Oh, you are so in for it now. I’ve got the blogging back into my veins and months of unspouted rants have backed up and are ready to erupt.
I kid, of course, but seriously, this is going to be a very long post. I hope you’ll read it anyway, because I know there are lots of my friends who are still puzzling over my apostasy from the Republican Party (yes, did you know I used to be a registered GOP’er?).
Sweet Pam, this one goes out to you. Thanks for your email—let’s begin.
Pam is one of my favorite people and she and the sweet Picketts, who sent it to her, both sent me this video today:
http://www.catholicvote.com/ “
The Picketts said:
If you want something to think about look here and see what the Catholics have done to encourage their 67 million people on election day. They don't tell them how to vote but they sure do get their message across. I believe this is an inspiring message for this coming election, so I'm sending it out to everyone I know. Go ahead and watch it now. I’ll wait.
OK. Although my sweet and gentle Pam proffered this video to me as “another view,” I want to start by saying that I agree 100% with this video. (And I’m sorry to break your heart, my sweet and socially liberal Natasha, I hope you’ll take some consolation when I actually post my epistle on marriage that I posted to the NY Times in response to the CT ruling a few weeks ago, I’ll do it here one of these days. If you don’t take consolation, then love me anyway, OK?)
It is the assumption people take from this video (and likely the intended assumption of the video itself) that I take very strong issue with. It is the assumption that there exists a pro-family, anti-abortion, defender of marriage candidate in the presidential race. It is the assumption that because these issues are included in the Republican platform that they have something to do with what Republicans actually do in office, although years and years of evidence prove that on the presidential level, these principles are not for performance, but are merely used for election purposes to get people who care about them to think they have to vote Republican or they will be instantly killing babies and destroying the family.
Then they will put these issues away until the next election when they need you again to stay in power.
Let’s look at the past for a minute: Abortion rates and the political advancement of gay marriage (both state issues) have only advanced under a Republican president in the last eight years, at breakneck pace in fact, and this was under a more evangelical president who may have actually cared about this issue at some level beyond election rhetoric—not so for McCain. (Ironically, other Republican mainstays like smaller spending/government, avoiding sweeping financial socialism, right to privacy, etc. also became irrelevant once everyone was comfortably seated).
We had Bush I, Clinton and W—20 years!—and only saw an increase in all of these problems relating to the family, under both blue and red banners. The last eight years have seen greater blows to the family than we’ve ever witnessed before. Were those in power alarmed? Did they change laws? Did they care? No. Unless there was an election involved.
Yes, John McCain has a better voting record on this than Obama. But that is not where it stops – as we’ve seen again and again, people act differently as President, and we need to know the ideology there--based on their own words. In looking into that, it was made it clear to me that McCain’s stance is far more seated in political imperative than in personal ideology. (And relating to the definition of marriage, I can tell you right now that McCain couldn’t care less—unless it means your vote).
With Obama, I saw in his discussions on the topic that he has actually spent time on this issue, has thoroughly and personally explored the causes, aftermath and implications of abortion in a way that gave him an understanding of all the full ramifications, causes and effects involved. He is very clear that abortion is a bad thing--something that Dems have been afraid to say for fear that it meant "women are not equal." He sees it as his mission to deter abortion at its roots.
His approach to this issue reflects his ability to think through the implications and complications of difficult issues the people are divided on--which will only be an asset as he handles the many, many other crises we are facing right now in the same pragamatic way.