| Why I'm a Democrat |
| Written by John Smulo | |||
| Monday, 20 October 2008 12:56 | |||
|
I haven't shared which political party I support here in the past for one main reason: I don't exclusively support any party. I vote--and this time around it will be for Barack Obama--but I have little confidence in any political party. That said, my Mom sent me an email that was written by our good friend Judy about why she is a Democrat, and I appreciated reading her thoughts (Even if I disagreed with a small portion of it). She said: I'm voting Democrat because owning a gun is a privilege and a responsibility, not a right. I'm voting Democrat because I love my fellow humans and I respect their right to the same happiness I have found in my personal relationships. Happier people make happier communities. I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil, insurance, pharmaceutical and other large companies have a right to profit from their businesses without being able to use those profits to buy the people who run our government. I'm voting Democrat because I would rather have the government use the taxes I pay in a responsible manner. Yes, Democrats tend to spend money on social programs to help their fellow man while Republicans spend just as much or more borrowing and bailing out large corrupt companies and giving to those who already have enough or more than enough. I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is a responsibility as well as a right. It is patriotic to speak out against my government if I feel that government is acting in an irresponsible and dangerous manner. It is possible to be patriotic and support our troops while not supporting an immoral war. I'm voting Democrat because we should not have engaged in a war with Iraq in the first place. The terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center were not Iraqi; they were hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan. Before we decide to occupy a country (this one being one of the oldest civilizations in the world) we should ask ourselves why there are people who hate us in the first place. Maybe they think of us as the "terrorists" and this is the only way they know how to fight back, in a way that truly frightens us. Our country needs to realize that we are all created equal and one is not necessarily better than the other. I'm voting Democrat because global warming is a threat and we need to take it seriously, if not for the rest of the world, then for ourselves. Each species depends on another for survival. This should probably be our biggest concern; it is more important than the economy, who pays which taxes, the war, etc. If we end up killing our world nothing else will matter because there will be nothing left to matter. We will be dead! I'm voting Democrat because I'm concerned about the babies after they are born. Who will take care of them if their parents are unable to take care of them? Republicans believe in the "right to life" until the child is born; then they are unwilling to help to pay for the social programs, education, medical care, etc. that will help that child to become a self-respecting, cared for, contributing human being. I'm voting Democrat because I believe that businesses should be allowed to make profits for themselves, but not to use that money to buy a government that works only for those who have money and against those are are less fortunate. A Liberal is a person who cares about all the people of the world and believes that we are all connected, no matter what color, race, religion, or income level. We are all in this together and we take care of ourselves by taking care of our fellow humans. If we can afford to supply some financial help in the form of job training, good education for all, medical care, etc. we will be helping to make the world a better happier place for all, especially ourselves. In closing, I am surprised about all the negative propaganda about Barack Obama. Obama is a very intelligent caring man who will probably do a lot to get us out of the mess that George W. got us into. Republicans always say that the Democrats are into big government. I don't think anyone could ever have imagined the huge deficit, the bad economy, the expensive war, the lack of privacy, and the FEAR enveloping this country right now that has been caused by Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. Now that's the "biggest government" I think anyone has ever seen. I guess in the end, I want live in a country of "We", not "Me". That's why my vote will be for Barack Obama, the Democratic condidate. Let me know your thoughts:
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 999 Trackback(0)
Comments (62)
 
Jenna,
Hey sis, its about time you commented on my blog. I should put up stuff by Judy more often  2
October 20, 2008
You must be an abortionist, pro gay marriage, lover of associating with known terrorist, racist, embezzler, leftist, the most liberal democrat, big government spender, love higher taxes (read about JFK's plan on taxes) and on and on I could go. But your right, it's your choice, your freedom . . . for now. Get back with me in 4 years or less, dude.
3
October 20, 2008
Ron,
Talking to other people like that might be cool at the church where you're an associate pastor, but its not acceptable here--especially when you don't even have the courage to share your real name or link to your bio. You're more than welcome to disagree with me, but not lie or slander me as you have above. 4
October 20, 2008
You obviously know who I am brother and its not about cool. It's about truth or can you handle truth?
5
October 20, 2008
Ron,
I didn't know who you were, and I'm not quite sure how to take someone slandering me by calling me a "racist", etc and "brother" in the same hour. Ahh, the joy of Christian community. 6
October 20, 2008
Hmm... so what would a Republican/McCain voter be?
