Midway through the New Hampshire Primary, exit polls suggest that 47% of Santorum voters view abortion as the number one issue in the 2012 election. In the Iowa caucuses last week, 14% of all voters cited abortion as their top issue as well.
Just as with everything else, it seems, this has quickly become a contentious topic among Republicans. Some say that abortion is always the most important issue. Some say that it pales in comparison to the economic issues we currently face, and that abortion will be the least of our worries if our economy tanks and we end up in the position of, say, Greece. Some say that we should be concerned about abortion, but only after we fix Obamacare, entitlement spending, and the economy.
My response to that is simple: as long as taxpayers fund Planned Parenthood, cover emergency care for women who have no insurance and require post-abortion care, and cover the abortion services that will most certainly be covered under Obamacare (You didn't really think Obama was serious about that Presidential Mandate business, did you?), those things are all inextricably linked together.
But more than that, the real problem is this: if we become an America that is willing to sacrifice the unborn for a better economy, then we become an America that has lost the right to claim "exceptionalism." We are effectively telling our leadership that we are willing to sell our principles for a few jobs, a strong dollar, and a better housing market.
In our zeal to win, we must remember that how we win can be more important than winning. After all, as Mark 8:36 reminds us, "what does it profit a man that he gain the world but lose his soul?"
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
America needs a few corporate raiders/capitalist pigs
Conservatives, led publicly by Newt Gingrich, are attacking Mitt Romney because of his stint as a corporate raider. They say that he bought out companies and flipped them to turn a profit. His attackers call it unethical and immoral. Romney calls is capitalism and job creation.
Truth: it is ALL OF THE ABOVE. Granted, the jobs were created in Mexico and other countries more than in the United States. And some of what was done was probably unethical and/or immoral. But the fact of the matter is that it was capitalism. And that should be the end of the discussion.
Why? Capitalism is, at its heart, an amoral system. It exists only to find what works, what drives profit. It has no conscience, nor does it aspire to gain one. And in finding what works and what drives profit, it regulates itself.
For example - if the FDA were not in place and there were no regulations concerning the quality of fast food, imagine the following scenario:
Chain #1 makes everything as cheaply as possible, not worrying about quality or safety. Chain #2 makes sure their food quality is good and safe, banking on the consumer to pay a little more for better quality. Most people only have to get sick eating at Chain #1 once or twice before they are willing to pay the extra money for safer food. Chain #2 does well, and Chain #1 has to choose between going bust or increasing the quality of their food.
The only reason capitalism fails is that people insist on enlisting the government to inject morals and ethics into it. It starts with regulations that keep businesses from selling unsafe products - such as baby walkers with parts that are choking hazards or food that hasn't been washed or prepared properly. Then there are regulations that cover how businesses must set prices so that they can't drive their prices up to match increased cost or demand. And finally you end up with regulations preventing a toy from being sold in a meal with french fries, lest parents blindly buy their children fattening food in the fond hopes of acquiring a toy that will become garage sale fodder in a matter of weeks.
The reality is that capitalism is messy. The players are not always equal, and the field is not always level. People win fortunes and people lose fortunes. People rocket to success and people are doomed to failure. People get hurt. But because capitalism offers opportunity and rewards both those who work hard and those who work smart, those people who fail, lose fortunes and get hurt can rise from the ashes tomorrow and turn the whole world on its head.
The attacks on Romney's capitalist ventures (as loathe as I am to defend him on anything) are an attempt by Newt Gingrich and others to insert morals into an amoral system - but whether or not his actions were moral should never be in question if he was acting as a private citizen and a capitalist. Those waging the war against him are in dangerous territory, using liberal tactics in an attempt to play on emotions to win the hearts of conservatives.
***FYI, if you want to criticize Romney and his association with Bain Capital when they acted outside the domain of pure capitalism and took a government bailout, then by all means, go ahead.
Truth: it is ALL OF THE ABOVE. Granted, the jobs were created in Mexico and other countries more than in the United States. And some of what was done was probably unethical and/or immoral. But the fact of the matter is that it was capitalism. And that should be the end of the discussion.
