Success in Democracy

There is something that needs to be said about the 2016 election: no matter what side you identify with the election was a huge success. America went from 8 years of one party control of the presidency to switching parties completely in one day. One day. Aside from a few violent riots this year, this is identical to how 2008 looked. And 2000. We completely changed gears in a single day and we did it peacefully.

            The rest of the world isn’t so lucky. Bashir al-Assad’s good graces with his people ran out years ago, and after repeated instances of abuse they revolted. They did not have the option to hold elections of any consequence and four years later their situation is dismal. It will take over 45 years to rebuild the infrastructure to pre-war levels. Hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced, and worse, Assad is still president, and the war is still raging.

            Iraq likely would have dumped their abusive leadership decades ago if fair elections were an option, but instead the U.S. had to oust their leader for them at great cost to ourselves and the Iraqi people, a cost that is still on-going after more than a decade of conflict and unrest.

            Libya had to revolt like Syria, although unlike Syria they ousted their leader. Kaddafi was run out of office and found a form of justice at the wrong end of a rifle, though the country still is in terrible shape years later.

            North Korea has no hope for disposing of their leader as his brutal rule keeps thousands or even hundreds of thousands starving to death in concentration camps. His grip on the throat of the country will not be loosened without extreme action of some kind, and the effects of his regime will echo for generations.

            For most of the world, these types of leadership situations are normal. Freedom House reports that 60% of the nations in the world are either “not free” or “partially” free. In the last 10 years over 100 countries have seen a net decline in their freedoms. It might be said that it is impossible for these states to see regime change in a single day, much less a peaceful one—even if another state implemented it for them.

            In January of 2017 Barack Obama will leave the White House. Donald Trump will enter office. This will all take place because of the work done by our Founders and by our officials who work to give us a government of remarkable stability. Americans will not have to take up arms to force Mr. Obama to leave. They will not need to topple the government to put Mr. Trump in office. These elected men will do it themselves in accordance with the law of the land, of their own volition, because we, the voters, simply asked them to. That’s amazing. That’s success. That’s democracy.

Write-in Throw Outs: A Conservative Christian Perspective of Third Party Votes

Often when I write, I write with a political perspective and I leave the spiritual out of it. There are a variety of reasons for this, but this is one time I’m making an exception to the rule.
    There are more than a few Christians making the argument for a third-party or write-in vote. Usually this is morally justified as being the best option and not voting for someone who they believe to be morally inferior—or by avoiding the “lesser of two evils” situation. While this sounds fine there’s a few truths that aren’t generally taken into account.
    First, we’re electing a president not a pastor as one minister put it. The leader we are electing is a secular, governmental, leader. For reasons not discussed here, God consistently differentiates between spiritual and governmental authority. (See also Uzziah).
    Additionally, Christians talk a lot about stewardship. The idea of stewardship is that one is responsible to God for the things one can control. The truth is that electing a write-in candidate or a third party candidate is not within the control of the believer. Nearly any traditional Christian would argue that Barack Obama has been a model of bad stewardship on nearly every front. The question is whether said Christians will exercise their own stewardship to oust a bad leader when God gives them the option. I argue they should.
    Given that Christians are typically more conservative, the argument is easily made that a third-party write in does not deny Barack Obama support—rather it denies him opposition. The conservative Christian vote was never for Obama, but it could be against him. Voting third party takes away that opposition, thus a conservative or libertarian write-in vote helps Barack Obama, the epitome of the very mindset conservatives and libertarians despise. Shouldn’t Christians instead oppose a leader with godless and bad stewardship habits when God gives them the legal authority to do so? Again, I argue they should.
    “Well I don’t like Mitt Romney, and I don’t like Barack either. I’m voting 3rd party to voice my discontent!” This is no doubt a tempting route for many. But the truth is that such a vote is, a) a complaint (see Phi 2:14), and b) a vote that doesn’t change anything. Christians are called to be salt and light, that is to stand against darkness and corruption. The corruption in the current administration is easily demonstrable—look no further than Libya, Solyndra, or another 50 companies that were invested in because they were pals to the president—not because they were an honest deal for American taxpayers. Again, the question is to stand against Obama's corruption or not.
    “I don’t like voting for the lesser of two evils!”
This fallacy is predicated on the assumption that the desired candidate (third party/write in) isn’t evil, when in fact, they are. Ron Paul is an evil man. So is Gary Johnson. So are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. They’re all men. To be evil is their nature aside from grace. The truth is there is no perfect candidate and to get caught up in this trap is to deny that all men are evil. No matter who runs, the choice between two humans will always come down to the lesser of two evils.
    As far as the "cause" is concerned, the libertarian cause isn’t completely justifiable biblically, and neither is the GOP cause. Their particular blindness is to suggest that America can be restored to its early 1800s greatness. But this simply isn't possible. America is a different country demographically. American is also a different country governmentally. Ronald Reagan said that government never voluntarily reduces itself. It simply grows till, like a morbidly obese person, it collapses under its own weight and ceases to move. The simple ingredients for a 1776 America are long gone. The Americans of the past wanted to build their lives from the ground up. Today, they want their lives subsidized from the top down.
    The time has come to face the facts: we’re not going back. Simply put, we can’t go back. Mitt Romney isn’t ideal, and he’s not perfect. But he isn’t Barack Obama, and he is the only alternative at this point. Talk about Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or whichever candidate all you wish but realize this: God has let only these two choices fall before us. The only question to answer is “will you stand against the corruption of Barack Obama?” If not, please don’t complain about the next four years.
    (Post-Note: The other issue with the grand “Restoration of America” is that it is ultimately is blind to the issue of Biblical prophecy. The words, “In the last days…” are rarely if ever followed by a description of humans getting more godly. The last days are not described as a time when people return to sanity and reason—rather it is a time when they depart from both. The grandiose “Restoration of America” from a libertarian standpoint is not generally preceded by the idea of revival. But unless hearts change the nation will not change. But the Bible is clear that the last days are filled with cold hearts. Cold hearts will not return to 1776, nor anytime near it. Only hearts aflame follow in the footsteps of Jonathan Edwards, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, and all the other great americans we admire. Those hearts are dying off. The good news is that they are being collected, and kept, for the Day when all things are set right. Thus we set no hope in Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson. We set hope in Christ alone, for that Day alone.)

