In responses to the previous article, comments were made that while Democrats are obviously not a good choice for support by Christians, the Republicans fare little better. Two friends in particular spoke to the fact they could not in good conscience support the Republicans any more than they could Democrats.
Professor Keith Drury, whose article I am commenting on here, finds much the same in a couple different issues in particular.
My own feelings on this are that I tend to stand with the Republicans because of what they say, to a large extent, and to a lesser extent because of what they do. And just as the rank and file Democrats may hold many of the same ideas as the Democrat leadership but for radically different (and possibly better) reasons or even may hold radically different opinions, evidenced by the fact that many Democrat successes in more mainstream areas of our country have been achieved by running to the right of the local Republican challenger, the rank and file Republicans tend to not agree with the master plan of the leadership of the party.
Regardless, ideologically conservative people who primarily inhabit the Republican party have been on the right side of the vast majority of issues for nearly 4 decades now, and with the principles written in the official platform of the Republican party of limited government, constitutionally defined freedoms, protections for all (including the unborn), and other points, I find it is necessary to support this side of the political spectrum.
Even better is the fact that the Tea Party movement has created a massive wave of pressure against the entrenched and now befuddled Republican leadership who have no more idea where this came from nor any more love for it’s outcome than the Democrats, because it is their party this groundswell is mostly affecting. Gone are the fat-cat lards of largesse, the caricatures of statesmen that have taken the name Republican and have been no better than common fleas (but that would unfair to fleas) once elected. Now it is the young and vibrant, the fresh and energized and ideological and impassioned people standing up and running for office and surmounting the odds.
Can you tell I’m excited?
Yes, the Democrats will likely experience extensive losses during the elections next month. But the winners will not be the old guard Republicans, they’re no more loved than the Dems.
Digressions aside, though, let’s resume the commentary.
Professor Drury’s next topic on which he finds himself more closely aligned with Democrats is healthcare.
His main argument? Doctors should not be getting rich healing the poor. Fair enough.
But what is the logic supporting a structure of punishment for those who do? And can we penalize all doctors for the greed of some?
No. A principle of basic human justice is that justice is never served if, while punishing the guilty, the innocent are willfully harmed.
Keith uses the evidence of Christ healing the sick constantly during his earthly life to show the value God places on caring for the health needs of people. This is all very well and good, but we are called to be wise, to be stewards. In human economic terms, this means efficient allocation of resources.
In fact, it is the money involved in the profession that attracts so many incredibly talented people into this field. And for every person who is in it for the money, there are likely others who are not. Look at all the free and cheap clinics that are sprouting up all over the place. Walgreens, then CVS, Walmart, and now even Target super stores have clinics where you can get standard preventative medicine for pennies on the dollar. And at the upper end of the health care system, all that money funds amazing research providing cures we’d have trouble distinguishing from dark magic even 10 years ago.
The health care issue is fraught with peril, incredibly complex, and nothing I can solve here in this column. Suffice it to say, the federal government taking over health care will no more solve the issue than federal government taking over primary education has created a system embodying quality and equality.
Professor Drury does not spend much time on this, except to note that while Republicans have talked the talk, they’ve not walked the walk.
The problem here is once again that it is not justice to harm the innocent.
Just as I cannot and should not under and law or logic known to God or man be held responsible for crimes committed by my Grandfather, so no man should or can be held responsible for a system they have not created or unjustly taken advantage of.
And yet, the prescription for the cure to the female condition is the unnatural hampering of males.
Would not a better solution be the removal of any and all barriers to equalize potential rather than outcome?
In so many social justice issues, the measure is always the outcome. Is the number of women making widgets equal to the number of men making widgets? Do they get paid the same? The problem is that there is no reasonable logical support for a system that guarantees equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee equality of outcome is to limit the potential of everybody until some unnecessary and destruct least common denominator is achieved. This is what the USSR tried and achieved. That is the socialist ideal. It’s the best you get when you look for real equality.
This is one reason why the American experiment has been such a rousing success. America, in it’s social and governmental systems never attempted to guarantee equality of outcome. Our founders recognized the moral folly of such an goal. Instead, there is equality of opportunity. All people are equal under the law. What one does with that inherent equality is their own. They can truly blame none but themselves if they fail to achieve all they could.
- Democrats: To Vote or Not To Vote? (themoderatevoice.com)
- What happens if this election blows up the nation’s political center? (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- The Hill: Voters find Democratic party more extremist. (redstate.com)
- Democrats hope organization beats enthusiasm (reuters.com)
- Dismissing a silly metric (washingtonmonthly.com)
- Can the Black Vote Pull It Out For Obama This Time? (swampland.blogs.time.com)