Obviously, Ian and I have strong feelings about this election. Thankfully, we are pretty much in agreement with each other. There are a few issues where we don't necessarily agree, but they're rather minor. And we believe strongly enough in our political stance to have started this blog with the hope of persuading some people to join us. It's been an interesting ride. We have many very dear friends who stand on the opposite side of the political spectrum who we would love to persuade. And there have been the few readers and commenters who have made us really think through where we stand (thank you, FobbieMom!!).
For my final push I figured I would just tell my story of how I came to my current political convictions.
I grew up in Orange County, CA. This is one of the few hotbeds of Republicanism in left-leaning California. I didn't think much about politics growing up. I just knew that my parents were Republicans and that they thought it was the best representation of the values they wanted me to embrace. I went about my own merry way. My favorite presidents growing up were FDR and JFK (yep, Democrats). In fact, I named all of our hamsters after Roosevelt children and would have moved on to Kennedy children if it wasn't cost-prohibitive to continue breeding them. The idea of the New Deal appealed to me as a way of caring for all of society's members and Kennedy's charisma and call to service captivated me. By the time I hit college, I was drawn to the Democratic Party because of its value for social justice. However, I didn't care enough to actually vote.
Once I graduated from college, I moved to Boston for dental school. I probably don't need to explain what the political environment was like there. The election of Bill Clinton occurred during my time in Boston. I didn't vote. But I had started acting on my concern for the poor. I got involved in church ministries that targeted poor urban youths. I cared about that enough to move into Boston's Chinatown to make social concern a lifestyle instead of a hobby. And again, the value for social justice promoted by the Democratic Party captured my attention.
Then I moved back to Los Angeles - another Democratic hotspot. I think I abstained from voting in the 1996 election as well. However, a couple of events over the next 4 years started to wake me up to the values of the Democratic Party that weren't consistent with mine. The first was the reaction of people around me to the Lewinsky scandal. To me, it was simple. The President lied under oath while being investigated regarding the charge that he had raped someone. I couldn't understand why people I admired, fervent Democrats, kept complaining about how Republicans were trying to get Clinton because he had sex with an intern. I wasn't too impressed with the actions of the Republican party, but I was rather appalled at how easily Clinton's defenders (and Clinton himself) embraced moral relativity. The second was the reaction to the 2000 election. I thought Gore was incredibly disingenuous in the manner in which he contested the election results. I didn't buy the argument that he was trying to protect the voters when only certain voting districts were recounted. And I didn't care for the near civil disobedience that ensued in response to the "stolen election". Both reactions seemed irrational to me.
Then the events of 9/11 occurred. Something in me awoke. I realized that there are people in this world who absolutely hate America. And as I started to wonder why that was, I could not accept the idea promoted by the left that America is hated because of how badly she has behaved toward the rest of the world. As an immigrant's child, I have seen my parents' home country and seen how it operates. I am incredibly thankful for the blessings I have experienced as a result of my parents' adoption of this country as their own. And as I have worked with international students, I have been amazed by the admiration and respect they have for their adopted country. 9/11 woke me up to the idea of "American exceptionalism" promoted by Conservatives. I believe that America, for all her faults, is an amazing country of incredible opportunity.
So when the 2004 elections rolled around, I decided that I needed to be a part of the voting process. But first, I needed to understand what the parties were about. Since I wasn't too impressed with the Democratic Party in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal, the 2000 election, and the manner of protesting the Iraq war, I decided to start by learning about the Republican Party. I had heard Hugh Hewitt speak at a Christian faculty event I had attended and was very impressed with his political knowledge so I picked up his book If It's Not Close They Can't Cheat by Hugh Hewitt. I should have known it would be a polarizing book since the subtitle is "Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It". He summarized the two political parties as being broken down into three sub-parties each.
He summarized the Democratic Party as the party of race, the party of government, and the party of license. The Republican Party was summarized as the party of faith, the party of wealth, and the party of national security. As I read, I began to see that the Republican Party best embodied my values.
I can't remember exactly what Hewitt said about the party of race within the Democratic Party, but it's rather clear that most minorities align with the Democratic Party. And I started to question the motives of Democratic leadership regarding their approach to minority voters. Quite frankly, I don't think race should enter into an individual's allegiance to political party. If we are truly going to post-racial, then voting should be color blind. And relevant to this particular election, I think that if it's racist for a white person to vote for a white candidate just because he's white, it should also be considered racist for a black candidate to vote for a black candidate just because he's black.
