How to elect a liberal president
The New York Times ran an opinion piece written by Dr. James Dobson today (found via DMN Religion Blog) where he speaks about a meeting that was held last weekend with more than 50 pro-family leaders. I want to add my opinion to what Dr. Dobson says. First, let me say (again) that I respect the work he has done within the Christian community, but I'm beginning to disagree more and more with his political ideas.
REPORTS have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.
I would like to know who was on this "Jedi Council" of Christian leaders. Furthermore, if this meeting was no secret, then tell us who was there. I'm sure that many of the attendees would gladly put forth this information, but I would like to know who these "leaders" are? It strikes me as hubris that these people would feel that they make the decisions for the rest of American Christianity, that we should just fall in lockstep with what these people say. Of course, I also know that some people will do exactly that because we aren't thinking for ourselves anymore. We've fallen into groupthink, and we need to stop it.
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
So we are reduced to electing a president based on a single issue? Nothing else that the person might say could change our minds, but as long as he is against abortion, then he's ok? Why is this the case? I absolutely agree that women should not have an abortion and that the Supreme Court overstepped it's bounds in Roe v. Wade, but I also think that it is that woman's choice to have the abortion. She has to live with the consequences of what she has done. Does that mean I condone abortion? Absolutely not, but I'm not going to tell someone what they can or can't do. The minute I presume to do that, I've forfeited all my rights to keep them from telling me what to do. Also, along the lines of what I mentioned earlier, I would love to see a list of who agreed and who didn't. As Christians, we should expose all things to the light, shouldn't we?
The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.
Good, because it's a bad idea. If Christians splinter off into a third party, at least right now, then the conservative vote will be split, ushering in another Clinton White House. Again, I refer you to The Anchoress' post from yesterday for a better explanation of why this is a bad idea.
Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.
I agree with Dr. Dobson on this point. I do believe that a president should be committed to traditional moral values and beliefs. If we have a list of 90 core values that we want, and a candidate meets 89 of them but doesn't agree on abortion, he's still a pretty good candidate in my opinion. When someone finds a popular, electable, Christian presidential candidate, you let me know. Until then, let's focus on what we have. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to an election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you want.
The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.
I completely disagree. I'm not compromising my principles in my support of Fred Thompson at all. I feel that I would be compromising my principles by voting for Rudy Giuliani, but if the general election comes down to Hillary, Rudy, and some third party Christian, I'm voting for Rudy. It's called the lesser of two evils (not saying anyone is evil, it's just an expression). If you think that Rudy would abandon our cherished beliefs, you need to be introduced to Hillary again. To abandon them would require them being held in the first place.
One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly “splintering.” That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president.
Another perfect example of groupthink. Just because 50 people get in a room and achieve near unanimity on something doesn't make it true for the rest of the population. One of the symptoms of groupthink is illusions of unanimity and I think that Dr. Dobson and anyone else who believes that this is not happening are suffering from it. All of Christianity is splintered, that's why we have various denominations and sects. The Calvinists don't agree with the Armenians, the Emergent/Emerging people don't agree with the more traditional people. We're all offshoots of something else anymore. Political positioning is fracturing conservative Christianity, though not hopelessly. We are united in Christ and under the God of Abraham, but while on this planet we are far from united politically.
That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a “splintering” of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.
And if the "cohesion of pro-family advocates" is too apparent in 2008, then on January 20, 2009 we will be hearing the first inauguration speech of a woman president.
Again, I love what Dr. Dobson has done in the Christian community and with Focus on the Family. I think we do need to stand up for what we believe is right, but we have to understand the implications of what we choose to do politically. If electing someone that I don't agree with means that someone I really don't agree with doesn't get elected, it's an obvious choice for me. Electability is important in today's climate. We know far more about these candidates than voters did in the 1950s, even up to the 1970s. There will always be some plank on their platform that we disagree with. We have to find the candidate that we disagree with the least. For me, that's Fred Dalton Thompson. Not everyone agrees, but that's fine. It's America.
On a related note, Instapundit linked this about Fred Thompson from The Corner which I thought was wholly appropriate. Read the whole thing, but the last line was especially telling.
Hannity then asked: "Would you want to have a conversation with Dr. Dobson? Do you think that might help?"
I have no idea. I don't particularly care to have a conversation with him. If he wants to call up and apologize again, that's ok with me. But I'm not going to dance to anybody's tune.
You tell him Fred.
Allah at Hot Air is talking about it too.