Write it in and throw it out: Third Party Futility

-->

            As we’re down to two candidates many people aren’t happy about their two choices. Many on the right side of the aisle are writing in votes for candidates like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. They claim it’s their right, and it is. However, they usually justify it with a statement such as, “I’m voting with my conscience and with my morals. I just can’t justify voting for Mitt Romney.” But there’s another factor to consider, and possibly an untended outcome to boot.

            Any self-respecting libertarian or conservative-minded independent despises Barack Obama. Libertarians are about less government, and less heavy-authority from DC. Barack is the epitome of both—a power-wielding figure with more executive orders than the last dozen or more presidents combined. Grab any 10 people from the right side of the spectrum and while they may disagree on a plethora of issues, the one they would all unite on is this: Obama is a bad president. And all would agree that he’s got to go.

            The truth is though that when a third-party candidate gets the vote it doesn’t further the cause of firing Barack Obama. Consider this: if you are a Johnson/Paul/other fan and/or voter, you were never in the 45-49% that will almost certainly vote for Barack Obama. Obama never had your vote, and he never will – you never counted as a possibility for him. You can’t take away from him that which he never had. Your vote, and the vote of those like you never counted towards Barack’s hope of reelection. A far more conservative candidate had your vote from the word go. Which candidate is another story, but you are in the pool of voters who are right-of-center—a pool that desperate wants to stop Barack Obama.

            But a write in/third party vote takes you out of that same pool. If 52% of the nation is willing to vote GOP/right wing/conservative, any vote for a third party is to remove oneself from that 52%. In other words, you remove your support from stopping Barack Obama at a second term. You remove yourself from the pool of voters that want to stop his agenda. Your vote becomes useless, and worthless in a practical sense. Sitting out based on conscience only serves to further the agenda of the mindset you find most offensive. It’s a statement falling on deaf ears. It is to refuse to fight against the thing your conscience hates most. Refusing to fight might as well be a nod of silent assent.

            “But Romney is just Bush III!” No, no he’s not. That’s a sweeping generalization—a logical fallacy. Mitt Romney is a very different man, from a very different background. Making the case that Romney = Obama is equally an argument from ignorance. It misses the true nature of who Obama is, what he’s done, and what he will do during a second term.