A moralist? A bigot? A racist? Hater of gays? Uninterested in reducing abortions? A war lover? A torturer? Doesn't care about the poor? A liar? And on and on I could go. Now lets actually respond to you assertions, calling anyone who supports Obama some pretty crazy things. But you are obviously saying that Obama is those things, so lets address them: You must be an abortionistYes... Obama supports a right to abortion. Does that mean that everyone who supports Obama is an "abortionist?" That is absurd. pro gay marriageBarack Obama (much to his detriment, imo), has VERY clearly said that he does not support gay marriage. lover of associating with known terroristhe was the chair of a board that Bill Ayers was also connected to. That does not make him, or his supporters, a "lover of associating with known terrorist," and you very well know that, I think. racistHuh? Seriously? Barack Obama is a racist now? Interesting. embezzlerHuh? These are getting more and more absurd as you go on. leftistBarack Obama is far, far from being a leftist. And he has continually moved more to the right ever since he first got into politics. I would love to see what "leftist" policies he supports. the most liberal democratAgain, not even close. He is pretty mainstream in the Democratic party, and is nowhere near the "most liberal" democrat. But go ahead and believe one very flawed analysis. big government spenderWell, he does believe that government had a role, and believes more in the role of gov't than the Republicans do. You are right about that. love higher taxesI guess if you make $250,000 or more in taxable income, than you are right. But otherwise, you will be paying lower taxes under Obama than McCain. (read about JFK's plan on taxes)What does this have to do with Barack Obama? But seriously, if you want to be branded a racist, war loving, poor hating, gay hating liar, go ahead and brand Obama supporters as you do. 7
October 20, 2008
I think it's interesting that you are seeing more and more Christians starting to move to the Democratic party. I was once a long standing Republican follower, but this year my eyes have really started looking at other candidates, both GOP and Democrat, as well as third party. I have always stayed far from the Democrats because I felt like they lined up furthermost from my views and leaned GOP because on the social issues they seemed to line up closest. I have learned a lot about the GOP and while they still follow closest to me socially, I think they have messed up in many other areas (foreign policy, size of government, etc). I say all that to say I think this year I am going to the Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin!
8
October 20, 2008
I almost feel that I shouldn't post here... coming from the other side of 'the pond' and all... (despite the impact the C-in-C has elsewhere in the world, not least here in the UK) but in this comment thread alone is evidence for what others (Americans) have told me (particularly recently) that US politics are far more divided, divisive, 'one or the other', and likely to lead to arguments, than in the UK. Perhaps we're just further down the 'disillusioned with all politicians' line than you, or not? Personally I go with the view that no party should be in power for too long (I'm guessing two terms is about maximum - which can be up to 10 years in the UK) but I don't know how that pans out when the executive branch can be from one party and the legislative branch held by a majority of the other. Anyone care to enlighten me?
9
October 20, 2008
Dave,
Thanks for your response, and for blogging about Obama on your own blog as well. 10
October 20, 2008
Redeemed,
Thanks for sharing. I think the best any of us can do is explore the different candidates/parties and go with our conscience. 11
October 20, 2008
Dave Slater,
I'm hoping people outside of the US will feel welcome to share their opinion here. From my understanding, most outside of America hope Obama will win. I suppose its a post in itself to explain why. Political views can be very divisive in the US, but the kind of comments above are very disappointing to me, and not the norm with the people I'm around, or at this blog. I think shorter terms are important two. In the US, like the UK, its up to two terms, but up to 8 years here. 12
October 20, 2008
I might have had something to say, but it looks like Dave the first said it pretty darned well.
At least your troll seems to have gone away.  13
October 20, 2008
Dave, our wonderful Constitution is designed to force politicians to do what people who are self-interested hate to do: compromise.
14
October 20, 2008
Thanks for your reply John.
And sorry, in (at least) one part I wasn't clear: I'm aware that the presidency has a two-term (eight year) maximum (although only since WWII if I remember rightly), what I was seeking enlightenment on is what sort of difference it makes having a president and congress from opposing parties, vs having them from the same party. In other words - my theory about, say Labour and Conservative in the UK is that if one has been in for a couple of terms, then it's time to give the others a go - so they can muck things up 'the other direction' (or because they've had a spell without power so might be a bit more humble...here's hoping). But in the US, do president and congress coming from opposing camps mean that that balance is struck within the same term, and therefore a simple 'switch' every so often won't do it unless both switch to the other party? Sorry if my terms are not precise enough - I never took Politics 101...  15
October 20, 2008
I am an independent. I don't believe in the two party system. I feel it has broken down somewhat.
i vote for the person not the party. but i have to confess i haven't seen too many republicans i can vote for. mother in law 16
October 20, 2008
Hmm... the previous post on civil discourse while blogging is interesting in light of the comment thread here.
