2. I can't vote for Romney because he's neither Reagan nor Ron Paul.
This one comes up a lot in a lot of different forms. What's funny about this argument is that it depends on a kind of logic which the argumenter usually says he rejects. See: this person can't vote for Romney just because he's "Not Obama". Somehow, it's not enough that Mitt Romney is "not" anything like President Obama -- he needs to have some specific merits other than being "not the incumbent" to get this informed voter's vote.
But this person could vote for Reagan -- if he were alive and not ravaged by demetia. This person could vote for Ron Paul -- if he were alive and not ravaged by dementia and he had ever won the nomination by a national political party. See: things like the actual qualifications of Mitt Romney get utterly lost on people consumed with their own fantasy politics team. In their world, they have drafted Reagan, Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, Rushdooney, Captain America and Abe Lincoln to their fantasy league roster, and they are thereafter absorbed by debates which are the adult equivalent of, "who would win in a fight -- Spiderman or Daredevil?"
The sad fact is that you can only vote for the people actually in the election. Let me rephrase that: you can write in anything you want, -- that's your legal right -- but when you are trying to take the moral high ground, you have to do more than look down your nose at people who are voting for the actual candidates rather than using the equivalent of Foxe's Book of Martyrs as the guideline for those who are sufficiently sanctified and glorified to take the oath of office.
You also have to take into consideration the role of your vote. Voting in the primaries is not the same as voting for the actual office. As I have said before, when you are voting in primaries or run-offs, you should vote as extremely as you think is necessary or possible -- and you should vote for a person actually in the run-off. You should drive the candidate selection process to the point on the political spectrum which you stand on with this simple understanding: whoever is elected is going to fail to get everything he sets out to do, and you want the person in the office to fail as close as possible to your position. Using that exact same logic -- morally, mathematically, practically, intellectually -- casting a vote for someone who is not even a choice for even 30% of the precincts voting does not drive the process to your end of the spectrum: it enables the party/candidate with the plurality-winning minority to win.
Last, but not least, let's remember that you are not voting for National Pastor: you are voting for the man who will set the executive priorities for the secular government. You cannot find a man qualified to be a pastor who is qualified for that job -- except Jesus, and he is neither running for office, nor is he in need of your vote to be King of Kings. If you make this choice as if you were conducting a pastoral search, you will not only be disappointed, I promise you: you will be deceived.
This one comes up a lot in a lot of different forms. What's funny about this argument is that it depends on a kind of logic which the argumenter usually says he rejects. See: this person can't vote for Romney just because he's "Not Obama". Somehow, it's not enough that Mitt Romney is "not" anything like President Obama -- he needs to have some specific merits other than being "not the incumbent" to get this informed voter's vote.
But this person could vote for Reagan -- if he were alive and not ravaged by demetia. This person could vote for Ron Paul -- if he were alive and not ravaged by dementia and he had ever won the nomination by a national political party. See: things like the actual qualifications of Mitt Romney get utterly lost on people consumed with their own fantasy politics team. In their world, they have drafted Reagan, Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, Rushdooney, Captain America and Abe Lincoln to their fantasy league roster, and they are thereafter absorbed by debates which are the adult equivalent of, "who would win in a fight -- Spiderman or Daredevil?"
The sad fact is that you can only vote for the people actually in the election. Let me rephrase that: you can write in anything you want, -- that's your legal right -- but when you are trying to take the moral high ground, you have to do more than look down your nose at people who are voting for the actual candidates rather than using the equivalent of Foxe's Book of Martyrs as the guideline for those who are sufficiently sanctified and glorified to take the oath of office.
You also have to take into consideration the role of your vote. Voting in the primaries is not the same as voting for the actual office. As I have said before, when you are voting in primaries or run-offs, you should vote as extremely as you think is necessary or possible -- and you should vote for a person actually in the run-off. You should drive the candidate selection process to the point on the political spectrum which you stand on with this simple understanding: whoever is elected is going to fail to get everything he sets out to do, and you want the person in the office to fail as close as possible to your position. Using that exact same logic -- morally, mathematically, practically, intellectually -- casting a vote for someone who is not even a choice for even 30% of the precincts voting does not drive the process to your end of the spectrum: it enables the party/candidate with the plurality-winning minority to win.