            The truth is that Romney is not The Great Fixxer—he’s more like the Great Delayer of Trouble. To my libertarian friends I say this: there is no going back. America is demographically different than it was in 1776. America is governmentally different than it was in 1776. We are not the same nation. Our borders, language, and culture are not what they were—even 65 years ago much less 200 years ago. Ronald Reagan and the Second Law of Thermodynamics essentially tell us the same thing: governmental mess cannot be unmade. The government simply cannot and will not be reformed to those ancient (and appropriate) levels. But taking a stand for nothing is not the answer. Voting third party is to lodge a complaint against Mitt Romney, but then to do nothing about it. It’s a complaint that offers no answers, and no solutions. Standing with Gary Johnson or Ron Paul is not standing against Barack Obama—it’s standing against Mitt Romney. Standing against Mitt Romney is standing for the incumbent President. You aren’t denying Obama support—you are denying him opposition.

Is that really what your conscience wants?

Fight Night in Denver: Romney’s Big Chance

            One of the best quotes about Mitt Romney’s debate performance comes from Rush Limbaugh. During the GOP primaries Limbaugh said, “Mitt Romney does not win debates. He survives them.” Back during the primaries survival was good enough. Newt wowed crowds once or twice, but otherwise fell flat. Ron Paul’s disjointed rants and Rick Santorum’s obvious discomfort at the debates made for a constant “less than par” performance from these two contenders. Mitt simply had to show up, breathe air, and avoid eating his own shoes and he “won”.

            That won’t cut it two days from now in Denver. There will be no passive victories in this fight. While Rick, Ron, and Newt all died on the mat from self-inflicted blood loss Obama will do no such thing. Mitt simply remaining standing will not motivate the 15% in the middle who will swing this election one way or the other. Mitt will have to not only get on offense, but to do so with uncharacteristic aggressiveness. Obama’s overall approval is largely negative at this point, so if the middle sees someone that can and will bloody Obama in the debates they may respond very favorably to a contender with a strong voice and a definitive message.

            The DNC has outright stated that historically the challenger usually wins the first debate—possibly in an effort to do preemptive damage control for the president and bank on a weak Romney follow up debate performance. For Romney the challenge isn’t to “win” per se as a “win” may not cut it. His challenge will be to establish a pattern of effective, aggressive offense on Obama’s record, and thus generate momentum going into the next two debates. Providing Romney does his job well in the debates, Obama should be in shock by the end of the first debate, sputtering angrily at the end of the second, and dazed, punch-drunk and looking for an exit by the third. If Obama looks lost and outgunned he’ll look like a poor choice for a leader—and that’s Mitt’s goal. Unfortunately for Mitt, that kind of unprecedented result will take an unprecedented performance on his own part. Mitt has a great opportunity in Denver with the “challenger” advantage, and Obama’s record for ammo. If he fails to capitalize on this first round, the undecided may be too busy following reality TV to give Mitt another chance to make his case. He might not have enough time left to strike out and do serious damage to Obama in the eyes of the undecided voter. Mitt won the GOP primaries arguably because he was “safe” compared to his competition. But now the tables are turned, and it is Obama who is the “safe” candidate. For Mitt Romney, it is time to be dangerous. Nothing less than success will do, and if Romney fails, time, and history may not forgive him for it come November.

Is it over for Ron Paul? It should be

            Ron Paul’s luck and delegate insurgency ran out in Nebraska in the month of July. His hopes for a plurality of delegates from five states (which was needed for a shot at being nominated and a spot to address the RNC in Tampa) were dashed when Nebraska picked only two Paul delegates out of 35 total delegates being sent to the National Convention. Is it over for Ron Paul's shot at the 2012 presidency? It all depends on whom you ask, so maybe a better question to ask is, “Should it be over?” Anyone wanting to fire Mr. Obama should answer “yes”, and there are two reasons for this.

            First, the whole Paul candidacy should be over for one very simple reason: Ron Paul is not the nominee of the people. In raw votes (which is arguably the best sampling of what the public wants), Ron Paul is dead last in terms of the popular vote. Out of all the voters who could go out and vote for anyone of their choosing in the primaries, they picked Paul last. In fact, out of the 50 states, Ron Paul never carried a single one in terms of the popular vote—only in Puerto Rico did he take first place. In raw numbers, he was out voted eight to one, or 16.3 million non-RP votes to his 2 million voters. While allegations of fraud are common from Paul voters, the fact is that the 14 million "non-RP" votes are impossible to conjure out of thin air. For sake of argument saying that even half those votes are fraudulent is still to say that Paul got buried in a landslide of “non-Ron-Paul” votes. In short? It wasn’t even close. The conservative/GOP voters do not want Ron Paul as the nominee.