17
October 20, 2008
I would like to correct one point: Owning a gun is a right protected by the constitution of the United States, a county that derives its governing power from the people (the governed) not the government. The right to keep and bear arms was guaranteed to protect the governed from the government. Be honest (not you John other outspoken democrats) if you disagree with gun ownership, change the constitution, don’t lie and say the second amendment does not say we have the right to bear arms or that it is a privilege. This is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and we gave ourselves that very right to protect our status as the power of the government. I know it sounds philosophical but the idea that the people rule, which is not true for the UN declaration on human rights or the EU, is what makes our democratic republic unique. As an interesting side note, the UN declaration of human rights says the rights are given by the government at the convenience of the government, meaning the government can take them away if the government feels threatened. (Article 23(3) Universal Declaration of Human Rights) The Declaration of Independence says our rights are God given and the Bill of Rights was developed to protect us from the government. The UN, EU and many democrats feel and support a world-view that the government is the one that grants us rights. Who cares where our rights derive as long as we have rights, right? I know it is philosophical but the where our right derive is the most important issue. Personally, it is why I am no longer a democrat or republican. Let’s be intellectually honest democrats and republicans represent two different world views and people join the party that most closely represents their world view. The view ‘live and let live’ is the view of the Libertarian party not the democratic or republican parties. If I vote Libertarian, do I through my vote away? No, I vote for change. To continue to vote democrat or republican is a waste of a vote, neither party has changed much and it is hard to tell them apart. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Why do we keep voting for democrats and republicans expecting change? For example, unions buy democrats and big business buy republicans. I will concede it is naive to think that in a democracy you would not have some external influences, but to say one sell-out and the other is not a sell-out is intellectually dishonest. I am a Libertarian because I love my fellow humans and I respect their right to the same happiness. I am a Libertarian because I believe in the ideals of this great nation and I believe the democrats and republicans have abandoned the spirit of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. I am a Libertarian because I believe people should worship God as they choose. I feel like this country has been duped into believing there are only two points of view and every other viewpoint is radical and ridiculous. In his work Democracy in America, Alexis DeTocqueville, says that in America we have freedom of speech but not freedom of thought. We see things as right or left. Anything that is not within the norms of ‘left’ or ‘right’ is ignored or marginalized. I see his point in action in America today. Democrat or republicans have the only legitimate points of view? Truth rarely follows the popular. I would have to say that DeTocqueville was a prophet.
18
October 20, 2008
hehehe ... I was going to say that gun ownership IS a right. But Donald beat me to it.
However. With all rights come responsibility. And anyone who is well-versed in the social contract would know that. Our Founding Fathers may have enshrined the right to bear arms, but they never foresaw automatic weapons. Yes, we have the right own a gun, but we don't automatically have the right own all guns. That is irresponsible. In regard to your troll ... I have to laugh at this accusation: "lover of associating with known terrorist" Is this person aware that Mr. Ayers was on a board with several well known and respected Republicans including the owner of the Chicago Sun-Times and Senator Richard Lugar? Does that make them also terrorist associates? Or is that accusation only for black members of that education board? 19
October 20, 2008
Sonja,
I agree with you. Our founding fathers did not foresee automatic weapons. Be that as it may, if we don’t like it, we should change the Constitution. I also agree that with freedom comes responsibility, to use an old cliché, you should not run into a movie theater and scream fire! Or to use the motto of Spiderman ”With great power comes great responsibility.” I wonder what people think about personal responsibility. Republicans often charge democrats with not promoting personal responsibility. Not that I think republicans necessarily promote it enough. I would need to look at the written, spoken and unspoken ideals of both the democrats and republicans to see if they promote responsibility or if they don’t. I really think they don’t, I wonder what others think? Our founding fathers did say that this experiment in democracy would not work if people were not moral and responsible. It is a point I did not make in my first post that is an important part of my point. John, I forgot to mention that having talked with you John on many issues openly, if I had to determine which party your views are closest with I would have to say Libertarian. 20
October 20, 2008
J,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting  Dave did say it quite well.21
October 20, 2008
Dave Slater,
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand  23
October 20, 2008
Dotty,
Thanks for commenting. We feel the same. 24
October 20, 2008
Dave,
Sigh......yes, the previous post in relation to the comment thread above is a bit embarrassing. But I mostly don't get comments that are that rude--made 3 that bad in the last 10,000 comments. 25
October 20, 2008
Donald,
Good to have you comment here. Thanks for the clarification regarding guns and the Constitution. 26
October 20, 2008
Sonja,
You have to watch out for Donald. He's quick! I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. I'm glad you laughed. 27
October 20, 2008
Donald,
You think I'm closest to a Libertarian, eh? I like much of what I know about the party, but have much to learn. I don't think I'd ever find myself putting too much faith in any party, though I have my leanings. 28
October 20, 2008
John
I also have found myself believing in the Libertarian Party's platforms very much. I think that they have the right idea and that over the years, government has grown WAY out of their boundaries. I would venture a guess that 3/4 of what we find as issues today wouldn't be if the US Government didn't try to be bigger than they should have been. I was also going to say that gun ownership is a right and that with it comes responsibility. In the end, when it comes to voting, I vote for the person that shares my viewpoints on the issues facing us today; whether that person be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Mating Elephant Seal Watchers. I also find it slightly humorous (or not)that our government has become a two party system of namesakes; namesakes of ideologies which no longer apply to our government. We are not a Republic anymore and we are most certainly not a Democracy. 29
October 20, 2008
Many people are Libertarians and don’t even know it. They have been told it is a waste of a vote and there are only two parties. DeTocqueville’s point. Here is a website you can use to test your political views. http://www.politicalcompass.org/ My results
Economic Left/Right: 2.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03  30
