11.02.2007

A Response

Glenn, a friend from the Charlottesville days, has responded to my previous post on a political blog: http://goodwillhinton.com/must_american_citizens_accept_the_status_quo_when_voting


and because I have a hard time leaving a friendly fight, I thought I'd respond to his comments...

__________________________________

I agree with you on two points, Glenn. First, I do not think that a single individual can "ruin" our great nation. And like you (and distinct from other Christians, I might add), I am quite optimistic about the future and truly believe that God is reigning and in control. But I digress...Clinton, for example, did not ruin the country. In fact, a couple of good things occurred during his time in office - the Defense of Marriage Act and the 1996 Welfare Reform Act immediately come to mind. HOWEVER, taxes were extremely high (my parents with 6 children living at home on >50K/year had to make monthly payments to the IRS, payments which could have instead been used to help me pay for college or the occasional family vacation) and Clinton did take some shots at home schoolers and the right to home school in general...in addition to sickening me and many others with his personal escapades, not to mention lying to the entire world...

Secondly, I agree with your assessment of the cycles of national politics and it is for this reason that I, until the past few months when Hilary really started pushing ahead in the polls, fully expected and had come to terms with the fact that a Democrat would be elected in '08 as I can certainly understand and in some instances agree with, the country's general level of frustration with the Bush administration.

But my agreement with these two points not change the fact that I do NOT want to pay extremely high taxes to a federal government that does not use my funds for causes in which I believe or support; I don't want an already big government to become even bigger; I don’t want socialized medicine (I’ve had way too much exposure to military medicine!); I don't want liberal activist judges appointed to the Supreme Court; I don't want marriage to be redefined. But even more than that, I do not want Hilary to be my president. While Barack Obama or John Edwards would obviously not be my first choice, I am bitterly opposed to the election of HRC to the White House. First and foremost, she is a socialist and while I agree that she cannot single-handedly turn us into a Socialist nation, I am very uncomfortable with and disturbed by her stance on virtually every issue of substance and her assessment of which issues are THE most important (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/10reasons/?sc=8). I also think she lacks the experience and finesse required to run the most powerful nation in the free world and would be somewhat afraid for our national safety under her administration (not deathly afraid, stockpiling-weapons-and-canned goods-afraid, but still slightly unnerved and on edge about the possibility of future terrorist attacks). And lastly, I do not want her to make history by being the first woman elected as president of the United States. As an American—and Christian—woman, I do not want in ANY WAY to be associated with or defined by her personally, professionally or politically. She is not the wife, mother, friend, business woman or politician that I’d want to be and I think that many American women would agree with me. Any woman who would “stand by her man” as Hilary has is not a tolerant and forgiving wife but is instead an insecure and desperate ladder-climber, willing to sacrifice her self-respect and dignity for the privileges afforded by her last name and marital status. In the “real” world, women who stay with their husbands for their handsome faces or large paychecks are considered fools and I simply will never understand why the feminists of this country have adopted her as their role model. If anything, she represents everything we competent, confident and capable women should detest and seek to avoid.
So it is my intense opposition to Hilary that has inspired me to rally behind an electable candidate. And while there is no mandate, moral or otherwise, to support a 2-party system, it is my personal opinion (note: I did not say “educated opinion”) that voting for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote and does not contribute overall to the popular election of a new president. I have made the choice to vote against what I consider a “greater evil” (for lack of a better term) and to throw my support and vote behind the reasonable candidate with whom I have the most in common.

Coming soon: a fluffy post with pictures of my recent sewing projects. :)

4 comments:

Marlo said...

I really like reading your thoughts about all of this. I actually think we'd be safer from terrorist attacks with Hillary in office, but not safer in a good way. The world would not be safer, but U.S. would be...b/c I think she would just pacify the evildoers and give them what they'd want. And you are spot on about the taxes. I don't think I could even attempt to own a small business with a Democrat in power.

Jill said...

Glenn, I disagree that much good could come from a HRC presidency. While the ultimate effect may be to rally conservatives, her damange would be irreversible, esp in the way of increased social programs and higher taxes. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ROLL BACK ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS ONCE THEY ARE IN PLACE. THIS IS JUST A FACT.

As for 3rd parties, I agree that these are a good thing but only insofar as they offer a real alternative to the other 2. H. Ross Perot was not a real alternative to WJC or GHWB. Nor would a "Christian right" candidate be a real alternative to the Republican nominee--esp when considering the constraints they would face once in office. A Socialist Party candidate or Libertarian Party candidate: there is some value added with these candidates if the true purpose is to give people a "choice."

somasoul said...

I couldn't disagree more with the voting for the "lesser of two evil" thought process that invades American's minds. If Americans just voted for who they wanted they'd get what they want. Instead we have a GOP that says they want lower taxes, illegal abortion, a sensible foreign policy, etc, etc but we get the opposite.

It's about time the religious right starts voting for the religious.......not just the right.

Christians today seem to love the GOP more than God. No wonder Christians are largly ignored.

Glenn said...

Jill,

Sorry for the delay. I've been out of the country and without internet access. I'm about to interact with several of your statements, using questions. Past experience in the blog world (and in the email world) that if I don't preface this comment, my words of scrutiny & question will likely take on a tone of contentiousness. Please know that I am asking questions in a de-escalated, as I would if I were hanging out with you and Josh. Not only do I have great regard for your intellect and years of study, but also I don't see my perspective as "final". So, what follows is good-willed dialogue, not self-righteous arguing.
--- --- ---

You write, "Glenn, I disagree that much good could come from a HRC presidency."

With whom are you disagreeing? Surely not me. This is what I wrote,

I can see that Emily's conservative readers would dislike the policies likely to be enacted by HRC and a Democrat House and Senate-- taxes will likely go up, policies flowing from the Executive Branch related to social issues will be executed differently than under a social conservative President. But will the changes likely to happen after January 20, 2009 ruin the country? Propel us into ACTUAL socialism? Not likely.

So, would things be worse for conservatives under an HRC administration? Most likely. But would the country experience disaster? Not likely. Rather, through the ebb and flow of various political movements, the United States will continue to flourish.


What in that excerpt, or in the larger blog post, affirms that an HRC presidency would be good for the country? Saying that the country will not experience ruination (a negative claim) is a far cry from saying that an HRC presidency would be a good thing (a positive claim). It would be odd for me to have affirmed that an HRC presidency would be a good thing in as much as I don't believe it would be good.

You write, "THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ROLL BACK ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS ONCE THEY ARE IN PLACE. THIS IS JUST A FACT." The issue may be what you mean by "roll back," but wasn't the 1996 Welfare Reform a rolling back (as in diminishment) of welfare entitlements? But perhaps you mean "roll back" as in a 100% elimination.

How do you define "alternative" when it comes to a candidate? I met Perot supporters who passionately believed Perot to be an alternative? By what standard are you measuring what constitutes an alternative? Isn't this significantly subjective-- akin to beauty being in the eyes of a beholder?