Jun 17 2008
How does one vote for LIBERTY these days?
I wrote this post almost a week ago; before I learned that Dr. Ron Paul was dropping out of the Republican primary race for the Presidency. It didn’t matter to me at the time whether or not he would be dropping out. As I mentioned, I planned to write him in. However, I have learned some things since then. Namely, write-in votes aren’t even counted in some states unless the candidate registers as a write-in candidate, which Dr. Paul has stated that he will not do. Ron Paul, himself, has even counseled his supporters to not write him in here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=34. So I return to my post title: How does one vote for LIBERTY these days? Here are my choices as I see them:
- Write-in Ron Paul anyway.
- Vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party Candidate.
- Vote for Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party Candidate.
- Not vote at all.
1. Writing in Ron Paul has one major thing going for it. I know that Dr. Paul would make an excellent president…in fact, I believe out of the choices we’ve been given, Ron Paul would make the MOST excellent president. This ideological certainty is tainted, however. A write-in vote for Ron Paul will not be counted. My goal was to do my part to hear Ron Paul’s name read aloud during election coverage, preferably with a tone of incredulity. (“How the heck did HE get so many votes??”) But that won’t happen with a write-in vote. I wanted McCain to KNOW that he might have gotten more votes if only he stood for small government, lower taxes, and LIBERTY! But a write-in will only deny McCain votes. As someone on the Ron Paul blog said, a write-in for Ron Paul will only give us a result like 34% Obama, 22% McCain, etc. They will in no way be able to claim a mandate from the people, but it doesn’t matter. One of them will win the electoral votes necessary to gain the Presidency, and they will think they have a mandate. No matter the benefits of this option, however, I can’t help thinking that I’m not making the statement that I want to make.
2. Bob Barr is the Libertarian candidate for the Presidency. This would be a no-brainer, but he IS a former Republican. He voted FOR the Patriot Act. He voted FOR the Iraq War. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, he was a huge proponent of the War on Drugs. All of this was while he was a Republican Senator, sure, but it’s his voting record. It cannot be ignored. Granted, he’s reformed now. He’s more of a rank-and-file Libertarian these days. But who’s to say that he won’t get into office and realize there’s a lot more money to be made as a Republican again? I’m not saying that he’ll sell out for sure, but it’s a fear I have when voting for him. He has publicly come out against his former positions, and has lobbied tirelessly for freedom in recent years.
Now, I recognize that there are a couple positions which my readership, such as it is, will not have normally linked to me. Lately, I have begun thinking about traditionally conservative social issues, and realize that I disagree with most of my conservative brethren…specifically those in the church. You can’t legislate morality, people. Morality is something that comes from a changed heart, and a changed heart is not the goal of politics. Preaching the gospel is not the goal of politics. Government and religion ought to be separate. I can see being against abortion. Abortion is murder, and murder is (and ought to be) illegal. But these other issues do not measurably or quantifiably harm others, so how can we justify legislating it? Marriage is between a man and a woman, yes. Homosexuality is a sin, yes. But on what basis does the Federal Government have the right to get involved? On what basis can the government say anything one way or another on marriage? Where does the Constitution cover marriage? (There is a proposed Constitutional Amendment being discussed in the House and Senate that would define marriage at the Federal level, but how is this a good thing? Up until now, it’s been up to the States, and civil marriage has ALWAYS been covered by State Law.) Drugs are probably not a good idea, but neither is alcoholism…neither is beating yourself in the head with a hammer. There are no laws concerning these two things, and there ought not be. The War on Drugs is costly, and has not reduced their usage. If society is so immoral and needs to be changed (and it does) is that the role of the government? NO! It is the role of churches to be outspoken. We can not and should not set up some sort of pseudo-theocracy. There are many in the church who would disagree with me, and I’m sure I’ve not thought everything through, but right now, I’m leaning to the side of liberty. From what I’ve seen, the Constiution leaned that way. The Founding Fathers leaned that way. You think homosexuality is something invented in the last 50 years? The Founding Fathers knew what homosexuality was. They left the definition of marriage up to the States. The Federal Government has no business regulating much of what it already does. Why give it more power? Liberty is the vote I want to cast. Is Bob Barr the choice for Liberty? I don’t know.
3. Given what I outlined above, I am leery of voting for Chuck Baldwin. I like that he campaigned for Ron Paul, but the Constitution Party advocates a Christian-based form of government, which is a pseudo-theocracy. I do not and will not ever support this. The Constitutional party claims that gambling is evil. I disagree with them. I don’t LIKE gambling, personally, but I see no problem with someone entertaining themselves with cards or craps. After all, I’ve spent plenty of money on video games. There’s a form of entertainment with no chance of making back some money. It could be argued that gambling is a form of entertainment with a slim chance of paying off. But my point with gambling is that I don’t think it ought to be outlawed. I don’t think the government has the right to say what I do with my money. I don’t know that I can vote for Baldwin for this reason alone. (They want the Federal Government to legislate far more than they really ought to, and they want them to for purely moral reasons.) We are not, and we ought not be, a theocracy. So I don’t know whether I can vote for him, given that he represents a party that appears to want to create a man-invented version of the Jewish Civil Government. As my friend Ryan told me last night,”didn’t Jesus say, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’?”
As I said above…if I felt things were immoral, then I would say it is the job of the church to preach the gospel. It is not the job of the government to legislate morality. What is the church doing to combat evils like homosexuality? Not enough, if all they’re trying to do is legislate it. Making it illegal for gays to marry is not going to result in winning souls to Christ, people!!! Preach the Gospel to all, but don’t think that if only it were illegal for someone to marry someone of the same gender, your job would be easier. Preach the Word of God, and when the Lord converts them, they will hate the sin.
4. I could just not vote. This would effectively be the same as option #1, since writing in Ron Paul’s name would not be counted anyway. However, voting is a duty of every eligible American citizen. We’re not voting directly for the President, no, but we are voting to determine where the electoral votes of our state will go. (Ostensibly. As I understand it, many states do not even require their electoral representatives to vote any certain way…I need to look at this.) I don’t think I can, in good conscience, not vote.
I don’t like Barr’s voting history, but can a person change? I know I have in the last year or so. Given how hard he’s worked to reverse decisions he once had a part in making, I think I may be voting for Barr, though I’m by no means final on this. Regardless of how I vote, I will be taking my vote away from McCain and the Republicans. I’m doing this because they have left their original platform of small government and low taxes. I’m doing this because they are tyrannical and don’t desire our freedom. Land of the free, remember?