October 20, 2008
1. Like Judy's thoughts.
2. I am a Democrat. Why? Because for 15 years I was heavily involved in the Republican party. I joined because I was a social conservative, and discovered over those 15 years that the Republicans don't give a rip about social conservative issues. They just don't want to pay taxes, and social conservatives usually don't want to pay taxes either, so they co-opt a social conservative agenda, but never pass it for fear of becoming unpopular and getting voted out. They just want to win elections, and don't care who they screw, or how they screw 'em, to win. It's all about gaining power in order to keep their money. To be fair, the Democrats aren't any better. The main difference is that Democrats are about gaining power in order to get ahold of other people's money. But over those 15 years I began to realize that Jesus is more about social justice than social conservatism, and since social justice is part of the Democrats' platform, I figured it was the lesser of the two evils. (As for third parties: Stand on principle all you like, but your people ain't gonna win. Sorry. Someone had to say it.) I don't believe in parties anymore. I believe in Jesus. 3. Anyone who puts party loyalty over Christian fellowship is committing idolatry. I have many Republican brothers and sisters in Christ; I'm not voting for McCain but wish no evil on them for doing so. As for those who bear false witness upon Obama, and hurl insults upon his supporters, and think any of it justified for any reason, may the Lord rebuke them. 32
October 20, 2008
Wow John, what a popular topic
 . Seeing as how the election process and system of government in Australia is so different to that in the USA, I am little qualified to make a comment. Even though we get far more news on your election than I really want to see. But one comment re' Donald's post... "This is a government of the people, by the people, for the people..." Ok Donald I am happy to run with this statement, even if I don't totally agree with your view on gun ownership (And yes I do own them)but then you state... "The Declaration of Independence says our rights are God given...". Mate, God given according to whom. But apart from that are you people driven or God given, make a deccision, I find it hard to accept that you can have an each way bet. Paul Avery. 33
October 21, 2008
Mike,
Good to hear from you. I'm the same regarding voting, I'll vote for whoever I think the best candidate is regardless of the party. Though with my Mom (in-law) above, there haven't been many Republicans I'd support. Up to share more on your thoughts about us no longer being a republic or democracy? 34
October 21, 2008
Donald,
That was an interesting test. I came up: Economic Left/Right: -3.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56 35
October 21, 2008
K.W. Leslie,
This needs to be said more often: "I don't believe in parties anymore. I believe in Jesus." This is the primary reason why I said at the beginning of my post that I don't exclusively support any party. Liked what you said under 3. 36
October 21, 2008
Paul Avery,
Donald can respond as well if he'd like, but 'God-given' to me means that certain things are true regardless of what people say. I didn't think everyone in Australia was allowed to own guns unless for things like farming? 37
October 21, 2008
K.W. Leslie ~ I agree with you that "our party" is not going to win. You know what? It takes years for rivers to carve out their course. Change will happen, it's just a matter of time.
38
October 21, 2008
John ~ If I was to use the literal definitions of Republic and Democracy, then what I said would be incorrect. However, it is what is in-between the lines that makes the truth. Since we are talking about a presidential election, I'll use that as an example and I'll try and make my point by doing an end around.
