Is there really no choice?
Stephen Stone, RenewAmerica President
I'm deeply sympathetic to those millions of conservatives who feel they have "no choice" but to vote for Mitt Romney this November. I appreciate their view and wouldn't disparage anyone who feels as they do.
In fact, I believe I understand the dire reality behind their thinking better than many of them do, since I'm constantly searching for reputable, reliable content to post at RenewAmerica, and this forces me to be fairly well informed.
No matter how they frame the situation, conservative voters see this election as coming down to two unfortunate options:
(1) Give four more years to a clever Marxist with Muslim leanings and Communist connections who has repeatedly shown himself hell-bent on dismantling America's foundational values, institutions, and liberties, and who is hoping for a second term so he can "finish the job" he started of "transforming America"; or —
(2) Turn our nation over to an ethically-challenged, uninspiring, say-anything-for-advantage big-government "progressive socialist" who will leave in place his adversary's accomplishments, but cut back on the fear-mongering, outright deceit, and obstinance we've endured for almost four years — giving America something resembling a third term for George W. Bush and his powerful, myopic friends who control the Republican Party.
(Recall that it was the big-spending, cavalier policies of G.W. Bush, Karl Rove, Henry Paulson, et al., that opened the door wide for Barack Obama to take over our country in the first place, putting in office the most un-American president in our history in 2008. Handing over again the seat of power to these same arrogant elites would seem unthinkable. Yet what choice do conservatives have?)
Since no one in their right mind would opt for alternative #1, decent Americans overwhelmingly believe they can safely choose alternative #2 and vote for Mitt Romney — and they believe anyone who refuses to join them in so voting would be derelict in their citizenship, and culpable if Mr. Obama wins re-election, something very likely to occur, according to credible state-by-state predictions.
This, at least, is the thinking I repeatedly see as I search the net.
Moral dilemma
What voters fail to realize is that such a limited view of the available options is entirely secular in its thinking — ignoring the reality and will of God as though He were irrelevant — much as the Romney campaign itself has decidedly done so far in the election, rejecting any hint of "social" (that is, moral) conservatism while focusing almost exclusively on materialistic concerns.
The above voter perspective is also unapologetically pragmatic — mistakenly imagining it can bring about positive outcomes without regard for overriding moral or religious considerations.
Bear in mind that the essence of Marxist philosophy, which borrowed both its "historical" inevitability and its "dialectical" rationale from Georg Friedrich Hegel, Marx's inspiration, was thoroughly materialistic and pragmatic in its premises. Marx even saw his philosophy as "scientific socialism," because he believed the irreligious, thoroughly secular character and methods of science would vindicate his theories and naturally lead mankind to collectivism.
To focus solely on material reality — at the expense of divine truth and intrinsic moral duty — and to do so in a manner that parallels the pragmatic, atheistic methodology of modern science, thus hastens the spread of Marxist socialism, even unwittingly. Such is the inherent flaw of Romney's one-note candidacy.
This, despite Romney's claim to believe in "capitalism" — meaning, not "free market" policies that ensure a level playing field for all, but monopolistic practices enabled by governmental "corporate welfare." Hence Mitt's promotion of the "individual mandate" in Romneycare that became the centerpiece of free market-destroying Obamacare.
It's worth noting, I think, that one of the richest "capitalists" in the world is also one of the world's most influential and unrelenting proponents of socialism, George Soros.
That said, conservatives are terribly naive (and uniformed) if they think Mitt Romney will champion the return of balanced budgets, strengthen small businesses, ensure free and broad choice in healthcare, rein in the 16 trillion dollar national debt, enforce our borders, audit the Fed, create new jobs, or otherwise turn the recession around and revive our nation's economic vitality.
The cause of our financial malaise
The reason Romney is unlikely to fare much better than Obama in restoring some semblance of a truly free market to America is not just that both men share common socialistic premises — though Romney is less likely to dictate policy through raw presidential power — but that our nation's economic woes, arguably, are the inevitable result of our nation's moral crisis.
