I have been assured that I must, in all good conscience, vote for Mitt Romney for president in November. Why? Well, if I don't, it's essentially a vote for Obama who is very bad for the nation. The standard term being bantied about is "lesser of two evils" or some such. And people are outraged that anyone who is not in favor of reelecting President Obama might consider not voting for Romney. Silly considerations like "But ... what about my principles?" and the like are out the window. "Get on board the train. We need to remove Obama from office, even if it means putting in a flip-flop like Romney."
Excuse me! (Hand raised.) I have a question. Excuse me? No, no, I'm not asking to be excused to go to the restroom. I have a question about this issue.
What bridge is "too far"? What line cannot be crossed? Given that Candidate A is "bad for the country" and admitting that Candidate B is also "bad for the country" but "just not as bad", is that the standard by which we choose? Or are there principles in play? If Candidate A is pro-abortion and Candidate B is not pro-life, is that an issue? If Candidate A favors socialism and Candidate B does not ... as much ... is that an issue? What principles determine the point at which both candidates are disqualified in your mind? Or is the only possible underlying principle from which to choose "the lesser of two evils"?
At some point I run into a problem. I have certain principles, certain values, certain important points on which I have to stand. Now, I can choose to violate those principles, compromise those values, or surrender my stand on those points, but is that wise? I've been told, "It's politics; it's not about you." Really? So principles, values, and important issues don't matter as long as it's politics? The truth is that I am facing the very real probability that "evil", "greater" or "lesser", will be my next president. Is it in my best interest or in the best interest of my God to compromise values and principles in order to make that evil "lesser" rather than "greater"? At some point the price of compromise is too high. At some point, approving a "lesser evil" will be greater evil for me. At what point does that occur?
14 comments:
You may have covered this already, but I have to ask:
-What problems do you have with Romney that you wouldn't vote for him (and thereby, by your lack of voting give the "worse of two evils" a second term)?
-Perhaps you have no problem with Romney and are merely commenting on the concept of voting for the lesser of two evils?
-How close to your principles must a candidate be in order to have your vote given how hard it is to get a candidate that is a perfect choice?
I'm not a huge fan of Romney myself, having the feeling that he is too ready to flip on a position. But I also prefer to think of the vote as the best choice available to me. What's more, I can't help but think that if a known quantity like Obama is re-elected, and I did nothing to help prevent it, then I am complicit in allowing the "worse of two evils" to triumph and cause further harm to the nation.
Finally, I don't really see Romney as one who will do much harm, particularly if the we can get more conservatives in both Houses to balance out any missteps.
Every candidate we've had for decades have been bad for the country - so have you then never voted?
When you stuck with choice A or Choice B, there is only one way to prevent the worst one from being elected.
I guess the biggest problem I see is that those who don't want to vote for Romney are that way because he is a Mormon, as if a Mormon will do untold damage to this country which a marxist-socialist unbeliever won't do.
We have a duty as citizens of this country (we are citizens of heaven first, yes) to do what is best for the country, and every election is really choosing the lesser of two evils.
I find it amusing that so many Christians wouldn't vote for a Mormon but will not hesitate to vote for a Roman Catholic, yet both beliefs are heresies, both beliefs are of works-based salvation, etc. And all the other nominal "Christian" presidents we've had certainly have not obeyed God's laws with their political decisions.
If Romney being a Mormon doesn't bother you, then why else can anyone rationally say that we should let Obama retain office because voting for Romney would be a violation of conscience?
Actually, to both of you, my biggest problem with Romney is that he is not pro-life. This is fundamental to me. The primary function of government is to protect life. Neither of the candidates wish to do so.
Second, I don't -- cannot -- know where Romney stands ... on just about anything that matters to me. He spawned Obamacare with his Massachusetts healthcare and now is not in favor of it? He favors and opposes abortion. He's a political insider and outsider. He's in touch with and completely out of touch with the people. His biggest claim to fame is that he knows how to change his opinion with the tide.
To Glenn, I've voted in the past (obviously). I frankly haven't seen this dismal set of options ... ever. Even McCain was better. Still, last election I voted for McCain for the reasons you are all telling me I need to throw out all my principles and VOTE OUT OBAMA, and it felt wrong. It violated my own principles. (And, as it turned out, it didn't matter.) Oh, and I don't care that Romney is a Mormon. I'm not looking for a pastor; I'm electing a president.
Believe me, Stan, I feel ya. But there is still one thing that IS obvious and that is you KNOW where Obama stands on the very same issues that bother you. Thus, to allow his re-election will confirm more of the same. I agree that Romney leaves MUCH to be desired. This is why I think the focus of people like us should be on the Congressional and Senate races. To gain more seats in each House AND remove Obama will be a net gain to the extent of which will be more pleasing than simply removing Obama with no other change. I think Romney will lead as a conservative with the force of conservative majorities (or even near majorities) to keep him "honest".