The president is elected by a majority of the Electoral College; 538 votes total. The members of the Electoral College can vote whatever way they want to as well; they are under no obligation to vote as their constituents desire. Notwithstanding that, a candidate can flat out lose the popular vote and still be elected if the candidate wins most of the electoral college votes. Likewise, a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the election. Since a Democratic Nation is one that has a government which is elected freely and equally by its citizens, I hardly think that winning a majority of 538 votes constitutes equality. It can be said then that if we are not truly a democracy then we cannot truly be a republic. In my opinion, the Electoral College needs to be done away with and the president should be elected by popular vote; just the same as all other elected officials at the state and local levels. Until that time, we will never be a government "of the people, for the people and by the people" as Abraham Lincoln suggested. One side note that comes to mind now is about "for the people". Until there is someone placed into office who serves the best interest of the people and not the best interest of themselves, their financiers or the special interests, what we have is an Empire and a pretty evil one at that. 39
October 21, 2008
My mom loved being Libertarian, but she decided two things. Thanks to W, by the way. One, that the dangers of the current group of Republicans were too great, and so we need to fight their power. Two, that Libertarianism relies on a certain decency being practiced by the people in power, esp the corporations. It relies on people having the power to put those companies out of business if they behave in ways that hurt people. This has not turned out to be the case. So she said, Idealistically, she was still Libertarian, but she couldn't vote for them because it wasn't turning out to be realistic. Also, though not a Christian, she felt that it was in the best interest of our country to fight for social justice, like K.W. Leslie said, and the Republicans seem to have no interest in that whatsoever.
I agree with her views on this, though I was a lot quicker to give up Libertarianism and go over to Democrat. I like their views of live and let live, but they're a bit too uninvolved in caring for their fellow man. Not you, Donald, the party overall. 40
October 21, 2008
Mike,
That is a tough one for me in regard to what you said to K.W. Leslie. I respect you working for change in the long haul--there is something in this ideal that grabs a hold of me. Yet what often wins out, particularly in this kind of situation, is making the best choice for change now. It's a tension that I struggle with and I see pros and cons to both. 41
October 21, 2008
John ~ I'm right there with you. What bothers me even more than that is that a presidential candidate essentially makes promises that they may or may not be able to keep and not for the lack of desire. Without bipartisan support at all levels, government becomes a game of "tit-for-tat" and the end, nothing is really getting done.
I have always said in my job as a police officer that the average citizen really doesn't know what is going on just below the surface; nor do they want to. The same thing can be said about Washington D.C. There are a lot of behind-the-scene activities. A vote for a party that has no chance of winning is not a vote that is lost, it is a vote. It's my way of saying "enough is enough". It is one way I have to speak out against what I feel to be wrong and it is my duty as a "patriot" to do so. It may not be my generation that sees the change but don't we all want to leave our children something better than we had? 42
October 21, 2008
John,
Gun owning in Australia does need to be justified and is a long and drawn out process to obtain a liscence. It is also illegal to own automatic or semi automatic weapons. Every weapon owned must be registered and you must own a safe to store them in; this will be randomly inspected by police to ensure it complies with regulation. Ammunition must be stored in a seperate locked area to the weapons. My liscence is for recreational hunting and vermin control and to get it I had to get a farm owner to sign my application stating that I can shoot on his property. So yes we can own them, but with strict guidelines. Paul. 43
October 21, 2008
Mike,
Lots of food for thought there. I definitely agree that we should go to a popular vote system. 44
October 21, 2008
J,
Thanks for sharing more about your Mom's thoughts on this and yours. It makes a lot of sense to me, and is part of the tension I mentioned to Mike I struggled with in comments above. At the end of the day, I'm voting for Obama, because I believe this will make the most difference. 45
October 21, 2008
This is the first I've been on any blog for a long time. I simply don't have the time lately. I wasn't going to vote at all this year. I figured that if no one voted it would be the best vote we could give, given the lousy choices we've been given.
