God's Sovereignty and Obama

On the night of Obama's re-election and the following day, many conservative Christian friends of mine seemed to take solace in God's sovereignty. There is a right and wrong way to do this.

If you take comfort in knowing that no events brought about by human choice can do anything to deter the All Holy and Good God from accomplishing His plan for creation and humanity, then you are right to be comforted.

If, however, you believe that because God is sovereign He will not allow democracies to bring ruin upon themselves by adopting a corrupt and morally bankrupt ideology and appointing leaders committed to it, or that He won't allow our nation to fall, or He won't allow our children to suffer because of our choices, then your comfort is sadly misplaced and naive. See: history.

God is sovereign and empires -- even 'Christian' ones -- fall. God is sovereign and His children suffer in this life. God is sovereign and humans freely choose misery for themselves. If you acknowledge all this and still take comfort and solace in God's sovereignty, and are prepared to rejoice even in the midst of these conditions, then Amen my brother.

The Case For Mitt (and Conservatism)

A friend of mine recently asked me directly why he should vote for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. It admittedly caught me somewhat off-guard since I so rarely think about that question. My blunt and somewhat tongue-in-cheek answer was that "He's a Republican." And given the platforms of the two major parties and my own values, it really is that simple to some extent. Still, I felt (and feel) compelled to give a more thorough response to the question.

My answer will be written with an audience of wavering or uncertain Republicans, independents, and perhaps some unusually open-minded and moderate Democrats in mind. If you're a fairly committed liberal or progressive, I have nothing in the way of persuasion to offer but this: stop being a committed liberal or progressive.
  
The Case For Mitt is the Case For Conservatism/Republicanism

Personality politics is what drives many national elections, but it usually massively obscures the fundamental issues at hand. The personality and idiosyncrasies in policy proposals and ideology of presidential candidates is exceedingly more important to consider and weigh during the primary process than it is in a general election. The reason for this is that during the primaries you're winnowing down from a pool of candidates who share many of the same basic values and beliefs, and so the finer distinctions between them become important.

Once we are into the general election, this is no longer the case. We are now dealing with two candidates whose fundamental ideologies are often drastically opposed to each other. And, to get to where they are, each has to have shown some significant level of fealty to the party (and that party's values) which has nominated them for the presidency. Which is a loyalty that usually carries through into their presidency and how they will govern. With this being the case, the real critical distinction isn't between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama but between the Republican party platform -- its values, policies, and vision for the country -- and that of the Democratic party. Mitt Romney is a fairly ordinary Republican; Barack Obama is a fairly ordinary Democrat. What sets them apart as a Democrat from other Democrats or as a Republican from other Republicans is no longer relevant, for the most part.

This is something that many on my own side, myself included, sometimes forget. It is about Obama's failures as a president, sure, but it's important to note that anyone who shares the values of the Democratic party could not have done significantly better because their ideals preclude success.

So, while so much of the national dialogue in the media is focused on things Romney or Obama have said or done, the really savvy voter can mostly short circuit all such considerations by looking at both the Democratic party platform and the Republican party platform. Also helpful would be to compare these platforms to previous platforms and see what direction the parties are headed in. And, in the case of Democrats, taking a look at their attempt to 'remedy' the platform and re-insert some of the language that had been extracted (and shiver).

So:

• If you value the protection of the lives of the unborn (over a woman's "right" to kill), vote Republican.
• If you value the Constitution's vision of a limited government with enumerated powers, and don't think it's a 'living document' (beyond the fact that it can be amended) that can mean anything the prevailing spirit of the times deems it to mean, vote Republican.
• If you value equality of opportunity, self responsibility, and see the dignity of hard work, vote Republican.
• If you think a robust capitalism, with limited constraints, is the best way to organize an economy and lift the conditions of all (and you correctly recognize, contra ubiquitous propaganda to the contrary, that 'too much market' didn't cause the economic crisis of 2008), vote Republican.
• If you believe in fiscal responsibility -- that both individuals and governments should not live beyond their means -- vote Republican
• If you believe in a social safety net for the most helpless in society, but believe that the primary responsibility for them should fall to families, local communities, charities, and local governments, with the federal government playing a very small role, vote Republican.
• If you believe in a strong national defense and peace through strength, but that war should always be a last resort, vote Republican.
• If you believe in choice -- and therefore quality -- in education, vote Republican.
• If you don't believe in socialized medicine -- with its harmful effect on quality and availability of care, and its economic havoc-wreaking -- vote Republican. 
• If you believe we should care much more what our allies think about us than about the fickle opinion of the world as a whole, vote Republican. 
• If you believe that the entitlement system is broken and unsustainable, and must be addressed so as to bring the debt under control, vote Republican. 
• If you believe people should keep the vast majority of the money they make, however much that is, vote Republican.

