I have already spent extensive editorial capital on the issue of abortion. If that was my only concern, it would be an adequate justification for eschewing the Democratic Party. However, I would be as narrowly focused as militant feminists who are voting for Harris, thinking she can single-handedly "restore" their so-called "reproductive rights." It should be noted, however, that in my title, I used the word "modern." Why? Well, in 1962 J.F.K. nominated a Justice named Byron White. White was famous for later renouncing the Roe v. Wade decision by saying the SCOTUS had invented a right out of thin air. Today, such a constitutionalist judge would never see the light of day in the Democratic Party nomination process.

There is your initial point of departure. Republicans nominate constitutionalists to the courts, whereas modern Democrats nominate cultural activists. Consider the most recent addition to the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Jackson Brown. When asked if she could define what a "woman" was, she claimed that she didn't know because she wasn't a biologist. Ironically, despite the Democrats claiming to be the party of science, their definition of "woman" has nothing to do with biological reality, but is determined by an psychological realization. Since Brown considered herself the first Black woman nominated to the Supreme Court, one might conclude she understood what a woman was all along, but didn't want to alienate certain constituencies by providing a less evasive answer. Either that, or you best take your pet to the veterinarian to be identified before you order delivery of any more dog food. You might just have a weasel that happens to consume dog chow. The bottom line is that you can't be both a constitutionalist and be exclusively loyal to the whims of cultural movements.

Further, I must consider how a political platform comforts with the tenants of my faith. Church and state separation traditionally has nothing to do with whether religious precepts can influence public policy. And none of the Founders suggested otherwise. One cannot rationally compartmentalize between "political issues" and moral issues. You can't logically support a political issue six days a week while symbolically objecting to it on the remaining day. The platform and policies of the Democratic Party have veered toward secularism and socialism, though it hasn't always been that way. 100 years-ago, the Democratic Party was a stronghold for Evangelical Christians. Think of William Jennings Byran and the Scopes trial, for instance.

Today, the worldview of the party is at odds with the tenants of Christianity. It has been Liberals that are solidly in favor of cultural trends that violate the created order, the latest of which is to allow athletes, who are biological males, but psychologically identify as women, to unfairly compete in Womens' athletics.

Of course, someone will object and offer some obtuse or creative application of theological principles. For instance, it is hardly uncommon for Liberals to equate government programs with the fulfillment of the Beatitudes. Far too many don't distinguish between charitable giving versus creating programs to buy votes and amass legislative power. I saw a meme not long ago where Jesus was huddled with his disciples and one of them says "So you want rich people to be taxed by the Romans so they can care for the Jewish people?" Jesus replies "Let's go over this one more time." During the Christmas season they will conflate the sojourn of Joseph and Mary with the illegal immigration problem. Still another ploy is to shame Christians voting for Trump into dumping him by exclusively focusing on his alleged past behaviors instead of concentrating on his current policies. There is simply no room for the person conscientiously following biblical principles in the Democratic Party.

One of the things you will see on yard signs of some Democratic voters is a placard proudly displaying a list of tautologies. Among them is a slogan that says "Science is real." Has anyone claimed the contrary? Democrats claim to be the party of science, but when you examine this claim it is exposed as complete nonsense. Conservatives have no less reverence for science than Liberals, but Conservatives are more likely question whether certain claims are genuinely scientific conclusions or whether they are tainted by ideology. Is it scientific to suggest a developing baby is not a person? How about concluding there are no physiological differences between male and female, but gender is a psychological or cultural construct? On the contrary, liberals were big proponents of "genetic determinism" as it pertained to certain sexual proclivities, though there is no conclusive scientific evidence today supporting that. Liberals are stubbornly dogmatic on discussion regarding the future implications of Climate Change even though they already changed course on how they label the phenomenon. Democrats were completely closed-minded about the possibility that certain medications could have applications outside of their normal usage during the Covid epidemic and demonized those who suggested so.

Democrats are for the little guy, right? When was the last tax cut you got from a Democrat? Obama offered a 2% payroll tax holiday one year, and also gave disabled veterans and seniors a one-time cash payment of $250. Other than that, you might have to go back to the J.F.K. administration again. In the fall of 2000, Bill Clinton vetoed a bi-partisan passed tax reduction bill, arguing that it wrongly eliminated the marriage penalty for families with only one wage earner. There's the Democrats with your family friendly policies again. Clinton did pass a capital gains tax cut, which is partly the basis for Warren Buffet supposedly having a lower tax rate than his secretary. The problem is easily corrected by lowering the tax rate on wages.

John Adams famously said that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. What did he mean? The experiment in self-government depends on the citizenry exercising internal restraint in order to maintain the liberty that keeps us secure from the overreach of tyrannical government. It is liberty of autonomy from coercive external government, but not the repudiation of moral standards. Democrats often take the approach of trying to insulate people from the consequences of their bad behaviors, while conservatives focus on the responsibility of making decisions that avoid bad consequences to begin with. A prime example is abortion. 97% of those seeking abortions, are pregnant due to their own voluntary behaviors. It could be argued that these unwanted pregnancies are due to a lack of self-restraint, but on top of that, even when contraception is so easily acquired, they still fail to utilize it. The liberal answer is to then terminate the pregnancy.

As much as Democrats hail the banner of "pro-choice," in reality they aren't for choice about much of anything outside of abortion. You can choose the schooling you want for your children, but you have to still fund public education. Liberals loathe the idea of parental consent. They bristle at the Second Amendment. They want more from you in taxes for new programs rather than letting you have more of your own income to make your own economic choices.

It matters not how affable the candidate is. All candidates under the Democrat Party flag must eventually bow to that platform. The days when you could just select the candidate you liked the best are a relic that has gathered dust since the 1960's. Some people have suggested that V.P. Harris is worth voting for based on recent policy proposals. But Democrats always move toward the middle after securing their party's nomination to fool mainstream voters. I judge a candidate based on the policies they promoted when uniting their base.

I'm sure I could write a part 2, but I already have said enough for now. If you don't want socialism, don't vote for Democrats.