But, I was quite influenced in my youth (late 60s-early 70s)by guys like Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Franklin Marshall Davis, Angela Davis, Che Gueverra, Jerry Rubin et al. I was sympathetic with some of their complaints about America--the Vietnam War, environment and corporate America's role in 3rd world labor and civil rights abuses--all valid complaints. But, where I jumped ship was when I started reading their books instructing me on how to build pipe bombs, molotov cocktails and encouraging us to kill our parents. This smacked of hypocrisy. As a Christ follower, I cared then, as I do now, for the poor and oppressed, for the underdog. I live to help break the cycles of social injustice. Since that absolutely has to start with the unborn, as there is no one as helpless and voiceless, it blew my mind when these same folks supported abortion and the Roe v. Wade decision. I have never been a traditional prolifer, because it's not that simple. There has to be a place for grace and forgiveness. But we could have done much more through teaching personal responsibility, self discipline and by being there for those who had fallen, to show them unconditional love and to help them through their crises. Both camps have failed miserably. When Obama first came on the scene I was enlightened. But as time passed, I began to realize that he is but another straw man of those old revolutionary socialists of my youth. Not surprisingly, he was under the tutelage of a few of them in his early years. I remember Ayers well from those days, and, not surprisingly, he had a role in the advent of ACORN, is did Obama. Both, as well as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are very integrally tied to Barack and ACORN was the lobbying organization that brought them to reality. It's all there for public record if you dare to search for it, which of course, means that Obama has been very dishonest with us. I'm all for social justice, but history proves that Obama's ideas do not work--never have and never will. Government is far too corrupt and inefficient to be entrusted with assuring that our tax monies get put to use appropriately. But that aside, what finally did it for me was in seeing how he smeared this Joe the Plumber all over the US--simply because he asked him an honest question. All I could think was, what will it be like once he actually has power and someone questions him? It sounds exactly like some of the socialist activist tactics of my youth. And they always encouraged us to disguise our motives and agendas--to be sneaky, dishonest, deceptive and to smear our enemies wherever we could. It's not like it doesn't exist on the other side, but not even close to what's going on in the Obama camp. There are far too many dots that connect far too uncomfortably easy in his associations with the people who have undermined our financial system and are trying to undermine the election. It scares the hell out of me; especially when I hear so many people saying how they are somehow, almost mystically drawn to him. That is indeed frightening. On the other hand, I've never liked McCain. His hotheadedness troubles me. In closer scrutiny, I see that he isn't really the Bush guy I thought he was, but he still doesn't bring much to the table. I think he's been inside the beltway far too long. So, the whole scenario is very troubling to me. My conclusion is that Jesus is my president. My allegiance is to Him. As long as we trust men, they will fail us. In my 53 years, I've never seen any election as troubling as this one. I'm praying, and I'm more committed to doing my own part to end poverty and injustice, as I know that government leaders will never do it, nor do they care about anything but their own personal gains. If we want the kind of justice either of these buffoons promise, we'll have to get serious about our own grass roots missions. Of course, that's what we should have been doing all along. Sadly, like it was in the days of the Judges, we still seem to think we need a King. We resist God's call. Its a lot easier to have someone else do our bidding than to accept our God-ordained responsibilities--or so it seems. Unfortunately, God doesn't work that way. He doesn't want or need dirty politics; He wants us. And we certainly don't need another Saul, be it King or Alinsky. 46
October 21, 2008
John, here is my response. It is really long. Sorry. I really hope it doesn't sound offensive. I certainly don't mean any offens to your views or your friend, these are just my thoughts & views. If you want to read it you can, if not that is fine too. It was pretty fun to actually write down all of this. I really should make a list like your friend did. I may discover I belong to another party.
http://changingmylifeonechoice...-blog.html 47
October 21, 2008
Wow, Mike & Donald, you both sound very intelligent & make me want to check out this Libertarian Party.
48
October 22, 2008
Webb Kline,
Good to hear from you. Thanks for stopping by with your limited time. You have a far longer perspective on this than I do, though I'm not sure how a person was decades ago will necessarily be the same as who they are today. Obama doesn't excite me as a Presidential choice, as to be honest, I hoped he would. Though I do think it he is a significant break from the white-rich-guy-as-president model we've had for so long. I think this in and of itself is significant, not only in our own country, but will also speak volume's to those outside of our country where it was very hard for me to live for many years with a president like Bush. I can't also help but think if Obama was president for the last eight years, we wouldn't have made a lot of the mistakes we have. My hope is in Jesus to, though I'm praying the next eight years are far better than the preceding ones. 49
October 22, 2008
Kristy,
Thanks, I read through your post. I didn't think it was offensive, though I struggle with Republican thinking on some things. For example you said: "If everyone is given the chance to go to college & get a bachelors degree or higher then who will do the blue collar work? Who will cook our food? Who will pick up our trash? Who will make the clothes we wear?" As I mentioned above, I'm not a Democrat or Republican, though I find myself more drawn to political parties who seek social justice, and who intentionally seek to care for the poor. 50
October 22, 2008
I liked Judy's letter and agree with most of her points. I also wanted to second Donald's recommendation for politicalcompass.org. That site helped me realize, earlier on, that the candidate who most matched my Libertarian-leaning views was Mike Gravel. No-one else even came close.