Here's where I'm doing absolute wagering: As I've always felt there was no doubt about Obama having the absolute worst beliefs about the social issues, I believe Romney is a "closet" conservative on those, having waffled in the past where lefty pressure (Massachusetts) somewhat forced his hand. With no such pressures, or such being mitigated by greater conservative presence in Congress, the "real" Romney will show himself to be on the proper side of these issues. Again, I'm wagering here. A not incredibly large amount of cash.
I have to agree with Marshall 100%!
How sure are you that God is against universal healthcare?
I'm just asking because I am almost positive that God would be in favor of universal health care. That is, if I had to bet my life on which of the following God would consider the lesser of two evils: A) letting countless Americans die of curable diseases in order to preserve the wealth of the very wealthy, or B) taking a very small percentage of wealth from the very wealthy in order to save those lives.....I would pick option B).
How about you?
It would appear that your position is that God is opposed to wealth, that God is very concerned about health, and apparently that there's not a whole lot He can do about that.
Further, I'm fascinated by this notion that we are "letting countless Americans die of curable diseases in order to preserve the wealth of the very wealthy." That's the sole motivation? Interesting.
I am also keenly aware that you're unclear on the concept. It is not "a small percentage of wealth from the very wealthy". Indeed, my insurance went up 4% last year when the healthcare bill passed because the healthcare bill passed. And I'm not wealthy. Nor could "a small percentage of the wealth from the very wealthy" pay for it all. It is significantly more expensive than that. It would be a percentage (Small? I don't know.) from everyone.
But it's still the fundamental position that you hold that I question. God blesses obedience, not coercion. He favors those who give, not those from whom it is taken. And if God's primary concern was the health of His creatures, He has the capacity to do something about it. To me the question is wrong-headed.
And at the end of it all, I can't find a single place where I suggested God's opinion on the matter. In my comments I meantioned that Romney created a universal healthcare plan in Massachusetts, but didn't indicate whether or not I liked it. I simply said that he once favored it and now he doesn't and was saying that I don't know where he stands. I'm not suggesting that I know God's view on the subject.
Golden Rule:
The problem is that the “universal health care” isn’t universal and it isn’t health care. It is forced insurance coverage. It requires contraceptives to be covered (that’s health care?!?), and will require abortions to be covered when all is said and done. It requires insurance carriers to allow adults to remain on their parent’s insurance rather than selling those adults their own policy, thereby forcing the insurance company to lose money or raise rates. The “health care law” will determine whether you are worthy of being provided health care as you age. It requires our taxes to pay for people who enter the U.S. illegally just to get benefits. and on and on. It is theft from insurance companies and theft from taxpayers as a minimum - and God certainly is not for the idea of theft.
BTW, I am pro-life, just as you say you are. My position is that God is opposed to extreme wealth in the hands of a few IF that wealth could be otherwise used to save the lives of His children, with little inconvenience to those from whom it is taken. (Being able to buy 'only' 2 mansions instead of 3 is hardly even a "little inconvenience" in the grand scheme of things).
And regarding your statement that "God would do something about it if He didn't like it", I don't think we have to look very far to see that it's definitely NOT the case. That would be like saying every murder or rape that ever occurred was with God's approval, or God wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, we could go on and on. In fact, based on your views, abortion and homosexuality would never be issues since God would prevent them because (according to you) He disapproves of them.
You say that God blesses obedience rather than coercion, and I certainly agree, but I also think the implication of that statement is quite idealistic. In other words, people often won't do the right thing unless they have to, whether we are talking about wealth or anything else. Of course, it would be great if people were generous with their wealth on their own and coercion wasn't necessary at all, but this is clearly a fantasy. America certainly has the resources to provide health care to all who need it, but millions of Americans die of curable diseases because the cost of providing health care to them is perceived to be too high. Yet those who virulently oppose universal health care tend to be proponents of tax cuts for those with millions or billions in their bank accounts. So it boils down to a question of priorities: do we allow people to die of curable diseases in order to preserve the "free-will" of those who refuse to part with their excess wealth, or do we confiscate some of that wealth in order to save those lives? Note that I mention the "wealthy" because they generally have the least to gain and the most to lose from a universal health care plan, and therefore they naturally tend to voice the strongest opposition to this concept. Although I'm not wealthy, as someone who has always had health insurance, I realize that I personally have little to gain and possibly more to lose from a universal health care plan. But in keeping with my pro-life beliefs, I must favor universal health care, even if it means my insurance will go up.