            Despite this, Paul has changed tactics to try and sway delegates to his side, as reported by various sources including the Washington Post. The Post reports that, “Paul supporters have been increasing his delegate totals or nominating Paul sympathizers as Romney delegates”. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow also noted that Paul delegates have been working to generate support and favor for their candidate not among voters, but amongst their fellow delegates. This is possibly the most disgusting act of misconduct on the part of any candidate’s supporters. Dictionary.com defines a delegate as, “a person designated to act for or represent another or others; deputy; representative, as in a political convention.” Thus, a delegate is called to represent the will of the people above all other interests. What is the will of the people? See the previous paragraph. Eight-to-one against Ron Paul is the way the people should be represented by their delegates. Not only are the pro-Paul delegates ignoring the total votes of the public, but they would also be forcing the will of the minority onto the voting majority by nominating Paul.

            The second reason that it should be over for Ron Paul is the very reason that Rachel Maddow is so enthralled with his run: a split conservative vote. Ron Paul’s continued candidacy does not bring the country closer to firing Barack Obama. If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate the sad truth is that Obama would get the upper hand in November’s elections. It’s simple mathematics really. Pretend there’s a pie and whoever walks away with the biggest piece wins. Barack Obama is going to take at least 45%—just under half—of said pie. This means that Obama is beatable—but only if the “Voter Pie” isn’t getting split three ways.

            Even Paul's own words have assured his loss in a general election. All Mitt and/or Barack have to do in the first debate is ask Ron why he thinks Reagan was a lousy president, and why he supports legalized heroin and prostitution (his words). His stances on these subjects will never endear him to conservatives, traditional values voters, and anti-drug voters--all of which he would need to win against both Mitt and Barack.

(For a final coupe de grace on why Paul is unelectable as president, see this top 12 list that would sink him: http://www.rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/why-ron-paul-can-never-be-president-in-12-quotes/ Also, trust that the liberal media machine would run these on a loop till everyone in the nation thinks he’s a complete kook.)

            All this isn’t to say that Mitt Romney is the conservative standard by which the future of the country will be redeemed. It is to say that if the country wants to send Barack Obama in to the realm of the unemployed, that Ron Paul is not, and cannot be the man to lead the charge in the November elections.

            There is no shame in a good race ending in defeat. There is shame in meddling to one's own hurt and to the hurt of the nation. If Ron Paul really is the “man of the people” and “champion of the constitution” that he proclaims himself to be then he should honor the system set in place by the people. But if he pursues delusions of grandeur as the dark-horse wild card 3^rd party, Ron Paul’s actions will ultimately set Barack Obama squarely on a path to the White House for a second term. Obama may be losing steam, but underestimating the sheer amount of Obama’s support (and overestimating his own support) would be a costly mistake for Ron Paul to make—and the country itself would foot the bill for it.

Savior

Amongst the thronging crowds, the parades, the endless inaugural balls, the speeches, poems, and millions of spectators, I think the masses have forgotten something.
Something painfully poignant and obvious in the photograph. Something that we all know, yet it would seem fewer and fewer people actually believe it. The reality?
Barack Hussein Obama is a man. A speck of existance on a planet with 7 billion specks of existance. Nothing more. His power ends at the rule of law. It is quite possible there is nothing to be done for the economy. It is possible that again we will again be attacked by terrorists, and with greater force and magnitude than we have seen before. It is possible for fires, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes to rip the country with in every corner of it's borders. Calamity may come upon us, through no fault of our own.
Yet somehow, we have convinced ourselves that one man can save us from these things. It is eerie looking at these pictures and films of the inauguration. People gathered, singing, dancing, cheering, screaming, and erupting in joy and ecstasy. People lifting their hands and shouting. It looks like a pentecostal church service on a mass scale of political exuberance. Why? Because of one man's rise to power. No other reason.
Obama is a man, nothing more. What is unbelievable is the expectation placed upon him by the people of this country. People loved to hate President Bush for Katrina, Iraq, and many other events and decisions of the past, some of which were beyond his control. But what about the future? What if future disaster awaits? What if the economy cannot recover? What if we are attacked again? What if more hurricanes and other natural disasters ravage our cities and our people? Barack Hussein Obama cannot stand in the way of these things any more than President Bush or the other 42 presidents of our history could.
Looking at these pictures, seeing these films, hearing the songs, watching the audulation, praise, and and excitement it is not hard to see that the masses have elevated this man to something he is not and never will be. And if the events of the future tear at the illusion we have fostered, then will we understand? If hurricanes, riots, fires, wars, and soup lines are in our future than there is little Barack Hussein Obama can do to stop them.
When these things come about, who then will we turn to as our Savior?