51
October 22, 2008
In response to K.W. Leslie
I do not understand the terms used concerning ‘social justice’ and an apparent opposite ‘social conservatism’. Specifically what are the issues? I realize that it is likely a 3rd party will not win. Thanks for supporting my point and DeTocqueville’s point that freedom of thought is suppressed in America. I agree Christ first! I don’t agree 100% with any platform or party, however I find my views, in theory, are more closely aligned with the Libertarians. In response to Paul Avery I was referring to the statement in the US Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is the theory that our right are God given not man given. This follows along the lines of Natural Law with the ultimate authority as God. (PS I don’t think Gun ownership is a God given right necessarily) ? In response to John We have never been a republic or a democracy – we are a democratic republic, a hybrid if you like, of the two forms of government. A democracy in that the people are the power of the government and a republic in that the majority may rule but not at the expense of the minority. The electorate was designed to keep people from mob rule or voting on popularity. In practice, the electorate does not appear to be very useful anymore. I think we should go to the popular vote. Your test scores blow me away! You are more Libertarian than me! In response to Kristy Quoting Kristy “As I mentioned above, I’m not a Democrat or Republican, though I find myself more drawn to political parties who seek social justice, and who intentionally seek to care for the poor.” The problem I have with the government helping the poor is they are not very good at it. This should be left to the people. A blotted bureaucracy sending out a monthly check, enslaving people to a system that rewards failure. How can the government love that individual? How much does it cost in our taxes for the bureaucracy? If the government takes $10 for the poor, how much of the $10 actually makes it to the poor? How much pays for the bureaucracy? If Christians put the money where their mouth is and loved their neighbor and care for the sick, poor and widows would we need welfare? These questions cut me to the quick! How do I spend my money? As a member of society, should I sit back and let the government do the caring or should I help members of society in need? When I think about it, I come up short. I feel like I don’t do enough and don’t encourage others to do enough. We are in a participative government and society and I guess I need to participate more in society. As a Christian, I think I need to engage the world more and not leave it up to democrats, republicans or other. To all I will pray for who ever the next president is. I will continue to support and defend the constitution of the United States. I ledge and pray that I will learn to love my neighbor more and not leave that up to the government. 52
October 22, 2008
Donald,
Thank you for your answer, it brings some clarification for me. As I said, my knowledge of US politics (and the Declaration of Independance) is very limited. Paul 53
October 23, 2008
I have to correct the record on a couple of things:
I remember Ayers well from those days, and, not surprisingly, he had a role in the advent of ACORN, is did Obama.Neither Ayers or Obama were involved with advent of ACORN. Barack Obama was nine years old when ACORN was founded. I know Sen. Obama is impressively smart and charismatic, but he aint that good to be starting national organizations at nine years old. Both, as well as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are very integrally tied to Barack and ACORN was the lobbying organization that brought them to reality.Wrong again. Fannie Mae started in 1968, two years before ACORN was founded. Freddie Mac was founded in 1970 - the same year that ACORN was founded. ACORN had no role in making either of them a reality. Barack Obama was 7 and 9 years old at the start of the two lenders, and neither Institution is "integrally tied" to Sen. Obama. My conclusion is that Jesus is my president. My allegiance is to Him.Me too. But no offense, if your allegiance is to Him, then you shouldn't be spreading such obvious lies about Barack Obama. 54
October 23, 2008
Kievas Fargo,
Thanks for commenting. I thought the site Donald recommended was helpful as well. 55
October 23, 2008
Donald,
When you quoted Kristy you were actually quoting me. I agree that the government doesn't do well caring for people. But I think the church does a crappy job of this *on the whole* as well (clearly some churches do an incredible job). I'd rather see a safety net here. One example: Health Care. There have been times when I haven't been able to afford medical insurance as an adult, and where loved ones I know haven't been able to. It's ridiculously expensive. This is also the case for tens of millions of Americans. Just a couple of weeks ago I saw someone I know doubled over in pain because they had a medical problem. Yet they also had to struggle with not having insurance. They wound up with more than $1,000 in medical expenses that they cannot afford. In comparison, when I lived in Australia, everyone had medical insurance. I've heard the propaganda against the government being involved in health care, but it simply was so much better in this regard when we lived in Australia. I think churches, family, individuals need to do far better. If they ever get to a point where they are caring for the myriad of things that require support I'll change my view point on this. Until then, I think some government intervention is required. 56
October 23, 2008
John,
