One of the more unfortunate features of the 2012 presidential campaign is the prospect that neither Republicans nor Democrats will examine their own rigid ideology or acknowledge their failure to address honestly the crises of our time. Both parties, driven by the rhetoric of extremists, have staked out a tiny piece of political territory where they have invested all their energy. For Mitt Romney, every problem will be solved by lower taxes for the mythical “job creators” and cuts to government programs. For President Obama, it has become even more constricted. Despite the vaunted rhetoric, the only thing he seems steadfastly committed to is the “social agenda” of his most liberal base.
For someone like me, who voted “the hope” in the last election, it is more than disappointing to realize that reasons to vote for President Obama have dwindled to two. First, he is a likable man and good role model. Second, and more chilling, is revulsion at the thought of being in even a remote way aligned with the president’s “enemies,” who slanderously have accused him of the highest duplicity. (The latest charge from the likes of Sean Hannity and some Christian groups is that Obama will stage an assassination attempt and declare martial law before the election.)
Others too voted “the hope” the last time. But they also seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid. Among Democrats, except “Democrats for Life,” any criticism of the president’s policies and decisions seems to have been quietly suppressed. Thus there is little chance that serious voices will be heard to challenge our present policies. In fact, some Democrats act as if it is a betrayal to bring up questions like the following.
What will be the upshot of Obama’s expanded use of drone missiles and the horror they bring to innocent people? Is this, like targeted assassination and torture, our own rewriting of the rules of war and the principles of a just war? At the end of May, The New York Times ran an extended article with the title: “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will.” Are Democrats proud of a president with the will to kill? Or are they giving the president a free pass on policy that would have them screaming had it been attributed to George W. Bush?
Why did the president make no demands on the titans of Wall Street after he told them, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks?” Instead, they were showered with billions of dollars, no strings attached. One does not have to be an economist to be deeply troubled by the president’s response to our economic crisis. Instead of “shovel-ready jobs,” we were given a “trickle down” theory pushed through by the same financial managers who ran Bush’s presidency. No wonder there is little room for the likes of Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz in an administration where now everyone seems to be a “free market fundamentalist.”
In the health care crisis, why was “single payer” taken off the table from the start? A strong case can be made that universal minimal coverage is the only way our health care system can be salvaged—with a tiered system that people can buy into as a special premium. And yet, this option was not even used as a point of leverage. Despite the mounting evidence of increasing unnecessary medical procedures and costly diagnostic tests, the only actions taken are those that profit insurance companies.
These are complicated issues, but Democrats seem willing to ignore them all for the sake of a second term for the president. But if the president is re-elected (and he is absurdly construed as a “socialist”), socialized medicine will never be given a hearing, nor will the present pathologies in our military and economic policies be addressed.
Democrats say that Republicans are “in the tank” for a rapacious capitalist ideology. Republicans say that the Democrats are “in the tank” for liberationist secular ideology. Maybe they are both right. And perhaps the best response is to reject both parties in this race to elect the best president money can buy.
I have been warned that a write-in vote is a vote for Obama. I have also been told that it is a vote for Romney. Well, it is also a vote against both of them. It may show, perhaps, that I am out of step with the American zeitgeist and its vaunted view of its political wisdom. A likely worse fate would be to fall for it.
"Join the fight against organized crime. Don't re-elect anyone."
Seriously, new leadership is needed. The incumbents are not getting it done.
Obama is 'pro-choice,' however. His position on abortion is indeed consistent with that of his most liberal base, as well as with the views of a majority of Americans. This one issue cannot accurately define Obama's "social agenda."
Obama is no ultra-liberal. He is very much a moderate.
Do you care to provide a source for your allegation that Sean Hannity has claimed that "Obama will stage an assassination attempt and declare martial law before the election"? If Mr Hannity ever said anything remotely like that, it would be easy enough to provide a link to it, but I am betting that you can't and won't. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Before criticizing the honesty and integrity of the candidates, you should first demonstrate those virtues by backing up your own inflammatory rhetoric - and if you can't, then you should issue an apology and a retraction. It is the ethical thing to do.
Voting for a write in presidential candidate won't do nearly as much as voting for the right congresspersons and senators.
When Obama wanted the government option in the Health Care bill, it was Nancy Pelosi and the democrats in congress who removed it. He lacked the political clout to control them. Same was true with their spending agenda. He went to Nancy Pelosi and asked tha they reign in their spending. Again, not having the political clout, he could get them to watch out for the American taxpayers.
That being said, what will Romney do if elected, with a Tea Party controlled House of Representatives?
God help us.
I fear for the future of the country and the world. Few if any of the current world policies are sustainable even in the middle term. The crises in Europe show some are failing in the short term.
radio program . Can reach all day
And I'm unsure who will get my vote this time around. A 3rd party or write-in is looking more and more plausible. Thank you, Fr. John, for helping to give voice to my (and I suspect many others') dilemma.