The party of government are those who align with the Democratic Party because they are in favor of big government. This includes Big Union. I wasn't too impressed with the negative impact of Unions. I had seen low-performing individuals in my workplace continue on year after year because their union status made it difficult to fire them. And I wasn't too impressed with the outcome of government programs. I had (and still continue) working with programs to serve the poor and I am not convinced that it is truly the poor who get served nor if it's ultimately in their best interest to be served by government programs rather than private organizations (ie church or non-profits who truly care for them). On the flip side, I had been involved in a church leadership style that operated from the bottom up, and had seen the power of releasing people to make decisions in their own sphere of influence.
The desires of the party of license within the Democratic Party were the least consistent with my values. These are the interest groups who want to promote policies that allow "license" in their lifestyles. Thus, the homosexual agenda and pro-choice movement, among others. I have no problem if people want to pursue their fleshly appetites. I mourn that they are missing out on the better life that God has for them, but I don't want those pursuits to be considered "mainstream" if they truly are not mainstream. And I don't believe that federal funding should go to organizations that allow people to pursue their appetites (ie Planned Parenthood).
The party of faith within the Republican Party is consistent with my values. I like the idea of using Biblical principles to guide legislative decisions. I don't want to impose Christianity on people, but I believe that the Creator of people has some insight on what's good for people.
The party of wealth is probably the thorn in my side regarding the Republican Party. These are those who want to limit government or lower taxes to maintain their own wealth. Although I don't agree with the bases for their policy desires, I do agree on fiscal conservatism. And I would rather support the vice of greed than I would the vice of licentious behavior, which is promoted by the Democratic Party. I hope that makes sense.
The last sub-party in the Republican Party is the party of national security. I hate war. But I think that America is far more suited to take up arms than any of the despotic regimes that dominate the rest of the world. If there has to be a world superpower, I would rather it be a democratic nation than a dictatorship any day. Although our country has messed up, we are also called upon by weaker nations. I think our system of government allows us to act more responsibly than most countries to protect our way of life.
The reason I have summarized the book and the two parties is because if Barack Obama is elected, the Democrats will lead Congress, the Senate, and the White House. And before long, the Supreme Court as well. Those aspects of the Democratic platform will move forward unchecked. So I urge you all to consider if the platforms of the Democratic Party are consistent with your values. In some sense, it doesn't matter what Barack Obama wants. If the entire government is Democratic, those are the values that will be promoted. As Hugh Hewitt writes, it's not just the candidate, but also the party he/she represents.
Wow. That was a long tangent away from my story. At any rate, the rest of the story involves my life in heavily Democrat environments and work activities and my study of conservatism through conservative blogs and political books. And the reason I mention all of this is to give a context for my support of John McCain. All of my adult life has set me up for a Democratic Party alliance, but what I have learned from reading and thinking convinces me that conservative principles allow America to be as successful as she is.
Now on to my push regarding the Presidential candidates themselves. I'll be honest here. I'm not all THAT excited about McCain. I wrote before about his optimism. I admire his service to the country and sacrifice. I agree with his desire to eliminate government waste. I do believe he has acted far more bipartisan than Obama. And he has shown wisdom. He was right on the surge and he was right on the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac meltdown.
But what gets me really pumped up about this election is my distrust of Obama. My mom summarized most of it quite well. I don't want to go into too much detail.
Sure, he has associated with controversial figures and organizations. Perhaps the associations aren't that important. But look at how Obama responds. Silence. Cover-ups. Sudden denunciations. Denials.
And look at his record on abortion. Supports partial birth abortion. Did not support offering medical assistance to infants born alive after botched abortions. But he tried to cover that up also.
But another reservation my mom didn't hit is his approach to government. Obama has made it quite clear that it is his hope that America be "fundamentally transformed" with his election. Health care, energy, education, retirement accounts, mortgages. Obama wants to take all of these things under government control. If he can't be transparent about his past, how can we trust him to be transparent on all of these areas? And if he has never actually governed, how can we trust that he can handle such a big huge bite of American pie? And are we REALLY that bad off as a nation that our system of government needs to be "fundamentally transformed"? I think we just need some fine tuning and I distrust both his motives and his abilities to carry off what may only work in theory. And on top of it, I feel ill at ease with the way he and his campaign respond to those who disagree with his policy ideas. Joe the Plumber is attacked (not just by the media, but by O himself). People who don't like the idea of higher taxes are called "selfish". Reporters endorsing McCain are asked to leave the Obama campaign plane. I am concerned that our freedoms will be limited.
Well, it's getting very, very late. And this post is very, very long. It's short on eloquence, but heartfelt. I do not think that Barack Obama and the Democrats will lead this country in a positive direction. And I hope you join me and Ian in promoting McCain to the highest post in the land.