In Contra Costa County, everyone has health care. The County provides for those who cannot afford coverage. Contra Costa was also given an award for having one of the best public health care systems in the world. The primary reason was that the county collaborated with private practices to provide specialty health care that it is not cost effective for the County to do themselves. A hybrid system not completely public or completely private. In countries where there is socialized medicine, like Canada, those with money travel to other counties like the US for health care. I have hundreds of relatives in Canada, almost all of them take advantage of private healthcare in the US. I am not saying the US system is not devoid of problems I am only saying that it is better than anything the government can muster. Think of this, what is the motivation for medical advancement if the government runs it? Is it better to have the government decide that a CAT scan is too expense for you or an HMO? If it government run healthcare is so good why do they come here for private systems? If I let the government take care of healthcare for everyone don’t I rob Church of the blessing of giving? I have an issue with the Church in general, myself included, if we are the salt and light of the world and let the Love of Christ show, would we need government health care or welfare? 57
October 23, 2008
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." – P.J. O'Rourke (1993)
58
October 23, 2008
Kristy,
As I have already said, I know basically nothing about your political system, but you make some comments that I struggle with. You are pro life, so am I, you are anti embryonic stem cell research, so am I, but then you say you support the death penalty. As an evngelical Christian I really struggle to reconcile these differences in regard to the value of a human life. Paul Avery 59
October 23, 2008
Donald,
I recently had reason to visit a neurologist. He then referred me to have an MRI. Cost to me? $0. All covered by the government health scheme. However we do have private insurance which costs about $205 AUD per month. My son was born with a cleft palate, we chose the plastic surgeon that we wanted in the hospital we wanted (in Sydney), cost to us $0. Covered by insurance and government combined. Better than anything the government can muster? Not in my opinion living in Australia. Paul. 60
October 23, 2008
Donald,
Its good to see Contra Costa Country thinking creatively, but most counties in the US are not. Everyday people without medical insurance are dealing with very difficult circumstances as a result. I hear the Canadian system used as an example whenever this comes up, but--and I may or may not be wrong about this--they seem to have a crappy model of socialized medicine. Australia, as another example, certainly did not. I would take their system over what we have here any day. Socialized medicine may not be a perfect model, but after having lived for significant amounts of times under both systems, I'd take at least the version of socialized medicine I had in Australia any day. 61
October 24, 2008
I think I know why more Christians are Republican over Democrat. It comes down to their Weltanschauung or worldview. I think we need to separate the position on a particular issue from the source or reason for ones position, or ones worldview. Two individuals can have the same position and have a drastically different worldviews. For example two people can believe that gay marriage is ok, one because they have an atheistic worldview and feel that defining marriage as being between one man and one woman to be a Judeo-Christian definition. While another person believe gay marriage is ok because of their Christian worldview, believing charity, love and a difference in interpretation of scriptures. Both believe gay marriage is ok but both for dramatically different reasons. Each worldview is diametrically opposed and incompatible with the other even when the stance on a particular issue like gay marriage might be the same.
I hesitated to state this because it is a generalization, however I believe it to be an accurate generalization. In general the platform of the democrats, green and peace and freedom parties are based on a atheistic worldview, while the republican, libertarian or independent parties come from a Judeo-Christian worldview. I do not mean that the 'Christian' position equates to the republican platform, far from it. Many of the outspoken democrats and much of the literature they use to build their position is atheistic and socialistic, a fact they will readily admit to. I am not saying that all democrats are atheistic, in fact I believe that many are Christians because of the democrats particular position on an issue unaware or unconcerned with the worldview of the party leaders. Many people vote on the issues not the party or worldview of the party. Why is the worldview of a particular party important? A persons or parties worldview will dictate their ultimate goal. This means that while the ultimate goals will remain the same stances on particular issues may very. It is noteworthy to say we should be careful to not equate or worldview with a particular position until we understand all sides of the argument. Beware the single hand clapping. I think we should be careful to join a particular party if that party adopts a certain worldview, overtly or covertly stated, that is different from our own. Remember that our worldview is more about ultimate views and not the particulars, although they do effect the particulars to some extent. I do think that some Christians are bullied into believing they have to adopt a particular position if they are a Christian. I categorically reject that notion. I do believe that Christianity is flexible enough to allow for gay marriage despite what popular theologians might say. I associate with libertarians precisely for this reason they allow for such flexibility. There are a number of follow-up questions worthy of consideration. What role should Christians play in politics? What role should Christians play government? Are we culpable for the decisions we make in the polling booth? Are we culpable for the decisions our candidate makes while in office? 62
October 27, 2008
Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Exactly
Subscribe
Connect With Me