A blanket statement ahead: under Obama many American people (other than from NY and CA) FEAR the government - they distust him and his associates(Plough and Axelrod) because they always do an end-around (healthcare, immigration); there is always something shady and it seems they rejoice in being crafty, not in leading with inspiration. That is why people like Hannity and many conservatives believe he and his followers set up the stage for Act I, Act II and Act III.
The Democrats inability to keep the Republicans from filibustering every single thing that has been proposed and passed that can help this country is NOT the fault of the Democrats or President Obama.
The choice is not between 2 evils as supposed. One side got 5000 plus Americans and thousands of others killed for a lie. I do not consider that a choice between 2 evils.
You can have your own opinions but not your own facts.
With the arrogant certitude of a conservative, Ed simplisticly designates all morally correct attributes to Republicans, and of course, the morally bankrupt ones to Democrats. Ed demonstrates his complete ignorance on the European financial situation by blaming left leaning individuals for the crisis while ignoring the reality that it was the unregulated, vulture capitalism represented by Rmoney and the rest of the GOP establishment that led to Europe's current woes.
Ed then sprinkles us with nuggets of wisdom on Catholic social teaching being in-line with Republican thought, thus ignoring decades of demonizing of the poor by those on the right of the political spectrum-you know, just like Christ would have done.
Ed uses the word "nonsense" at the beginning of his ramble. I think in retrospect it fits his thesis well. This is exemplified once again by Ed's can't be wrong attitude: "We have a spending problem." He fails to mention that we spend it all on our morbidly obese military, something the modern Republican warrior would never deign to cutting. Again, the Ed's of the world take that time honored Christian approach: blame the poor.
In conclusion, the conservative right is more than out of touch with notions of Catholic social teaching and social justice. What's worse is that Ed Gleason and his ilk know this yet they continue to cling to their antiquated notions and perpetually shower us with the most predictible propaganda that cable news can cook up.
Democrats are in total disarray, including you, Father Kavanaugh. To encourage write-ins is to ignore Mary Collingsworths' comments re the beliefs underpinning the true Democrat and the beliefs underpinning the true Catholic (the Beatitudes.) Many Catholics, formerly Democrats, (and my own Irish relatives) deserted the common man with the advent of the GI Bill and became Republicans. They never anticipated being deserted by the 2%ers and fallling like a flat tire.
All Democrats and smart Republicans too had better vote for President Obama. THEN, concentrate on getting a candidate like Warren Buffet. America is due for a great man to show up. Just as the Catholic Church was due for Pope John XXIII.
I completely agree with everything Craig McKee of Hong Kong says. Please see his eloquent comment above to which I have nothing to add other than to stress that a write-in vote that would tilt the election to the Tea Party Republicans and cast the dwindling middle-class further into poverty. This utterly frightens me (not for myself at 86 but for my "fellow Americans".)
No, john, I can be with you on this one
One line stands out:
"First, he is a likeble man and good role model."
We can no more say that President Obama is a likable man than we can of anyone we've never met. Our only image of him is what we see on the nightly news - and on countless magazine covers. One might as well say that John Malkovich (for one) is a terrible man, based on his movie roles. In fact, he is quite civilized, and would make an excellent dinner companion.
And, unlike Obama, he wouldn't confiscate the knives and forks right after the meal ("Latinos Forced to turn over knives and forks at Obama event": "Secret Service required that there be no knives at the tables and that the forks be rounded up before Obama entered the room.")
I have no idea what sort of role model he might be, for the same reason - we know only the image, not the man. But the image we know is a President - of the most powerful country - bowing and scraping to foreign dignitaries. That's not my idea of a role model.
More than that: we do not elect a President because he's "likable". I, at least, prefer competence, and a vision that will lead us toward a stronger future, not a weaker one. His standing in the lastest polls tell of his "fall from grace".
I reject using carefully-chosen, extreme examples of his oppoents (Hannity &c). Further, KC, I could provide a list of 100 Tea Party websites where there is not a single reference to any "nefarious plan". I could also provide a list of over 100 liberal and left-leaning websites that include public statements calling for the deaths of President Bush and many other conservatives.
I submit that "Democrats seem willing to ignore them" [complicated issues] because they are unthinkingly committed to the Left, to Obama's grandiose socialist vision for America, and that any opposing argument, however small, puts cracks in their strongly-held position. For such a mind-set, any alternative represents a mistake (cognitive dissonance) - something which they cannot and will not accept.
At present, Obama is interested in only one thing: the November vote. He will do anything to bring that about.
A write-in vote is not an option. For one thing, it and the few other similar votes will not be counted. If anything, I would push for a "none of the above", which, if there were enough, would call for the campaigning to start all over again.
Recall that it was Ross Perot, in 1992, who got Clinton elected. And, as John D. Fitzmorris points out, Nader in 2000. (As we say, win one, lose one.)