Why? Capitalism is, at its heart, an amoral system. It exists only to find what works, what drives profit. It has no conscience, nor does it aspire to gain one. And in finding what works and what drives profit, it regulates itself.
For example - if the FDA were not in place and there were no regulations concerning the quality of fast food, imagine the following scenario:
Chain #1 makes everything as cheaply as possible, not worrying about quality or safety. Chain #2 makes sure their food quality is good and safe, banking on the consumer to pay a little more for better quality. Most people only have to get sick eating at Chain #1 once or twice before they are willing to pay the extra money for safer food. Chain #2 does well, and Chain #1 has to choose between going bust or increasing the quality of their food.
The only reason capitalism fails is that people insist on enlisting the government to inject morals and ethics into it. It starts with regulations that keep businesses from selling unsafe products - such as baby walkers with parts that are choking hazards or food that hasn't been washed or prepared properly. Then there are regulations that cover how businesses must set prices so that they can't drive their prices up to match increased cost or demand. And finally you end up with regulations preventing a toy from being sold in a meal with french fries, lest parents blindly buy their children fattening food in the fond hopes of acquiring a toy that will become garage sale fodder in a matter of weeks.
The reality is that capitalism is messy. The players are not always equal, and the field is not always level. People win fortunes and people lose fortunes. People rocket to success and people are doomed to failure. People get hurt. But because capitalism offers opportunity and rewards both those who work hard and those who work smart, those people who fail, lose fortunes and get hurt can rise from the ashes tomorrow and turn the whole world on its head.
The attacks on Romney's capitalist ventures (as loathe as I am to defend him on anything) are an attempt by Newt Gingrich and others to insert morals into an amoral system - but whether or not his actions were moral should never be in question if he was acting as a private citizen and a capitalist. Those waging the war against him are in dangerous territory, using liberal tactics in an attempt to play on emotions to win the hearts of conservatives.
***FYI, if you want to criticize Romney and his association with Bain Capital when they acted outside the domain of pure capitalism and took a government bailout, then by all means, go ahead.
Ron Paul: the weakened army's choice
I am a member of several groups of a political nature on Facebook. A few of these groups, such as the Armed Forces Tea Party page, are also affiliated with the military. As a veteran myself, I occasionally read and post on these sites. While most of the people belonging to these groups claim to be conservative, we do have our differences. In fact, we are split as many ways as there are candidates in the GOP primary race. Each person defends his chosen candidate in his own way, but what I have noticed is that all of the Ron Paul supporters keep saying the same things: "More of the military supports Ron Paul than any other candidate."
To think that Drill Sergeants could have steered soldiers away from Ron Paul with a few well chosen epithets and a slap to the side of the head...
First things first: I'm not entirely certain that is true. Nothing in my research has led me to believe that the military as a whole supports any candidate disproportionately. But if it is true, I may have some insight as to why.
A few years ago, in order to increase the strength of the Armed Forces, the Army implemented something called "low stress" Basic Training.
It started out with something seemingly harmless - Drill Sergeants were instructed not to swear at trainees or to touch them. They claimed that it was to avoid legal problems such as lawsuits concerning inappropriate touching or verbal abuse.
Then came the "stress card," a small slip of paper given to each trainee to be used at his discretion. If the trainee ever felt, during the course of training, that he was being singled out by the Drill Sergeant or unfairly treated in any way, he simply pulled out that slip of paper and the Drill Sergeant was forced to back down.
Eventually, Drill Sergeants were left with no recourse when new trainees swore at them, flipped them the bird, or sat down in the middle of the road during a ruck march, screaming, "I'm not marching anymore and you can't effing make me!"
The sad fact of the matter is that given the climate created in the Army by this "low-stress" training, the trainee was right. The Drill Sergeant couldn't make him march any farther - or do anything else, for that matter.
Army Captain Josh Gibbs, upon attending a Basic Training graduation in 2006, remarked on the graduating soldiers' inability to maintain any kind of professional bearing, to march properly, or to show respect for themselves, fellow soldiers, or the uniform. Things have only gotten worse in the years since.
So why does this breed Ron Paul supporters? The Army has spent the last decade "training" soldiers who are really no closer to being ready to handle combat at the end of training than they were at the beginning. After a deployment or two, after they lose a few friends, those who don't end up getting out of the military find themselves looking for someone to blame. Ron Paul gives them the Federal Government on a silver platter.