As any country continues to decline morally, all else in the country ultimately begins an irreversible slide into widespread, intertwined malaise, including everything cultural, institutional, political, and yes, economic — if history (as well as biblical teaching) is any indication.
Obviously, if you have a nation full of thieves — or unabashed, public-assisted baby killers — you're not going to have a healthy economy, at least not indefinitely. At some point, it will all hit the fan.
The bottom-line cause of any nation's material demise is, first and foremost, moral disintegration. It follows that the only way to reverse such material demise is to reverse the moral disintegration that caused it.
Since Mitt has no apparent understanding of these moral connections, and talks only about jobs and the economy as though they were separate from moral issues (while treating pro-life issues in the abstract), he will prove impotent in reversing the Obama legacy, should he reach the White House. Expect more of the same uncertainty and malaise we've just had — but with less fanfare, less open opposition from Republicans (as we saw during the prior Bush administration), and eventually more chaos, disillusionment, and vulnerability.
A glaring disappointment will set the tone for a Romney administration from the outset. As is well known, Mitt has repeatedly promised to "get rid of Obamacare," but he will predictably renege. A liberal-leaning lawyer, he will argue that "the Supreme Court has spoken, and I respect their decision."
He'll let Obamacare stand, in its essential form. That includes the individual mandate.
I'd love to be wrong on this, but Mitt once said, years ago, he "support[ed] and sustain[ed] Roe v. Wade" and considered it settled law. Watch him do the same with Obamacare if he gets into office.
The singular reason most conservatives support Mitt Romney will evaporate into thin air. They'll feel betrayed, angry, and a little foolish.
Next time...
In my next piece, I plan to address in detail what I believe God would have us do this election in the face of a choice between the most powerful communist in the world (as well as, ostensibly, the most powerful Muslim), and the most liberal Republican contender for president in GOP history.
It's no small dilemma for anyone of principle.
© Stephen Stone
September 10, 2012
I'm deeply sympathetic to those millions of conservatives who feel they have "no choice" but to vote for Mitt Romney this November. I appreciate their view and wouldn't disparage anyone who feels as they do.In fact, I believe I understand the dire reality behind their thinking better than many of them do, since I'm constantly searching for reputable, reliable content to post at RenewAmerica, and this forces me to be fairly well informed.
No matter how they frame the situation, conservative voters see this election as coming down to two unfortunate options:
(1) Give four more years to a clever Marxist with Muslim leanings and Communist connections who has repeatedly shown himself hell-bent on dismantling America's foundational values, institutions, and liberties, and who is hoping for a second term so he can "finish the job" he started of "transforming America"; or —
(2) Turn our nation over to an ethically-challenged, uninspiring, say-anything-for-advantage big-government "progressive socialist" who will leave in place his adversary's accomplishments, but cut back on the fear-mongering, outright deceit, and obstinance we've endured for almost four years — giving America something resembling a third term for George W. Bush and his powerful, myopic friends who control the Republican Party.
(Recall that it was the big-spending, cavalier policies of G.W. Bush, Karl Rove, Henry Paulson, et al., that opened the door wide for Barack Obama to take over our country in the first place, putting in office the most un-American president in our history in 2008. Handing over again the seat of power to these same arrogant elites would seem unthinkable. Yet what choice do conservatives have?)
Since no one in their right mind would opt for alternative #1, decent Americans overwhelmingly believe they can safely choose alternative #2 and vote for Mitt Romney — and they believe anyone who refuses to join them in so voting would be derelict in their citizenship, and culpable if Mr. Obama wins re-election, something very likely to occur, according to credible state-by-state predictions.
This, at least, is the thinking I repeatedly see as I search the net.
Moral dilemma
What voters fail to realize is that such a limited view of the available options is entirely secular in its thinking — ignoring the reality and will of God as though He were irrelevant — much as the Romney campaign itself has decidedly done so far in the election, rejecting any hint of "social" (that is, moral) conservatism while focusing almost exclusively on materialistic concerns.
