Voting Ideology

I used to say that I would always vote for the person of better character for government office, not just for the party line.  However, all that stopped in 2008.  I had friends who knew Barach Obama and said that he was really in fine guy—good husband and father, kind to others and caring of those in need.  I didn’t feel that John McCain was the same type of person.  I voted for McCain anyway.

 Obama ran on “hope and change.”   I thought that was a campaign slogan aimed at correcting the recent crash of the economy.  It was obvious to me that there was a need for fine tuning of the economy, targeted at eliminating abuses and focused on continued strengthening of America.  However, as I came to understand the policies that were espoused by Obama, some of which were eventually pushed into law, it seemed clear that he was determined to make an unnecessary and damaging overhaul of the American economy.   Even his chief of staff declared that the crisis precipitated by the crash of the markets in 2008 was too valuable an opportunity not to use to make dramatic change.

His focus was on equality.  But it was on equality of outcome—something that is not possible or desirable to regulate.  He began a process of redistributing wealth—something that he tried to hide from his rhetoric but occasional slips of the tongue and constant promoting of policy allowed anyone with ears to hear to understand the objective of the far-left leaning administration. 

Milton Friedman, the famous economist and advocate of Free Enterprise, once said, “If you focus on equality over freedom, you won’t get either.” 

Accepting President Obama’s demonization of business, the driver of the American engine, and advocation of an “anything goes” social morality would spell long-term doom for America’s prosperity and national compass.  His approach to being a “citizen of the world” meant America wouldn’t take a position of moral, economic and military leadership to serve the world, but it would become “one of the gang” of atheistic, jealous and unprincipled countries.  The world loved Obama for his desire to be one of them. 

Still it is hard not to like Obama, and his wife may have been the most popular first lady since Jackie Kennedy–despite her admitted disdain for pre-Obama America.  Beautiful family, smooth orator, self-effacing humor.  He was a really cool guy.   But his policies and positions that he took damaged America in the short- and long-run.  

In the end, it is long term policy, not an individual president, that is going to preserve the strength of our nation.  Over the years, many people who we have considered Giants have been moral leprechauns.   Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Franklin Roosevelt, the Kennedy’s, even Ronald Reagan (in his younger days) were not devoted to the principles that God requires of us.  In contrast, excluding his younger days, Obama seemed like a good father and husband and he lived a great example.  Smooth and thoughtful, caring for people.  But so many of his policy positions flew in the face of what is important to American strength and the doctrines of the Truth. 

Trump on the other hand behaves like an adolescent big mouth, without morality, who is a stranger to the truth.  But his policies for the most part have proven to strengthen America and are true to what has made America strong.  In the last election, both candidates in my mind were deeply flawed—for completely different reasons.

The one truly balanced candidate, who is a man of keen moral principle and had the issues for a strong America right, was Mitt Romney, who i once worked with and knew well. He was soundly defeated by the cool kid who had no business winning after a terrible first term.  Obama won because he was popular and happy to give away whatever he could to get elected in indifference to the piper’s price to be paid by our children.  Also, he employed supporters, including his campaign manager and the senate minority leader, that were willing to disingenuously say anything to win, while Mitt was stubbornly respectful of the president and his office, while strongly disagreeing with his policy and approach. Now, Mitt comes under fire from his own party for vilifying a president without character. I admire him and respect his stand, though I would not have done the same thing. For reasons I am about to explain.

I have determined that I will vote for the candidate is best represents what is most important to the country as I see it.  Those principles are:

1.     Freedom of conscience and support for the family.  No one should be forced to do anything that they feel is not consistent with God’s standards even if some people feel discriminated against as a result.  I oppose anything that would diminish the traditional family.

2.     Small government—we need to move more toward balancing budget.  Government should tend to its responsibilities laid out in the Constitution and not take on the obligation of tending the people.

3.     Personal Responsibility and self-reliance.  Social programs should be reduced.  People should not look the government to be saved—but be responsible for their own outcome.  I do not oppose welfare, but it needs a complete overhaul focused on getting back to self-reliance.  Ban the words “social justice”, “woke”, or “illuminated” in a political context (just kidding—but they are ridiculous terms). No one should have to apologize for being successful and everyone should be expected to do what they can.

4.     Constitution means what it says.  I would oppose any judge or justice that thinks they can exercise their judgment to change the law from the bench.  A well-defined process is in place to change the law and the Constitution.

5.     Free enterprise is the key to any country’s prosperity and the key to the fight against domestic and international poverty.  Private enterprise, big and small, should be supported through policy.  Global competitiveness is the key to America’s ability to serve and lead the world, and to the ongoing prosperity of its people.

6.     Lead the world through American exceptionalism.  We should have no apologies that we have been successful, and we are here to support the world in emulating us.  It is in the national interest to help make other countries successful in our pattern.  We will defend ourselves against those who would do us harm or attempt to diminish our attempts to excel as a country.

I will vote for the candidate that supports those principles.  Obviously, a candidate who supports these principles could disqualify himself or herself from my vote in any number of ways, but it would have to be extreme.  Trump’s broadly proclaimed shortcomings do not go far enough to lose my vote when facing zealous left-wing candidates like Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden.  If Tulsi Gabbard won the democratic nomination, I would have to think hard about what to do. But while I see her as a much better candidate than any of the others (including Trump), my decision would ultimately be based on how the principles that are important to me would be supported with her as president.  

Each person must understand the list of principles that are important to him or her.  Some people we know are single issue voters.  Abortion, free education, gay rights, universal health care and global warming each have vast single-issue followings.   But for me, some issues are damaging to America in a fundamental way. So, when one has a single-issue perspective, voting for the candidate that supports it sometimes supports policy that you would otherwise oppose, or that may damage America.  

 Politicians of all ideologies sometimes show disdain for the very people that employ them by adopting campaign strategies to portray a particular image that may draw votes in a way that is no more thoughtful than advertising to prompt an impulse purchase.  Don’t let them persuade you in that way.  Any voter who considers carefully, and understands the issues that are important to them, takes responsibility for their personal vote, which is the sacred right and obligation of every American and should be treated as such.  Those who carelessly vote for a fashionable candidate simply because that candidate is popular squander the opportunity to support America in their chosen way.