Danny ChaiI don’t like it when people vote based on a single reason alone. Like a good friend of mine, whom I love dearly keeps saying how he voted for Bush based on the abortion issue alone. That’s fine, and that’s his right, but I just disagree with that mindset.
Don’t get me wrong. I voted for Bush. I’m hard-core against partial birth abortions. But I disagree with the mindset that one should choose a candidate based on a single issue alone. Because that kind of mindset is intentionally shortsighting yourself. That’s a bad thing to do not just in selecting a candidate, but in life in general. Also spiritually. You’re often told in Scripture, that you can’t just focus on a verse without considering what Scripture says as a whole or you get into problems.
I think the same thing applies. We’re choosing the political leader of our country. The best leader of our country cannot be determined by a single issue alone. Nor should a single issue alone be the determining factor in selecting a political candidate. To be so shortsighted in this just really bothers me.
What you’re saying is that this issue is so important, that it’s the only thing that matters to you in determining the leader of the country. And again, that’s your right. But, I still dislike the mindset because of its intentional shortsightedness – with that kind of attitude you’re not willing to consider that there might be other issues that are relevant and important. The fact that that can’t even be considered really bothers me. And the idea that one issue alone should be the sole determining factor in the leader of our country quite frankly frightens me, no matter how much I agree.
In particular with the abortion issue. Let me reiterate, I’m hard core against partial birth abortions. I think it’s nothing short of murder. But, even still, I can’t say I’d vote for someone based on this alone in this election.
Because the issue there is life. But then, why not call into question Bush’s hard-core support and liberal use of the death penalty? If you’re so concerned about taking life, why not oppose Bush on this issue alone? The number of people executed in Texas under Bush is phenomenal. If life is what you care about, shouldn’t you vote against Bush on this issue alone?
It can be argued that the difference is that in one case, an innocent life is being taken, whereas in the other case, the life being taken is not. But there have been numerous cases where innocent people have been placed on Death Row, freed thanks to DNA testing and whatnot. Mistakes happen. The system is demonstrably faulty. Given this, there a likelihood, given the number of executions carried out, that innocent people have been executed.
That the number of innocent people executed is a minority, however small, is irrelevant. Because the issue with partial birth abortions is not about how many are or will be carried out (the number would be very small) but the principle of the thing. If you care about life, why should the same not apply here? If someone is for a system in which innocent lives are taken, shouldn’t you vote against them on this issue alone? Regardless of how many these innocents might be, just on the principle of the thing?
Or with like gun-control. I’m not saying all these shootings wouldn’t have happened were there stricter gun control policies. We can’t know that. Nevertheless, it’s shocking to me how easy it is for certain individuals to obtain guns. And Bush is hard-core pro-gun. He passed legislation in Texas allowing you to carry concealed weapons in many places. If life is the defining issue, why not even consider the effect a candidates gun policy might have on life? Even if you can’t know for sure, it’s something to think about, if you care about life. But you won’t if partial birth abortion is the sole issue on which you’ll consider a candidate.
So, I don’t know if you disagree with what I’m saying, and that’s fine. It’s just to me, making a decision based on partial-birth abortions alone is shortsided. It’s not about partial-birth abortions, right? It’s about life. That’s the principle you should care about. And that’s greater than a single issue. And if you do care about that principle, then other issues become relevant. And based on those issues, it doesn’t become so clear cut and easy to choose.
And that’s the way it should be. It shouldn’t be clear cut and easy. You can’t look at an issue alone and be shortsided, or you’ll lose sight of the bigger picture, and really, what you should be considering is the bigger picture. A particular issue should be relevant. But in my opinion, it shouldn’t be a defining one. Shortsidedness is bad.
So, like I said, it’s your right to do whatever you want. But for me, I strongly believe that choosing a President, like in all things, we can’t be shortsided, especially intentionally, but we need to consider a number of issues. And as much as I might agree with an issue, I think it’s really hard to be able to say that one should choose a candidate based on that issue alone. That’s an attitude I just can’t agree with.
All the more so because of the way the political process works in this country. You have to realize that realistically, whoever gets elected is not going to make a huge difference in abortion policy. That’s my claim. And it’s taking into account Supreme Court appointments. The only difference a President could make, in my view is in partial-birth abortions, which is why I’ve only talked about that. But like I said, even with this, as important as it is, it’s impossible to make it a defining issue by itself. There have to be other things to consider.
Umm, sorry. Random rant. Slam me if you want. I’m not saying I agree with all the arguments I’ve brought up, I’m just saying it’s not easy to say one should make a decision based on one issue alone.
While I’m on the topic, I don’t know, maybe I’m elitist, but I don’t think we should encourage everyone to vote. Is that bold? It’s fine to me that all people have the right to vote, but it’s just, I don’t think people should vote just because they can. They should vote because they want to, because they have an interest in it, and because they’ve carefully and thoughtfully considered the options and made their decisions. But that’s just me.
You know, one issue that really concerns me is the growing gap between the rich and the poor. I’m not joking, I think it’s stuff like this that has caused the downfall of many civilizations. I’m not joking at all. It’s not good.
So, I wonder what the right thing is to do about it. Like, should the minimum wage be raised to a level where people can actually live? Or should taxes be reduced or even dropped for the poorer? I have to admit I can’t relate to the poor at all. The amount I make already puts me at the very top percentile in terms of income in the nation. I don’t know even how people live.
The thing is, and I’m no econ major so I have no basis for this, but my belief is that the reason we’ve been able to be so economically prosperous while still maintaining a low level of inflation, a strange situation, is because most of the gains have gone to the already rich, and some to the middle class. But the poor have benefitted very little. So, since the poor aren’t really making more, they can’t afford more, and that helps keep inflation in check. But it widens the income gap, which is bad.
So, I want to even the income gap, but I worry that in doing so, if the poor make more, then inflation will increase, because it’s not clear (to me) what’s keeping it in check right now. And inflation is bad, right? Like, every time I read about Greenspan, everything he does is in response to “worries over inflation.” It’s like the ultimate evil.
Anyway, the income gap bothers me a lot, but I don’t know what the right thing is to do about it.
Seriously, I should have been an Econ major. I’m not joking. The stuff fascinates me.