Monday, November 05, 2012

Don’t Stay Home, And Don’t Vote For A Third Party Candidate

The election coming up tomorrow is important. We’ve written a lot about it here, and we’ve said a lot about other elections involving similar issues. Anybody interested can search the archives.

For those who don’t think there’s any significant difference between the two major parties or their candidates this year, see my post here from the 2008 election cycle. It’s about the significance of the differences between McCain and Obama, but it’s largely applicable to this year’s candidates as well. See here for my explanation of why people should vote for Romney even if they live in states where the polling numbers aren’t close. Regarding voting for a third party candidate, see the comments section of the thread here.

People often single out an issue like Romney’s Mormonism or his non-conservative past. Among other factors we should take into account, it’s important to remember that not all aspects of a candidate or his platform will have the same impact if that candidate is elected. For example, our society and our presidency have become so secularized and so religiously pluralized that a Mormon president probably won’t influence many people toward Mormonism. By contrast, a president’s pro-choice stance on abortion will have far more of an impact, since a president does have a lot of influence in that context in our society. Contrast Romney’s lack of promotion of Mormonism when he was governor of Massachusetts and Obama’s promotion of the pro-choice position as president, for example. Or when it comes to Romney’s non-conservative past, ask yourself how much he’ll return to that non-conservative approach once he’s reached the highest office while running as a conservative, when he’s surrounded with conservatives like Paul Ryan and Robert Bork, etc. Some of the problems with Romney that people often bring up are problems that are unlikely to amount to much in the particular context that’s before us in this election. Yes, his Mormonism and his non-conservative past are problems and will have some negative effect if he’s elected. But those problems are far outweighed by other problems involved in voting for Obama, voting for a third party candidate, or not voting.

I don’t study politics nearly as much as I study other subjects, like the ones I usually write about here. I’ve been wrong about some past elections, and I could be wrong about this one without much difficulty. But it looks to me like Romney will win. My expectations are close to what Josh Jordan just posted at National Review. The general atmosphere of the election, the enthusiasm advantage the polls have shown for Republicans, the early voting results, the likely split of the undecided voters, and other factors lead me to believe that Romney will win. But I don’t agree with all of Jordan’s analysis of the states. I doubt Romney will win Wisconsin. Of the nine battleground states most often discussed these days, I expect Romney to win four of them: Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire.

As I’ve said before, I think the American people deserve to be rebuked, no matter who wins. The election shouldn’t have been so close, even if Romney does come out ahead. After Obama’s horrible record not only on social issues, but also on the economy and some foreign policy matters, nearly half the people voting want him reelected. That’s pathetic. We’ve been told for years that the economy is what most concerns the majority of voters. I suspect that issues like race, a desire to have more access to abortion, bitterness toward the wealthy, and a desire for more government money are more influential than some people suggest. Even if a president has as bad of an economic record as Obama has, a large portion of the electorate will accept that bad economic record in exchange for more government money, more access to abortion, and other perceived benefits.

5 comments:

  1. Jason,
    I agree with you on several points. I’m ok with voting for the lesser of two evils, however, I don’t believe Romney is antiabortion. I can understand folks voting for him because Obama is a rabid pro baby killer. Abortion isn’t part of Romney’s platform. He gave lip service to some of his base regarding defunding Planned Parenthood…now that it’s closer to crunch time, he has said “There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”

    The way that is phrased is peculiar. On the one hand, I guess abortion advocates can feel relief at that prospect…on the other hand, pro-lifers might think “hey, we need to come up with something Romney can get behind, then he’ll lend us support!”

    Abortion is not on his radar beyond appeasing enough people to get more votes. If Romney is presented an opportunity to oppose abortion in a substantial way, he won’t do it. Romney is not a viable option. Not because he can’t win, but because he won’t do anything that could get himself messy.

    I’m really trying to come up with a reason to vote for Romney. Maybe his VP, Paul Ryan, is a good enough reason? I’m open to that, except he seems to be falling in line with Romney for the greater “good” of not opposing the slaughter of the unborn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Craig,

      Go to the pages I linked above, especially my post on the differences between McCain and Obama. Much the same can be said of the differences between Romney and Obama.

      Read what pro-life groups and others who have endorsed Romney have said about him. They give examples of how he would be significantly better than Obama on abortion and other issues.

      You tell us, “If Romney is presented an opportunity to oppose abortion in a substantial way, he won’t do it.” But the other comments you make don’t logically lead us to that conclusion. It’s just an assertion that you haven’t sufficiently supported. In some contexts, Romney will have to make a choice related to abortion, regardless of whether he wants to (e.g., appointing judges). And we shouldn’t just look at what Romney would do. We should also look at what he wouldn’t do. He probably wouldn’t promote the pro-choice movement in a way comparable to or worse than what Obama does. Furthermore, though you mention Paul Ryan, he isn’t the only pro-life person who’s close to Romney. There are other pro-life people surrounding Romney’s campaign, and he would be working with largely pro-life Republican allies in Congress.

      Aside from their differences on abortion, Romney and Obama differ significantly on marriage, fiscal issues, judges, etc. Romney is significantly better than Obama, and it isn’t difficult to make that judgment. And I don’t see how it would make sense to stay home or vote for a third party candidate, for reasons like the ones laid out in the posts I’ve linked above.

      Polls show a close election. There are millions of Evangelicals in this nation. I hope Evangelicals who are hesitant about supporting Romney, as well as others who are hesitant about supporting him, will reconsider things, vote for Romney tomorrow, and try to get as many other people as they can to do the same. Romney would be significantly flawed as president. But he would also be significantly better than Obama.

      Delete
  2. I agree with your analysis - I hope that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics and conservative Jews and independents who care about the economy, freedom of speech, the debt/deficit, security, etc. will vote for Romney, who overall, appears to be a much better candidate on the moral and economic and defense/security issues. Although Romney seemed liberal on abortion and homosexuality in the past; he seems to have become more conservative in this election. I hope he means it. Obama has been clear in his support for abortion, homosexuality, and lots of other unwise policies in economics and security (Benghazi gate, unwilling to call Islamic terrorism what it is - Islamic. )

    Repeal of ObamaCare is crucial. Freedom of speech and religion are imperative.

    Then we can continue to witness and debate against the false religions of Mormonism and RC and liberal "Christianity" (J. Greshem Machen).

    ReplyDelete
  3. "As I’ve said before, I think the American people deserve to be rebuked, no matter who wins."

    Prideful, foolish people don't like to be rebuked, even if they deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Suppose some get their wish, and score with the R&R ticket...

    And four years from now, RombamaCare is still the law of the land, economically the country is in shambles, the Constitution in shreds...

    (can't happen? well, not unless it does; if others guess right, what does that mean?)

    I predict the lynching of those who refused to pimp the ticket in this election--because "obviously" the resulting ruin is their fault.

    Hell hath no fury than the sight of someone who's supposed to be wrong.

    ReplyDelete