"You see, if America wasn't so set on nation-building, on controlling international issues, on starting wars over oil, there would be no need for such a large military. Soldiers wouldn't be rushed through sub-par training and catapulted into combat situations that should never have been created in the first place..."What they are missing, however, is this: Ron Paul is willing to serve up the Federal Government as the scapegoat, but he is not willing to hold the Federal Government accountable for what he claims they have done. What do I mean by this? His fiscal policy hinges on curbing military spending - the military spending that supports the troops who are overseas, that helps military families hold it together when their breadwinner is either killed or wounded, that helps soldiers get educated so that they can continue to contribute to society when their military career is over. He's telling them to blame the government without allowing them to demand restitution from it.
To think that Drill Sergeants could have steered soldiers away from Ron Paul with a few well chosen epithets and a slap to the side of the head...
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The Ron Paul Moonwalk
At the very beginning of his 2012 presidential campaign, Ron Paul seemed adamant about several things: First, his promise to strictly adhere to the Constitution in regards to sending the military overseas. Second, his feelings about ending the Fed and FEMA. And third, his stance on running in the 2012 election as a third party candidate (he indicated that he would not).
Most people agree that when there is a third party candidate in the running - if they manage to get any measurable percentage of the vote - it does little more than split the vote of one party or the other. For example, in 1992 H. Ross Perot took some independent voters, but most of his votes came from the Republican side. Bill Clinton may have won that election anyway, but Perot made his victory much more decisive by eating up many of the votes that would likely have gone to George H. W. Bush had his name not been on the ballot. In that same manner, most of the pundits agree that if Ron Paul were to enter the 2012 election as a third party candidate, the likely outcome would be that Obama would celebrate another victory. Paul would split the conservative/Republican vote with the official GOP nominee and possibly pick up a few independents in the process - just not enough to matter.
Ron Paul's statements on the matter have always reflected that view - that if he was not the nominee he would not be willing to risk another four years of Obama by splitting the vote in that way.
However, in the wake of a surge that left Ron Paul in third place in Iowa and holding onto a possible second in New Hampshire, his tune seems to be changing. He hasn't taken a full step - more like a little slide - toward walking back his prior statements. This week, when asked, his response was a murky, "Well, I'll have a big decision to make if August comes around and I am not the nominee."
And so I ask Dr. Paul the following: Pray tell, what decision might that be? If you are revisiting the idea of a third party run, remember that at this point any third party candidate is likely to be the catalyst that propels America into another four years of Obama. Does it really require a lot of thought to decide whether or not you're willing to tank the entire election because you didn't get your way? Or does a third party run seem like an effective way to punish the American public for what is, in your mind, a bad decision?
Most people agree that when there is a third party candidate in the running - if they manage to get any measurable percentage of the vote - it does little more than split the vote of one party or the other. For example, in 1992 H. Ross Perot took some independent voters, but most of his votes came from the Republican side. Bill Clinton may have won that election anyway, but Perot made his victory much more decisive by eating up many of the votes that would likely have gone to George H. W. Bush had his name not been on the ballot. In that same manner, most of the pundits agree that if Ron Paul were to enter the 2012 election as a third party candidate, the likely outcome would be that Obama would celebrate another victory. Paul would split the conservative/Republican vote with the official GOP nominee and possibly pick up a few independents in the process - just not enough to matter.
Ron Paul's statements on the matter have always reflected that view - that if he was not the nominee he would not be willing to risk another four years of Obama by splitting the vote in that way.
However, in the wake of a surge that left Ron Paul in third place in Iowa and holding onto a possible second in New Hampshire, his tune seems to be changing. He hasn't taken a full step - more like a little slide - toward walking back his prior statements. This week, when asked, his response was a murky, "Well, I'll have a big decision to make if August comes around and I am not the nominee."
And so I ask Dr. Paul the following: Pray tell, what decision might that be? If you are revisiting the idea of a third party run, remember that at this point any third party candidate is likely to be the catalyst that propels America into another four years of Obama. Does it really require a lot of thought to decide whether or not you're willing to tank the entire election because you didn't get your way? Or does a third party run seem like an effective way to punish the American public for what is, in your mind, a bad decision?