If you don't broadly agree with these values, then it's my humble submission that you at least abstain from voting, rather than do the unconscionable and vote for Barack Obama.

If I wanted to be really thorough, I would go through those bullet points and argue why you ought to assent to them all, but that is a tall task indeed (in terms of effort and number of words), so I will defer that task to if and when I'm challenged -- in the comments or elsewhere -- on specific points or asked for elaboration.

Sure, it's true that sometimes parties and politicians don't strictly adhere to their expressed ideals and go astray. But by and large, they do sincerely subscribe to the broad values contained in their platforms and will generally govern in the same basic vector of their party. I think this is the case for both Romney and Obama. With that in mind, forget about the men. They are ciphers or icons for ideologies and visions that are diametrically opposed, and should be approached as such.

Pragmatism, Principle and the GOP Primary

In deciding who I should support for the GOP nomination for president, I've found myself wrestling with the problem of pragmatism versus principle. Should I support the candidate most likely to defeat Obama in the general election? Or the candidate whose beliefs, values and principle most accurately reflect my own, even if that person would have poor chances of winning? Ideally some Reagan-esque option would come along, and I wouldn't have to choose but could have my cake and eat it too. Unfortunately, with the current pool of candidates, it seems I do have to choose.

Mitt Romney seems to be the current favorite to win the nomination, and in some sense would be a pragmatic choice. He looks and sounds very presidential -- more so than any of the others. He has a smoothness and charisma that none of the other candidates have. As superficial a criterion as that may be, it will play a significant factor in any election that takes place in a superficial society (which ours clearly is). He has raised the most money, he has solid experience governing, he has been successful at business and he has a fairly fiscally conservative record.

However, his own pragmatic streak makes him unreliable, and the likelihood for him to hold lightly to a principle and sway with the political winds is very high. This is most clearly illustrated by his position on abortion, going from solidly pro-choice -- when campaigning in a liberal state -- to solidly pro-life -- when campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. Similarly, one of his main accomplishments in his state was Romneycare, while he is strongly in favor of repealing Obamacare. He defends this position by saying the former was done at the state level, and the latter at the federal level, where it has no place. This defense actually does make sense, to a certain degree. I don't think it's a simple rationalization. Still, it should raise concerns for conservatives, both in terms of how vigilant he will be on this important manner if he got elected, and how Obama could wield this against him in a general election.

Also, Romney's Mormonism -- the elephant in the room -- is not a non-issue. The evangelical Christian base is one of the Republican's largest, most consistent constituencies, and there are some not-insignificant percentage of them who will never vote for a Mormon. That doesn't mean they will vote for Obama either, but it might mean that they will stay home or vote third party.

After Romney the most compelling alternatives seem to be Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty. Both of whom have significant trade-offs in terms of pragmatism and principle. Newt's legislative accomplishments are great, and he is articulate and extremely intelligent. However, his campaign has been badly mismanaged from the outset, with him opposing Paul Ryan's budget and then his staff leaving. Add to this the fact that he has an unseemly green streak, and his significant list of positives are somewhat cancelled out.

Pawlenty has a solid conservative record, with none of the faults of either Romney or Newt, but he lacks the distinctiveness and charisma that they have. However, as Thomas Sowell points out, charisma and empty rhetoric were some of the evils that delivered to us President Barack Obama in the first place. Still, it's difficult to imagine someone like Pawlenty defeating Obama in a political campaign, which Obama -- for all his faults -- excels at. Though there may be enough antipathy directed at Obama that he could pull it off. In terms of principle Pawlenty is one of the more pure choices available, but he comes with some lingering pragmatic concerns.

There are other candidates that I'd be willing to consider. Ron Paul is an extreme Constitutional conservative, which I like to a certain extent, but he has a wont for nuance. Not to mention his foreign policy prescriptions are something of a travesty. Michelle Bachmann is a solid conservative who I could see myself backing. Whoever I support in the primary though -- I'm currently leaning towards Pawlenty -- I will be forced to weigh some pragmatic concerns against principle. Ultimately, though, I dislike pragmatists and pragmatism in general, while I have great respect for men of principle. With that in mind, principle will always be given greater weight in my universe.