Skip to main content

If I Ran For President

My thought is that I should sketch out 5 big legislative or administrative things I would get behind. I'll give you a list, and then offer broader comments at the end.

--Federal minimum wage increase: Did you know that if we had indexed the minimum wage to inflation, it would be $21.50 per hour today? Kinda makes the $15 per hour radicals seem reasonable, doesn't it? One counter argument is of course that if you increase the minimum wage, companies will replace people with technology. Well, if they do that, I'll tax and fee them into oblivion, and no, I won't feel bad about it. How much does it actually cost to make it in America? It seems like a waste to have abstract discussions about "socialism" and government spending, while people at the bottom are struggling to survive. Wages are wages; you have to earn them. But we'll put the dignity of people over abstract ideological commitments every time.

--Comprehensive environmental protection legislation: Environmental scientists have been sounding the alarm about climate change and its harmful effects for decades. I don't care if it makes me sound like a "liberal": ignoring a major, potentially catastrophic disaster to take cultural jabs at hippies in California, or Democrats, or whomever, is not what sensible leaders and voters ought to do. We will be "picking winners and losers," if in fact we can get cleaner, safer technologies employed faster.

--Moratorium on the death penalty: I will immediately commute the death sentences of every affected inmate in the federal system. I will lead a national conversation in all 50 states arguing for its abolition. Any state refusing to comply with court decisions involving disclosure and process involving the penalty will be forced to comply. No nation who claims to cherish the sanctity of life should tolerate the horrors our system has tolerated. In addition, we are willing to pay all associated costs in choosing not to take the life of one who has murdered others. If we truly ask, "Has capital punishment been a benefit to us?" we would have to answer in the negative.

--A comprehensive approach to ending abortion: Firstly, I will choose judges committed to challenging the legality of abortion, if I can find them. Again, I will lead a national conversation concerning the morality and justice (or lack thereof) of abortion. We think that steadfast anti-poverty efforts, and federally-led--though not exclusive--efforts at increasing social support should lessen its demand. We reject the easy recourse to other forms of abortion claimed as an alternative to surgical abortion.

--Large incentives for married, two-parent families, up to and including paid family leave: Aspects of these ideas are popular across the ideological spectrum, and rightly so. A more just and healthy society begins at home. All people of good will should be alarmed that the United States, along with the developed world, is not even replacing itself. We will not accept literally the slow death of our nation, or society at large. To be somewhat humorous about it, we will literally pay you to have babies, if you're committed to giving them the families they deserve.

Comments

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