chance to successfully expand our influence and thus ultimately to change things for the better.
I am not here arguing for the immediate formation or support of a third party. Clearly, the Libertarian party has never been either right or viable. Nor are there any alternative realistic possibilities presently. However, if, as I expect, we are successful in our efforts and manage to increase our numbers and the numbers of our sympathizers substantially in the next 10 years, then we will face a choice as to the correct political path to take. If at that time the Republicans are still the party where religious Conservatives feel at home then I think we should, perhaps with support from many frustrated Republicans and perhaps even some Democrats form a viable alternative principled, secular pro-Capitalist party. Thus I believe we should let the religious have the Republican party and hopefully, they will ultimately go the way of the Whigs of the 19th century.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Bush, McCain, and why Republicans are not worth voting for
John McCain recently gave a major foreign policy speech. Here are some instructive excerpts:
Notable is the mention of the Truman doctrine above, which, as Scott mentioned in his highly recommended Islamist Entanglement lecture series, committed us to unlimited assistance to anybody fighting communism. I'm afraid this is quite far from a foreign policy of self-interest and it follows on the footsteps of a Bush foreign policy that, far from being as unilateralist as left-wing critics have claimed, has in fact gone out of its way to be multilateral, as today's Wall Street Journal editorial clearly shows:
It is simply a myth that the Republican Party represents any kind of assertive foreign policy of self-interest. If a Democrat had done or suggested all the above policies this would be obvious. Since Republicans are doing it and couch it, at times at least, in somewhat more self-assertive language, it sounds better to many people. I certainly fell for it during the last election when I voted for Bush over Kerry but no more. Under no circumstances will I vote for John McCain. The only question now is whether it is in any way worthwhile to vote for the Democratic nominee. On that question I remain undecided. I have previously leaned toward abstaining but lately I've been thinking that it may be necessary to actively support a Democratic candidate by voting for him so as to ensure McCain's defeat. Then we can unite in opposing the Democrats policies. However, I'm not yet completely convinced by this line of reasoning.
John McCain recently gave a major foreign policy speech. Here are some instructive excerpts:
President Harry Truman once said of America, "God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose." In his time, that purpose was to contain Communism and build the structures of peace and prosperity that could provide safe passage through the Cold War. Now it is our turn.
...
In such a world, where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone. We must be strong politically, economically, and militarily. But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish. Perhaps above all, leadership in today's world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation.
One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies. We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to. We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.
At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay "decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.
America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model. How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad. We must fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are the foundation of our society. We can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured. I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.
There is such a thing as international good citizenship. We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders. We and the other nations of the world must get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand off a much-diminished world to our grandchildren. We need a successor to the Kyoto Treaty, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner. We Americans must lead by example and encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India.
Notable is the mention of the Truman doctrine above, which, as Scott mentioned in his highly recommended Islamist Entanglement lecture series, committed us to unlimited assistance to anybody fighting communism. I'm afraid this is quite far from a foreign policy of self-interest and it follows on the footsteps of a Bush foreign policy that, far from being as unilateralist as left-wing critics have claimed, has in fact gone out of its way to be multilateral, as today's Wall Street Journal editorial clearly shows:
Iraq is where the unilateral myth settled into media concrete. But in fact, in 2002 President Bush bucked the advice of his more hawkish advisers and agreed to take Tony Blair's advice and seek another U.N. Resolution -- was it the 16th or 17th? -- against Saddam Hussein.
...the "coalition of the willing" that liberated Iraq included, besides the U.S. contingent, some 60,000 troops from 39 countries, who have operated under a U.N. resolution blessing their presence.
The Bush Administration has since become all too multilateralist, even -- or especially -- regarding the "axis of evil." On North Korea, the Administration adhered strictly to the six party formula.
...
As for Iran, following revelations in 2002 that Iran had secretly pursued an illegal nuclear program for 15 years, Mr. Bush agreed to hand over the diplomacy to Germany, Britain and France, the so-called E3.
...
Next the Administration succeeded in turning the matter over to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has been seeking answers about Tehran's nuclear file for five years.
...
For the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Administration arranged the so-called "road map," which is overseen by the "Quartet" of the U.S., Russia, the U.N., and the European Union. In Lebanon, the Administration worked closely with none other than France's Jacques Chirac to force the withdrawal of Syrian troops in 2005. With Russia, Mr. Bush welcomed its bid to join the World Trade Organization and has rebuffed suggestions -- including from Mr. McCain in his speech Wednesday -- that it be expelled from the G-8.
