Tag: government

Vote for Conscience Sake

The news coming from last night’s election campaign brought forth either sentiments of disappointment or joyous celebration for conservative Americans, as they became aware of Ted Cruz’s decision to suspend his campaign; leaving Donald Trump as the front-runner candidate to become the Republican party nominee.  Those who did not support Trump are now faced with a decision regarding who they should support in the national election, especially given the two candidates will likely be Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  Yet, unlike in previous election cycles there are now Christian leaders, some of whom I deeply respect, who are encouraging Christians to either restrain from voting at all in the Presidential election on November 4th or to vote instead for a third party candidate.

What does it say that we have now shifted from merely guiding Christians to examine specific positions of a candidate according to a biblical worldview, to now telling them which candidate they should or should not vote for in the Presidential election?  Even if you were to agree that such a practice is justified, why did Christian leaders wait until Ted Cruz departed the race before suddenly making it known that he was apparently the evangelical Christian candidate?  Is choosing not to vote or voting for a third party candidate a more biblical decision?  For those encouraging a third party candidate, how are we to believe that this unknown candidate would hold to a biblical worldview or even be guaranteed a victory?

It is well known and accepted by many people that a third party candidate victory in a Presidential election is statistically improbable and typically results in a victory for the party opposite of which the person most closely aligns.  In the case of this year’s election, a third party candidate which most closely aligns with conservative values will inevitably lead to a Hillary Clinton victory.  Perhaps this is an outcome you have considered and are content to accept knowing you supported someone in good conscience instead of merely a party line vote.
Allow me postulate that a Hillary Clinton victory will inevitably lead to an even greater increase in the erosion and intentional dismantling of religious liberty.  Mr. Trump certainly does not embrace a biblical worldview, but is it possible to conceive of a Clinton victory as the better alternative, because that is exactly what you will have if Trump fails to win the election in November.  Although Trump may endorse the pro-gay movement in certain areas, Hillary not only endorses it, but will aggressively push it down the throats of Christians by forcing religious institutions to conform or be shutdown.  Hillary aggressively supports the right of a woman to murder her unborn child in the womb, while Trump has indicated a shift in his position to no longer support abortion.  How could such a high priority issue for Christians suddenly become one in which we are willing to now choose Clinton, an avowed abortion rights supporter, to continue stretching the boundaries of abortion by not voting for the one candidate who could defeat her in the election?  Would it not be worthwhile to suspend our disagreement with Trump on other issues in oder to gain a small victory by having a President who does not support the murder of a child.

The impacts of the Obamacare bill, which will especially be realized this year, will continue to contribute to the decline of the U.S. economy under a Clinton administration because only Trump has offered to repeal this bill.  Even if you do not believe all of Trump’s economic plans align with conservative principles, it cannot be argued that they are much closer than Hillary’s socialist, Keynesian position.  Do we not as Christians believe that a strong, economy which enables human flourishing is beneficial for mankind?  Which candidate is more likely to support policies which enable the economy to return to it’s former luster?

Trump is determined to improve the condition of U.S. veterans who have given so much to our country, while Hillary has proven she could care less about the military let alone the veterans who have served.  Although many people may not consider the vast, world-wide influence of the U.S. military, it represents the most powerful military force in the history of the world.  As someone who has worked at the senior level of the Department of Defense throughout the Obama administration, the military is unable to survive another administration which has eroded the very principles which have allowed it to sustain such a globally recognized position.

The next President of the United States will likely have the opportunity to select new Federal judges to include several who will sit on the Supreme Court and have vast influence on our nation for the next few decades.  Even if you do not agree that Trump would make a good decision, is it possible that his decisions might prove to be a better alternative to Hillary?

This is not an endorsement of Trump over any other GOP candidate, that ship has sailed.  Rather, it is an endorsement of some semblance of conservatism against the guarantee of socialism.  It is an endorsement of some religious liberty over no religious liberty; or should we say no Christian liberty since Hillary certainly supports liberty for other religions.  If the argument is that Trump does not support religious liberty to the same degree as other candidates such as Cruz or Rubio, then perhaps we should make it clear that Trump is also not out to intentionally destroy it like Hillary.  Even if we agree that Trump’s policies may lead to a decline in religious liberty, which is certainly open for debate, he has not made it a mission to force conformance to the homosexual agenda like Obama has done and Clinton will inevitable continue.