The Golden Rule: "regarding your statement that "God would do something about it if He didn't like it", I don't think we have to look very far to see that it's definitely NOT the case."
Ah, I see. You have a radically different God than I do. That clears up that question. See, for instance, the first I did recently in a series on God's Sovereignty and, in an amazingly timely "coincidence", today's entry on Does God Do Bad Things?. The God I worship does indeed manage all that occurs, will not allow that which He isn't willing to have happen, can and does do what He intends, and is not held hostage by His creation. Now, this isn't an argument on the topic at hand. I'm just pointing out a vast difference in our two perspectives. Since we have two radically different views of who God is, it is unavoidable that we would have two radically different views on what He wants.
Now, given your certainty that humans won't obey and wealthy people in particular won't give to cure all diseases and your belief that universal healthcare is God's will, it would be right, from your perspective, to coerce by force of law those with money to surrender what you deem necessary to tend to the sick. That would be right and good -- indeed, God's will. And if Glenn (just to pull a name out of a hat) determined that "right and good" was to require that all homosexuals be executed and had the ability to carry it out by force of law as you would with your healthcare initiative, why would he be evil but you good? At what point does his coercion stop being "right and good" and yours does not? And in Glenn's comment (I chose his name simply because he just commented, not because he would favor such an imaginary initiative) he points out that this "universal healthcare" plan would universally require that I pay for murdering children. How would you stop that when you coerce the wealthy to pay for healthcare?
Saying, "Society needs x and we need to take steps to provide it" is one thing. Saying, "God wants us to do x and we need to coerce people to obey" is not the same thing. Your approach -- God favors healthcare -- puts you in a different category than Obama and the like who think it would be a good thing. Oh, and the idea that a few wealthy folks must surrender a mansion in order to pay for this plan is naive in the extreme. Those "few wealthy folks" will expand to "anyone over the age of 18" and "anyone making an income". Indeed, one of the provisions of the healthcare law requires people who don't have healthcare to buy insurance. Income is not a criterion. You talk of it likes it's a "wealthy versus poor" thing. It's not. Everyone pays.
OK, we can all get back to the health care debate very soon. But I just want to clear up something regarding your statement that anything that happens is with God's approval.
Perhaps I'm missing a fundamental part of your theory, but doesn't it follow from your theory that we should stop consciously trying to "do 'good' things" and "avoid/prevent 'bad' things", because some of those 'bad' things are actually what God wants to happen? Indeed, the question of how we know what we should and shouldn't do at a given time then arises, but it is still clear that we shouldn't ALWAYS try to strive for "good" things or to fight "bad" things, because we may be counteracting God's will in the process, correct?
Simple question to try to answer your question. Is it your contention that God is not Sovereign? Is it your belief that He is more or less along for the ride, trying to pick up the pieces after humans do bad things, trying to patch things back together in order to make some sense out of it? Is it your belief that it is nonsensical to think that God could actually work all things together for good since Man is constantly and continuously doing things that God never planned for? Would you argue that God does not work all things after the counsel of His will?
(Or, perhaps a better question, have you read anything I've written in the last week on the Sovereignty of God? You can, you know. You can just click on the "Sovereignty of God" topic and look at what I've written recently. It should answer your questions.)
It is my belief, and firmly so, God does NOT approve of evil things that go on in this world, nor does he approve or allow it to happen. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, He did not abandon the world and mankind, they abandoned Him!
This is the world of Satan for now, it became so in the Garden of Evil. We must walk hand in hand with God daily and believe in the life, death and resurection of His Son if we are to have any hope of eternal life with Him.
If not so, what is the purpose of coming back to establish His Kingdom here?
Dannyboy53: "It is my belief, and firmly so, God does NOT approve of evil things that go on in this world, nor does he approve or allow it to happen."
Given that God does not "allow [evil things] to happen", and given that they obviously do, we're left with only one possible solution. It's Satan's world, driven by humans. God is not Sovereign, all things do not work together for good, and God does not work all things after the counsel of His will. On the other hand, if we believe and work really hard we can accomplish salvation from this world.
As always, you're perfectly free to hold your view. And, in fact, I wouldn't doubt that there are more that hold your view than mine. There are clearly more that hold a non-biblical view than a biblical view. And mine is the biblical view, my God is the biblical God, and my "salvation by faith, not by works" is the biblical salvation. By that I mean that all of my views on this are taken straight from Scripture, not philosophy, human logic, or how I feel about it. If you need, I'd be more than happy to enumerate the biblical sources.
No, it's not the popular perspective. No, it's certainly not the easiest to grasp. But, then, can the finite ever fully grasp the infinite?
You go with your limited and failing God. I'll stick with mine, thanks.
Post a Comment