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Bad Christians
The other day I was accused of being a “bad Christian.” I would have simply agreed with the woman making the accusation, apologized, and moved on – if the reason she had given had made a lick of sense. I had made a series of statements that amounted to the following:
If my neighbor is suffering or finds himself in want, it is my job to help him. The responsibility to support those in need does not lie with the government, rather with the families and friends of those less well off than we are. It is our job as Christians to do as much as we can for as many as we can as often as we can.
Because I do not believe “doing as much as I can” includes supporting higher taxes for the rich, extending unemployment benefits and entitlements that are easier to abuse than to use properly, and government funded healthcare, according to her I could not be a very good Christian.
Her justification for that statement was the story of the Rich Young Ruler. A young man comes to Jesus and asks what he must do to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus replied that he must follow the commandments and love his neighbor as himself. “All these I have kept since I was a child,” he said. To which Jesus responded, “Then go. Sell all that you have and give the money to the poor. Then come and follow me.”
(I must have missed the part where Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give it to the government, who could then distribute it to the poor.)
But more importantly, if this story is read alongside the rest of the Bible, it becomes clear that Jesus was applying a little irony to the situation. When the young ruler asks what he must do to gain salvation, Jesus gives him an answer that is based on works. The entirety of the New Testament, that statement excluded, presents a different view – that salvation is given by grace alone, through faith and belief in Jesus as the perfect sacrifice.
So why, then, after saying such things as “no man comes to the Father but through Me” would Jesus tell this man that he could earn his way into Heaven by following the law? Jesus knew two very important things: First, that complete obedience to the law (which the young ruler claimed he had accomplished) is impossible for a human being who is born with a sinful nature. And second, that to place full faith in Him, people have to stop viewing their possessions as their own – rather as gifts from God to use in the furtherance of His glory. The only way to make that young ruler view his possessions as belonging to God was to make him give them up. The point was obvious – in making the young ruler realize that he was unable to give up his possessions, Jesus gently directed his attention to the false idol he had made for himself of those possessions. By proving that the young ruler had in his heart violated the first commandment, he made it clear to him that earning his way into Heaven was going to be an impossibility.
Thus Jesus’ instructions were not intended to tell the young ruler what to do to be a good Christian; rather, they were intended to illuminate the fatal flaw in his approach to gaining salvation.
While I agree that I – or any other Christian, for that matter – could be legitimately called a “bad Christian” for not doing enough for our fellow man, it is solely because we as individuals do not do enough. It is not because we demand that help for the poor come from individuals rather than the government.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Relevance of Iowa
A lot of the talk about the Iowa Caucuses yesterday centered on whether or not Iowa is, will be, or should be irrelevant.
Some said Iowa would be irrelevant if Ron Paul won. Others said Iowa would be irrelevant if Ron Paul did not win. In the aftermath of the caucuses, which Ron Paul did not win (he placed third behind Romney and Santorum, for those of you hiding under a rock until it's all over), Ron Paul's camp now claims (surprise!) that Iowa is irrelevant.
The Washington Times claims that Iowa is irrelevant because the GOP has consistently failed to produce a younger, more charismatic and Clintonesque candidate that will inspire the voters to flock to the polls in larger numbers.
I apologize in advance for sending you to The Daily Kos... If you can get past the spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar, you'll see that they too are of the opinion that Iowa just doesn't matter for many reasons, up to and including the classic: "Iowa is just too white."
All that said, I do not believe that Iowa is at all irrelevant. In fact, I believe that Iowa's relevance is being downplayed especially by establishment Republicans in order to obscure the fact that what happened in Iowa yesterday has the power to make conservatives irrelevant in the 2012 presidential race. I spoke in my last post about the three types of Republican voters who would be making their way to the polls this primary season. A Romney win with very little effort (though Santorum did come very close in the end) suggests that the majority of voters in Iowa come from the first group I talked about - those more concerned with perceived electability than with real conservative principles. For that reason, they traded their "first in the nation" status for Mitt "personal mandate is bad unless it was my idea" Romney. For Mitt "I'm not a Washington insider but that's only because I lost" Romney. For Mitt "I left my state in massive debt but that's okay because I can build companies" Romney.