For some final summaries, check out these articles. Far wiser and far more eloquent than me.
Ed Morrissey and the "Young Guns" - The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama
Charles Krauthammer's endorsement of John McCain
David Frum's endorsement of John McCain
Clarice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Very enlightening reading.
And I thought my last comment would indeed be my last.
By now you’ve probably figured out my identity.
Like you, I didn’t grow out caring much about politics either. In fact, I was pretty apathetic. Politics was something out there, devoid of any relevance to life in my little bubble, even in college.
My husband grew up in a low income neighborhood. His friends were very racially and culturally diverse, to say the least. His parents were immigrants, and he saw the value of hard work and sacrifice. He also grew up during the Vietnam war era and the civil rights movement. His student status enabled him to avoid being drafted. He is an ardent student of history, though he teaches the sciences.
As an educator, he encounters students from all types of backgrounds, and has grown to understand their struggles. His politics is shaped by his childhood, the turmoil in the 60’s and 70’s, his almost exhaustive study of history, knowledge of and intense interest in current events, compassion for those less fortunate, and his Christian faith.
Unlike you, he was a Republican until Kennedy. And yes, it was the idea of social justice, but he was also enamored by JFK, and the idea that he was able to keep religion out of politics, among a host of other things. My husband also crossed party lines and favored Republican presidents as well. Aside from Watergate, he admired the great statesmanship of Nixon.
Why am I talking about my husband? Because I had no convictions about politics until we’ve been married for some time, and I listen to him express his views and the whys. I don’t agree with him on every area, but enough for me to lean towards the Democratic Party and its polices, if only on the “non-moral” issues as defined by us Christians.
On Hewitt’s summary of each party:
To me big government vs. small government is a matter of ideology and approach, not black and white. From an employer’s point of view, unions could be a hindrance to productivity and profit. For the employee who would otherwise be unfairly treated and even oppressed, the union is a savior. To me the union is a necessary evil, much like lawyers. Yes, criminal lawyers who make a good defense could let a guilty person off, but if you are falsely accused, or unjustly treated, you welcome a good advocate.
Race and wealth : Most of us talk about the race issue, especially among the blacks, without any first hand experience. I think the blacks and the Japanese know what oppression is about. The Chinese have forgotten because of our current successes and prosperity, especially in California. There has to be a balanced, sensitive, and non violent approach to this issue. I don’t see all poor people as lazy and not deserving of a little help from the government. I think it benefits all of us to help people go to college, and buy a house, and find employment. Not everyone has supportive families, or families who have the means to help. I don’t agree with violent and militant tactics, but I understand where the Blacks are coming from, given the history of this people in America. I don’t see anything wrong with listening to the views of Arab Americans about the Middle East tensions. Yet those who hold to these ideas are now accused of being communist, or militant, anti-Israel, and dangerous. I deplore these tactics as much as you deplore your perceived Joe the Plumber attacks. In the end, it’s politics. Even McCain admitted that on the David Letterman show. I believe we need to work together and not be so divisive in America.
License: This is not black and white either, and I think I addressed this in earlier comments. Though the Clinton Lewinsky scandal is large and people’s reactions polarized, the Republican party is not without its scandals, so this is not a Party issue. Taken out of the national scene to how people live out their private lives, the casual view towards sexual conduct is quite independent of party affiliation.
Faith: The Republican Party is only seen as a party of faith because the majority of Christians are Republicans. But the majority of Republicans are not necessarily Christians. And there are Democrats who are Christians as well. Jimmy Carter was one president who made his personal relationship with Jesus known who was a Democrat. Seems everyone has jumped on the band wagon to ensure their speech ends with “God bless America!”
Aside from all the above, what concerns me most is the stuff out there being thrown around, especially the general attitude so easily construed as self righteousness, bigotry and lack of compassion. I am most bothered by the harm to our Christian testimony and the distraction from the main message of the gospel, perpetrated by the likes of Alan Keyes, fanned by Rush Limbaugh, who’s not even a Christian. I’ve watched some of the conservative journalists out there who behave very unprofessionally (from conservative websites!)
There’s also a tendency among Christians to want to make this culture look as Christian as possible, or else move to live somewhere that would allow them to live in moral comfort. Yes, I like comfort too! Yet I think about Jonah and why he didn’t want to go to Ninevah. I believe God wants a Christian presence in dark places, not to change the places to look Christian, but to transform hearts so there’s genuine change. I see that in how Jesus lived on earth and whom He chose to associate with. I admit don’t measure up in the way I live.
I envy how easily it is for you to decide how to vote on your values and convictions. These issues as they are played out in this society are not so black and white in my limited perception.
Post a Comment