The above voter perspective is also unapologetically pragmatic — mistakenly imagining it can bring about positive outcomes without regard for overriding moral or religious considerations.Bear in mind that the essence of Marxist philosophy, which borrowed both its "historical" inevitability and its "dialectical" rationale from Georg Friedrich Hegel, Marx's inspiration, was thoroughly materialistic and pragmatic in its premises. Marx even saw his philosophy as "scientific socialism," because he believed the irreligious, thoroughly secular character and methods of science would vindicate his theories and naturally lead mankind to collectivism.
To focus solely on material reality — at the expense of divine truth and intrinsic moral duty — and to do so in a manner that parallels the pragmatic, atheistic methodology of modern science, thus hastens the spread of Marxist socialism, even unwittingly. Such is the inherent flaw of Romney's one-note candidacy.
This, despite Romney's claim to believe in "capitalism" — meaning, not "free market" policies that ensure a level playing field for all, but monopolistic practices enabled by governmental "corporate welfare." Hence Mitt's promotion of the "individual mandate" in Romneycare that became the centerpiece of free market-destroying Obamacare.
It's worth noting, I think, that one of the richest "capitalists" in the world is also one of the world's most influential and unrelenting proponents of socialism, George Soros.
That said, conservatives are terribly naive (and uniformed) if they think Mitt Romney will champion the return of balanced budgets, strengthen small businesses, ensure free and broad choice in healthcare, rein in the 16 trillion dollar national debt, enforce our borders, audit the Fed, create new jobs, or otherwise turn the recession around and revive our nation's economic vitality.
The cause of our financial malaise
The reason Romney is unlikely to fare much better than Obama in restoring some semblance of a truly free market to America is not just that both men share common socialistic premises — though Romney is less likely to dictate policy through raw presidential power — but that our nation's economic woes, arguably, are the inevitable result of our nation's moral crisis.
As any country continues to decline morally, all else in the country ultimately begins an irreversible slide into widespread, intertwined malaise, including everything cultural, institutional, political, and yes, economic — if history (as well as biblical teaching) is any indication.
Obviously, if you have a nation full of thieves — or unabashed, public-assisted baby killers — you're not going to have a healthy economy, at least not indefinitely. At some point, it will all hit the fan.
The bottom-line cause of any nation's material demise is, first and foremost, moral disintegration. It follows that the only way to reverse such material demise is to reverse the moral disintegration that caused it.
Since Mitt has no apparent understanding of these moral connections, and talks only about jobs and the economy as though they were separate from moral issues (while treating pro-life issues in the abstract), he will prove impotent in reversing the Obama legacy, should he reach the White House. Expect more of the same uncertainty and malaise we've just had — but with less fanfare, less open opposition from Republicans (as we saw during the prior Bush administration), and eventually more chaos, disillusionment, and vulnerability.A glaring disappointment will set the tone for a Romney administration from the outset. As is well known, Mitt has repeatedly promised to "get rid of Obamacare," but he will predictably renege. A liberal-leaning lawyer, he will argue that "the Supreme Court has spoken, and I respect their decision."
He'll let Obamacare stand, in its essential form. That includes the individual mandate.
I'd love to be wrong on this, but Mitt once said, years ago, he "support[ed] and sustain[ed] Roe v. Wade" and considered it settled law. Watch him do the same with Obamacare if he gets into office.
The singular reason most conservatives support Mitt Romney will evaporate into thin air. They'll feel betrayed, angry, and a little foolish.
Next time...
In my next piece, I plan to address in detail what I believe God would have us do this election in the face of a choice between the most powerful communist in the world (as well as, ostensibly, the most powerful Muslim), and the most liberal Republican contender for president in GOP history.
It's no small dilemma for anyone of principle.
© Stephen Stone