If that trend continues in other primaries, what we get will not be a win for conservatives even if Romney makes it all the way to the White House. What terrifies me is that after a Romney presidency it might take four years of a worse disaster than Barack Obama to wake enough people up to right the ship.
Some said Iowa would be irrelevant if Ron Paul won. Others said Iowa would be irrelevant if Ron Paul did not win. In the aftermath of the caucuses, which Ron Paul did not win (he placed third behind Romney and Santorum, for those of you hiding under a rock until it's all over), Ron Paul's camp now claims (surprise!) that Iowa is irrelevant.
The Washington Times claims that Iowa is irrelevant because the GOP has consistently failed to produce a younger, more charismatic and Clintonesque candidate that will inspire the voters to flock to the polls in larger numbers.
I apologize in advance for sending you to The Daily Kos... If you can get past the spelling mistakes and atrocious grammar, you'll see that they too are of the opinion that Iowa just doesn't matter for many reasons, up to and including the classic: "Iowa is just too white."
All that said, I do not believe that Iowa is at all irrelevant. In fact, I believe that Iowa's relevance is being downplayed especially by establishment Republicans in order to obscure the fact that what happened in Iowa yesterday has the power to make conservatives irrelevant in the 2012 presidential race. I spoke in my last post about the three types of Republican voters who would be making their way to the polls this primary season. A Romney win with very little effort (though Santorum did come very close in the end) suggests that the majority of voters in Iowa come from the first group I talked about - those more concerned with perceived electability than with real conservative principles. For that reason, they traded their "first in the nation" status for Mitt "personal mandate is bad unless it was my idea" Romney. For Mitt "I'm not a Washington insider but that's only because I lost" Romney. For Mitt "I left my state in massive debt but that's okay because I can build companies" Romney.
If that trend continues in other primaries, what we get will not be a win for conservatives even if Romney makes it all the way to the White House. What terrifies me is that after a Romney presidency it might take four years of a worse disaster than Barack Obama to wake enough people up to right the ship.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Give Iowa a try
Tomorrow, all American eyes turn nearly dead center. We watch Iowa carefully, waiting for the first possible indication of who might be the GOP Presidential candidate for the election later this year. So far, at best the field is a bit of a cluster.
In national polls, Romney and Gingrich are virtually tied, with Paul lagging behind and the others trailing. In the most recent Iowa polls, it is a dead heat between Romney, Paul and a continually surprising Santorum. The others haven't been getting much press, but that may change as many Iowa voters are still undecided going into tomorrow's caucuses.
Three types of voters are going to be attending the Iowa caucuses:
Group 1 is the ABO (Anyone But Obama) group. Their biggest concern is electability, and their candidate will be either Gingrich or Romney.
Group 2 is so fed up with the ever-expanding government that they will allow fiscal concerns to supersede possible national security worries. Their candidate will be Ron Paul.
Group 3 is made up of conservatives who believe that the slow road to hell can be as dangerous if not more so than the fast one. They are likely to value principle more highly than electability. Their candidate will be Santorum or Perry.
The questions remaining as we begin this primary season are these:
Which group is bigger in Iowa?
Which group is bigger in America?
In national polls, Romney and Gingrich are virtually tied, with Paul lagging behind and the others trailing. In the most recent Iowa polls, it is a dead heat between Romney, Paul and a continually surprising Santorum. The others haven't been getting much press, but that may change as many Iowa voters are still undecided going into tomorrow's caucuses.
Three types of voters are going to be attending the Iowa caucuses:
Group 1 is the ABO (Anyone But Obama) group. Their biggest concern is electability, and their candidate will be either Gingrich or Romney.
Group 2 is so fed up with the ever-expanding government that they will allow fiscal concerns to supersede possible national security worries. Their candidate will be Ron Paul.
Group 3 is made up of conservatives who believe that the slow road to hell can be as dangerous if not more so than the fast one. They are likely to value principle more highly than electability. Their candidate will be Santorum or Perry.
The questions remaining as we begin this primary season are these:
Which group is bigger in Iowa?
Which group is bigger in America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)