In the course of the day and evening a few people may visit this site curious about my thoughts on the eve of tomorrow’s vote. As for my own vote, I can only reiterate what I have said over the past few weeks, and recommended for others to consider. I intend to vote for every Republican candidate who has not by their statements, stands or actions repudiated the GOP Platform.
This means paying special attention to issues that involve allegiance to the primordial founding principle of the United States (as set forth in the first document of the Organic Law of the United States, the American Declaration of Independence) which is that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. As the term implies these rights are rooted in the conscientious inclination to do what is right, as determined by God’s will and intention for our nature.
Though it should go without saying (since he is obviously not a Republican candidate) this rules out voting for Barack Obama. What is also clear from his record, but sadly needs emphatically to be said, is that it also rules out voting for Mitt Romney. I will not rehearse here what I have previously written about the Platform Republican Approach to voting in the 2012 election. (Click here to read a summary of the thinking behind it.) As for the principle of God-endowed right, toward mid-October I wrote a piece (If legislation re abortion is not on his agenda, is Romney really pro-life?) that serves to summarize the facts and reasoning that support the conclusion that Romney has repudiated it. That conclusion is only re-enforced by his willingness to join with and continue to support the Karl Rove elements of the GOP in their ruthless determination to destroy Todd Akin’s campaign for the U.S. Senate in Missouri. This is evidence of ill will toward those like Akin who stand firm for simple justice (refusing to murder innocent offspring for the crime of a parent). But (as I pointed out in the article Does Romney really want the GOP to win the U.S. Senate?) it may also be indicative of Romney’s desire to preserve the conditions needed if he is to reproduce as President the pattern he followed as Governor of Massachusetts. “He appeals for votes with emphatic claims of conservative views on the right to life, the defense of marriage and opposition to government centered socialist economic approaches. “ But he ends up betraying these things, with the excuse that “he only went along with these betrayals…because he had to work with the nasty, bad old Democrats who controlled the State legislature.”
In the last days of this campaign Romney is portraying himself as the candidate of unity who will forge bi-partisan consensus that breaks the partisan gridlock to get results. As with so much of his rhetoric, however, this relies on an assumption that is contrary to fact. Partisan gridlock has not been the problem during the years of Obama’s occupation of the White House. Despite the strong desire of the GOP’s conservative grassroots constituents, the GOP leaders in the U.S. Congress have refused to block Obama’s leftist agenda. Obamacare passed and was signed into law. The debt ceiling was raised, along with measures to give Obama the initiative re future increases. (This was done even though it violates the U.S. Constitution’s clearly stated aim of reserving to Congress (and in particular the U.S. House of Representatives) the initiative with respect to revenue raising measures for the U.S. Government.) And finally, though they occasionally bleated about Obama’s abuse of Executive power, the GOP accepted with hardly a murmur the provisions of the NDAA that erase the due process requirements included in the Bill of Rights to protect individuals from arbitrary attacks on the life, liberty and property of persons in the power of the U.S. Government.
Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that he also supports this fundamental abrogation of Constitutional constraints on the abuse of government power. But his words and record suggest that overall he agrees more than he disagrees with the GOP leadership’s surrender to Obama’s leftist, anti-Constitutional agenda. The buzzwords of unity and bipartisanship are blinking left-turn signals, suggesting that Romney will lead the nation as he led Massachusetts, right down the sinkhole into which leftist regressives push every country foolish enough to hand them government power.
If Obama wins the election tomorrow, Americans who care for liberty will be in for four more years of battling against the leftist regressives. And, unlike the GOP’s elitist faction leaders, most grassroots conservatives are already galvanized for the fray. On the other hand, if Romney wins, Americans who care for liberty could be in for eight years of battling against leftist regressives. But in the first two years, conservatives will be told to tolerate leftist drift in order to give Romney a chance. And then in the run up to the 2016 elections, they’ll be told that its important to pass legislation, despite its leftist tenor, in order to build a positive record and prevent the Democrats from regaining power. By the first years of Romney’s second term, the regressive leftist agenda of the elitist faction will be so firmly in place that there will be no need to tell conservatives anything at all, unless it be to get with the program or get lost in the backwater of History. God knows that in the meanwhile, the agenda of moral principle Romney already abandons or defies will have long since been relegated to the “fringe loony” waste bin.
But we’re not there yet. Right now Romney feels compelled to pay lip-service to the moral agenda even as he otherwise disavows it. Even Obama feels the need to mimic respect for the superintendence of the Creator God. Hence his campaign’s pathetic last-ditch effort to pretend that his lifelong commitment to Godless left-wing ideology is somehow consistent with Biblical “values.” Why can’t people who sincerely embrace the premise of God’s superintendence of human affairs see what is obviously seen by the politicians determined to overthrow it? Why can’t they see their own strength, and vote with confidence to reject any and all leaders who oppose or have abandoned allegiance to America’s acknowledgement of God? At the moment it is still true that nothing stands in the way except our own brainwashed fear, our own unwillingness to reject those who reject God, and trust in Him for the consequences. Unlike in Canada, our pastors are not yet routinely jailed for preaching the Gospel. Unlike Europe, conscientious homeschoolers are not systematically threatened with abduction of their children by the State. To be sure, our military personnel are already being forced to violate their conscience when it comes to respect for the God-endowed rights of the natural family (a coercion of conscience Romney has repeatedly said he will not reverse). But with the right composition of Congress, we can restore their conscientious liberty.
Given the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, with the right composition of Congress, Americans determined to restore and preserve our republican form of government can thwart the elitist faction’s thus far successful bid to overthrow it. And they could begin to do so in tomorrow’s vote, by following the Platform Republican Approach. Rather than trusting either Romney or Obama, wouldn’t it be better to build the strength in Congress that will allow us to trust only in God and our good conscience, while holding politicians and the government powers we entrust to them accountable to both? Isn’t that politics the way our Founders intended, the American way?