It is simply a myth that the Republican Party represents any kind of assertive foreign policy of self-interest. If a Democrat had done or suggested all the above policies this would be obvious. Since Republicans are doing it and couch it, at times at least, in somewhat more self-assertive language, it sounds better to many people. I certainly fell for it during the last election when I voted for Bush over Kerry but no more. Under no circumstances will I vote for John McCain. The only question now is whether it is in any way worthwhile to vote for the Democratic nominee. On that question I remain undecided. I have previously leaned toward abstaining but lately I've been thinking that it may be necessary to actively support a Democratic candidate by voting for him so as to ensure McCain's defeat. Then we can unite in opposing the Democrats policies. However, I'm not yet completely convinced by this line of reasoning.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Reisman on Abortion
Economist George Reisman has an excellent post on his blog on what would happen if the Republican candidates who hold that abortion is murder would consistently apply this idea to the woman having the abortion. He points out that:
Economist George Reisman has an excellent post on his blog on what would happen if the Republican candidates who hold that abortion is murder would consistently apply this idea to the woman having the abortion. He points out that:
Accordingly if abortion really is murder, then it is premeditated murder. And by the usual standards of justice, the guilt of the woman, as the instigator and planner of the murder, is greater, not less, than that of the physician or other party employed to carry it ouRead the whole thing!
Thursday, November 15, 2007
The Republican Primaries and the Elections
It has been claimed that this race is uninspiring to Republicans because none of the current contenders are "true Conservatives." Some Evangelical Christians such as James Dobson are unhappy with the current front runners -- Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Romney is a Mormon who until recently held rather liberal positions on various issues and has now apparently been convinced they were wrong and switched to positions more in line with those of the Christian Right, for example, he is now opposed to abortion as well as stem-cell research. Giuliani remains pro-choice and has a personal life that does not exactly suggest "family values." The less said about the other candidates, the better.
However, I see this race as an opportunity. For first time in about 30 years we can move beyond the agenda of the Christian Right in the Republican party. Rudy Giuliani represents such an opportunity. If Giuliani wins the Republican primaries he will finally open up the Republican party to secular candidates. The key is that he has to then win the election. If he wins both the primaries and the election, he will have dealt a severe blow to the presence of the Religious Right in the Republican Party. If, on the other hand, he loses the election, it will be claimed that secular forces are too weak on the Right and we will not see a secular candidate like Giuliani lead the Republicans for quite some time. The Religious Right will claim that the secular right has had its chance and the next Republican nominee will be as religious as the current occupant or perhaps even more. And furthermore, he will very likely win, given that Hillary Clinton will have been President and implemented some of her policies. As I have stated elsewhere I intend to vote for Giuliani when the primaries are held in California, and if he wins the nomination, I think I will vote for him in the general election as well.
It has been claimed that this race is uninspiring to Republicans because none of the current contenders are "true Conservatives." Some Evangelical Christians such as James Dobson are unhappy with the current front runners -- Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Romney is a Mormon who until recently held rather liberal positions on various issues and has now apparently been convinced they were wrong and switched to positions more in line with those of the Christian Right, for example, he is now opposed to abortion as well as stem-cell research. Giuliani remains pro-choice and has a personal life that does not exactly suggest "family values." The less said about the other candidates, the better.
However, I see this race as an opportunity. For first time in about 30 years we can move beyond the agenda of the Christian Right in the Republican party. Rudy Giuliani represents such an opportunity. If Giuliani wins the Republican primaries he will finally open up the Republican party to secular candidates. The key is that he has to then win the election. If he wins both the primaries and the election, he will have dealt a severe blow to the presence of the Religious Right in the Republican Party. If, on the other hand, he loses the election, it will be claimed that secular forces are too weak on the Right and we will not see a secular candidate like Giuliani lead the Republicans for quite some time. The Religious Right will claim that the secular right has had its chance and the next Republican nominee will be as religious as the current occupant or perhaps even more. And furthermore, he will very likely win, given that Hillary Clinton will have been President and implemented some of her policies. As I have stated elsewhere I intend to vote for Giuliani when the primaries are held in California, and if he wins the nomination, I think I will vote for him in the general election as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
