Skip to main content

I'm Willing To Take 4 Years Of Clinton

Sorry to disappoint some of you. There is no meaning behind the word "conservative" any more. Better said, there are no concrete solutions behind it. We have been defined by what--or whom--we hate. And the party of Abraham Lincoln is lining up behind an intellectual midget, and worse, the most morally vacuous and repugnant person I have seen in my entire life. Absolutely, Hillary is better, for what that's worth, and it's not much. Nevertheless, it must be said. A few judges people like--even ones I'd like--are not going to make me forget what's happened here. Hillary Clinton belongs in federal prison, and she's still the better choice. That's what you did, angry white men. That's what you did, and I won't let you off the hook for it.

Don't talk to me about abortion. If you're not out there on the sidewalks and in the pregnancy resource centers, (or some equivalent level of engagement) you don't get to tell me about the duty to hold my nose, and... I have been doing that my whole life, and it gets me nothing. And this time, so much worse than nothing. Sorry, I'm done with GOP "bargains".

I believe in limited government. I believe in letting people make their own choices, and generally living how they want to live. But I also believe that not everyone gets a fair shake out of the gate, in human terms. The government's main job is actually to make sure that those misfortunes don't define people before they start. It's happening all the time. And some of us let it happen, because we have an abiding fear of superficial comparisons to dead socialist empires.

If you press me, I will tell you that I want to maintain the social safety net, and perhaps even expand it. This is not because I don't believe in hard work, or family, or the market economy. It's because we have forgotten about the dignity of every human person, in our zeal to distance ourselves from failed leftist social experiments. A woman working 3 jobs in New Jersey dies from her own car exhaust, because she doesn't have time or money to sleep in her own bed. You may not agree with whatever particular solution I come up with in response, but I know that shouldn't be happening in America, and so do you.

If America were being America, we wouldn't be arguing about who's lives matter the most; we'd be working to value them all, and finding solutions. At the moment, some segment of the voting public doesn't care about solutions, but they will. I have faith in our people, even now. It is disheartening that at the very moment we need to come together, we're breaking apart, or so it seems.

I do know that nothing Hillary Clinton could do or would do truly scares me. Democratic leaders today exist to defend abortion at all costs. Nothing new there. Once I came to accept that everything President Obama does proceeds from the prevailing Democratic worldview in the main, I got less angry, actually. And he is truly, I think, a nice, well-meaning person. But he's a product of his political culture, one as damaged by our post-Christian society as the Right has been.

I think this election is generational, more than anything. I want to hope that President Clinton's personal flaws will not overwhelm her and us, and my generation can pick up the banner after that.

There is something fundamentally conservative about reforming our justice system, starting with the abolition of the death penalty and its apparatus. The fact that it's "liberal" to advocate for that today is a good example of what's wrong with "conservatism."

I think it's fundamentally conservative to tirelessly work for peace, to identify the principles and conditions under which military force will, and will not be used. It's conservative to strengthen cooperative organizations like the United Nations, especially for the sake of peace among nations. It is indeed true that a certain anti-human ethics is being forced on other nations in a kind of new colonialism under those auspices. It is also true that Americans don't abandon good ideas and things, just because they are misused.

I'm sitting this election out, at the presidential level. When in doubt, do not act, as the wise ethicists might say. The leaders we need will be those with passion, but temperance. They will need selflessness, a willingness to lose for the right reasons, instead of winning for the wrong ones. They need to govern with a long view, without regard to their own political fortunes. Where are the heroes, the icons, of this generation?

Comments

Nathan said…
I agree with you for the most part here, including the fact that conservatives need to have compassion for the poor. That the woman in NJ died despite an extensive safety net is horrible, and it is also evidence that the safety net needs to be adjusted so that it actually works, instead of just making liberals feel good about themselves. Instead of sitting the election out I'm going to vote for the Libertarian, or perhaps the Green candidate if they wind up making more headway. The two-party lesser-evil nonsense needs to die once and for all, and this year is the best chance in a long time to make that happen. Citizens who vote for the lesser evil every time are not in charge of anything, and they might as well live in a dictatorship for all the good democracy does them.

A libertarian president would avoid unnecessary war, support school vouchers, clean up waste and abuse, stop paying Planned Parenthood, not impede citizens welcoming immigrants and refugees, and generally force everyone to rethink their entrenched left and right dogmas. That would be worthwhile. Even if you're not libertarian on every issue, think of it as kind of a cleanse diet. If someone like Gary Johnson is elected, you won't agree with him on everything, but the government will be a lot more sane in four or eight years.

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un