Up to now I have pretty much ignored the Democratic Party’s side of the 2008 elections. As a Republican, I have more than enough to do trying to get conservatives nominated. However, I do try to understand where the other side is coming from. I read what Democrats and Independents are saying on the blogs. So it is that I found myself reading Zen what had to say (here) about Barack Obama at the The Daily Whackjob.
After exchanging a few comments with Zen, I decided to spend some time this last weekend watching the video speech by Barack Obama that had so enamored Zen. I found Obama’s speech quite interesting, and I am glad I took the time to listen. Without a doubt, Barack Obama is a skilled and thoughtful speaker. He comes across as an extremely competent, understanding, and reasonable fellow. After listening to him, it is not difficult to see why he is now in the lead for the Democratic Party’s nomination.
What was the speech about? Before a religious group (here) in a church, Barack Obama calmly and forthrightly explained his conversion to Christianity. In addition, he gave his opinion on the intersection of religion and politics. He pegged folks such as Alan Keyes and Jerry Falwell (recently deceased) as religious extremists. Nonetheless, at the same time, Obama graciously made it clear that no one should be required to leave their religious beliefs at home. His point?
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion specific values. What do I mean by that? It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.
Then he proceeded to give abortion as an example. Obama believes we cannot ban abortion just because we think the Bible says it is wrong. We must justify a law on grounds acceptable to people of all faiths, even those with no faith at all. Sounds pretty good, right?
So what is Obama’s reasonable view of abortion? Here (here, here, and here) are several different perspectives.
In spite of his commitment to reason, I am not going to vote for Barack Obama. Although I imagine Obama is a good man with kind intentions, I see him as part of the problem. Obama has this tag line, “Change we can believe in.” We do not need big government busybodies to change our lives; we need government to protect our rights.
Go to Barack Obama‘s website. There is no shortage of proposals. You want an example? Click on the page (here) where he discusses what he proposes to do about education. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Obama is not just spinning lofty phrases. He has specific ideas. Listen to his speeches on Education Issues. Obama knows what he wants to do, and his audience knows what he wants to do. The problem is that to implement his ideas Obama will have to drastically expand role of the Federal Government in public education.
As a conservative, I see the government, particularly the Federal Government, as already way too big. Moreover, I see us as expanding government to fix problems that too much government created, government-run schools being a prime example.
Consider Obama’s own words from his speech. Here he emphasizes the importance of religion in promoting public virtues.
My Bible tells me if we train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. (from Proverbs 22:6)
But as Obama himself carefully explains latter in his speech, government cannot teach religion in government-run schools. If government cannot teach a child religion, then is it reasonable for parents who believe in the Bible (and in their responsibility to train their children) to believe that government can help them teach a child in the way he should go? If it is important to train a child in the way he should go, is it reasonable to educate children, to have them spend most of their waking hours, in a place deliberately voided of religion?
Contrary to reason, Obama’s wants still more government. Obama’s solution is to tax us more and to further secularize the education of children. When you listen to Obama’s speeches, remember that when he says “if I am elected as your president, I will…..,” the truth is he will never do anything of the sort. How is Obama going to do anything? All Obama can do is sit at the apex of a large bureaucracy. From faraway Washington D.C., Obama will tax us and spend our money, and his appointees will promulgate his mandates. He will further entrench an already huge educational bureaucracy that insists on educating children in the proscribed way regardless of what parents think of the matter.
When Obama says “democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion specific values,” he is right. What Obama and too many others do not seem to realize that the number of universal values, values we all share, is quite small. Just because we think one of our beliefs is “reasonable” does not necessarily mean everyone else thinks it is reasonable.
So what can we do? Should the majority reach a grand consensus and arbitrarily impose its beliefs on the minority? NO! Yet in the name of “social justice,” that too often is exactly what the Democratic Party seeks to do. To solve every little societal imperfection in accordance with their own perception of divine will — whatever makes them feel good — Democrats have a program.
Look back into history. You will find enormous variation in culture and styles of government. When they did not simply annihilate their enemies, you will also find that people have repeatedly used the power of government to force their beliefs and their way of life upon each other. Such arrogance creates strife and leads to nothing but civil war.
In a multicultural society, a society with a diversity of beliefs and lifestyles, justice and peace depend upon limited government. Without limited government, religious freedom becomes meaningless. When government grows too powerful — when constitutional civil rights are waived away as inconvenient to a Living Constitution — we risk tyranny by the majority. And eventually, we risk just plain, old, ordinary tyranny.
Pingback: Pros and Cons » On Obama and media bias
I sympathize with conservatives that advocate smaller government. That for many “being conservative” equates to “voting Republican” is a special kind of irony. If you look at Republican administrations since 1980, virtually all of them have massively increased Government spending (and thus size). Sure, the tax cuts are great, but they’re only tax deferments unless spending is also curtailed. Good luck finding a Republican President or congress that has ever cut overall Federal spending.
This idea that Republicans are conservative is a myth. The “threat of secularism” is the scare tactic used to dupe true conservatives into thinking Republicans actually give a damn about fiscal responsibility.
Logan – Most Conservatives are well aware that many Republican politicians do not vote as Conservatives. You may have heard the acronym “RINO.”
Consider an old joke.
First man: “How is your wife?”
Second man: “Relative to what?”
Moral: All things are relative.
Relative to Democrats, Republicans are more conservative. So Conservatives vote for Republicans, and we work to make the Republican Party more conservative. What would be foolish is for Conservatives to vote for Democrats. Then we would truly need your sympathy.
The threat of secularism is not something politicians invented. This is something Christian parents have observed. Some parents want their children educated their way, and politicians have interfered with their efforts. These parents want their children to have a Christian upbringing. Moreover, these parents think the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects their right to religious freedom. This freedom includes the right of parents to provide for the religious instruction of their children. Are these parents scared they might not be allowed to exercise that right? Yes.