Last, but not least, let's remember that you are not voting for National Pastor: you are voting for the man who will set the executive priorities for the secular government. You cannot find a man qualified to be a pastor who is qualified for that job -- except Jesus, and he is neither running for office, nor is he in need of your vote to be King of Kings. If you make this choice as if you were conducting a pastoral search, you will not only be disappointed, I promise you: you will be deceived.
10 comments:
My favorite of the series. We all (well, all of us who are paying attention) have our dream political ticket, but 'our guys' didn't get called up to play in this game. Our guys can't win, but we can lose. Taking our ball and going home is a sure-fire way to do just that.
Also, it would be Spider-Man that won, but I would want it to be Daredevil.
I agree, this is the best of the six - although they are all doggone good!!
I love this line:
This person could vote for Ron Paul -- if he were alive and not ravaged by dementia and he had ever won the nomination by a national political party .
LOL - exactly!!
With apologies to Dr. Paul, the facts may actually turn out that he is sane but his cult-like followers are all ravaged by dementia. However, a decent turn of phrase is what it is.
If I can quietly interject something, I don't despise or disdain ("look down my nose") at people who are voting for Romney. There are very good friends of mine who are doing so, and lots of honest, decent people all over the country who are doing so.
However, a different friend who had decided not to vote for Romney was viciously regaled by a fellow Christian for being evil, stupid, every insult in the book.
I think people on both sides of this debate need to realize that there are good Christians who simply disagree on this issue, and that doesn't make them any less faithful Christians.
Ah yes, the "there are good Christians who" line trumps facts, logic, reason and morality every time!
Frank, why did you waste all these good people's time by thinking, writing, and reasoning, when "there are good Christians who"?
I didn't come here to debate whether all of the arguments from "facts, logic, reason and morality" do in fact favor the Romney voters. Nor am I saying that every instance where people say "There are good Christians who..." holds weight (for example, the people who say "Good Christians vote for Democrats all the time," obviously idiotic, right?) Literally the ONLY thing I was saying is that I don't "look down my nose" at or despise the people who disagree with me on this issue, even though Turk seemed to imply that I would. I was also saying that I didn't think this was the kind of issue where either side should be vitriolic in stating their case.
That's it.
Frank - yes you are absolutely right on that. Why people who like Ron Paul are always the same ones who believe we didn't land on the moon, the income tax was never lawfully enacted, etc., will be a mystery forever.
Frank, you touched on something in the meta and Nash added a bit that makes me want to ask a question, one that's had me scratching my head ever since Ron Paul's name popped up on the national scene a few years ago. What is this bizarre, cultish fanaticism that so many people, many of who are spiritually solid believers, have for Ron Paul? Yeah, I get that he's a smaller government, pro second amendment guy, but a lot of his ideas seem pretty odd. Not trying to lead this off into a discussion of Ron Paul and his merits or eccentricities, but since you brought him up and noted his 'cult-like followers', something I've noted for some time, as well, just had to ask, 'cause I don't get it.
I can't vote for Romney?
I have to vote for Romney!
I will vote against Romney!
I will vote against Obama!
I will vote for a 3rd party candidate!
Wait..... what?
Yes all of the above are true. I live in Kansas and we as a state haven't voted for a Democrat since 1964. That fact isn't going to change now. Especially considering the current president is so extremely liberal. Romney is winning Kansas. This gives me the opportunity to vote for an actual conservative without my vote taking anything away from Romney(apparently the obvious choice for "good" people who aren't "lazy" and "evil") and without giving anything to the current president.
So no I'm not voting for Romney but yeah I'm voting for Romney.
Troy: that's the perfect last word on this post.
Post a Comment