As already stated, there is no hope for a third party candidate victory, so if your decision is to either vote for an unknown candidate or not vote at all, then understand you are voting for Hillary Clinton to become the next President of the United States and we can say goodbye to any religious freedom we may have left.  It may be difficult to vote for Trump in good conscience, but how will your conscience feel when you watch religious liberty deliberately be dismantled by Hillary, knowing you could have prevented it?

Understanding the First Presidential Debate

With the Presidential elections just over a year away, the political landscape will soon be dominated by debates, speeches, interviews and campaign advertisements. The first of many debates occurred last night and offered much to be desired when one considers the meaning of the word debate. At best it was an exhibition of talking points and buzz word. While there is a sense of disappointment in the moderators for not creating an environment which afforded the candidates an opportunity to engage in necessary, in-depth deliberations, nonetheless it is not an event which should be completely undervalued or dismissed; especially given the extensive number of candidates now bidding for the Republican ticket. There are several noteworthy points which we should take away from this first debate.

In terms of what the debate provided us, it is probably best to identify it as merely a preview of the contending candidates which confirmed what most people likely already knew about each opponent. It provided what one might expect from a forum where candidates were limited to a one minute response. Yet, despite the limited response time we can often learn a great deal about someone when they are required to respond to potentially difficult, comprehensive questions within the constraints of short period of time. There is significance in observing the reactions of the candidates, each of whom are contending for a position which routinely encounters situations requiring immediate, decisive responses, sometimes leading to expansive ramifications for the country. This debate may not have provided us with a better understanding of how these candidates intend to fulfill their campaign commitments, but it did provide the viewer with a big picture overview of their overall demeanor and posture in a high-stakes environment.

While last night did not necessarily produce any winners or losers, it did reveal those who are able to articulate their convictions about a particular topic outside of the standard Republican Party talking points and phrases. In a party specific debate, the goal of a candidate should not be to articulate their similarities to the other candidates, but rather the distinctive marks which separate their approach to the topics. Those who were able to progress the conversation beyond the one liner phrases and buzz words which already define the Republican Party presented themselves as ones who will be worthwhile to watch in future debates, especially when provided ample time to articulate the issues in greater detail.

When we consider the overall structure of this debate itself, it is interesting to note the rationale behind the decision of Fox News to limit the debate to a two hour time block with only a one minute response time per candidate. Yet, what must be understood is that like every other cable news network, Fox News is competing for viewers, which requires a programing structure capable of accomplishing this goal. Therefore, we can only assume that the producers considered these time limits to be the breaking point for a large majority of their targeted audience. Yet, this does not represent a critique of the news networks so much as it does on the American culture and the ever shrinking attention span of Americans when it comes to significant matters such as the political scene. For many Americans the idea of watching a two hour discussion, even about issues which affect them daily, seems overly daunting especially on a Thursday evening during prime time television. It is inconceivable that anyone would think twice about watching a three hour football game, a two hour movie or an all-day marathon of Downton Abbey, but somehow spending two hours listening to a debate between people, a group from which many will one day select their next leader, seems uninteresting. The limitation of one minute responses could be associated with the goal of the moderators to cover a wide range of topics with the seventeen candidates within the short two hour window of time, but it could also be the result of a culture which seems disinterested in topics which cannot be reduced to a 144 character Twitter feed.

The Christian worldview understands that each person will one day give an account for how we spend our time, our resources and even how we voted in an election. We realize in voting for candidates that there will never be the perfect candidate, nor do we expect that the best candidate will be an individual who holds completely to our own worldview, but what is important is that we make the best choice based on our knowledge of the individual. A decision which comes not based on what anyone or any group would have us to believe is the best candidate, but rather one which is based on our own evaluation and assessment of the facts. To do this means that we must spend time to understand these issues which will be at the forefront of the campaigns and make an informed decision to vote for the person most capable of leading America in the right direction.