This is a quick rundown of the most important governmental
and social issues on my radar, and which candidate matches my leanings on each.
Part of my reasoning here is that the president can make significant
contributions to any issue and plays a part in many of the country’s policies,
but he does not make law or set policy himself for the most part, so even if I
disagree with particular points, I don’t always consider them deal breakers.
This feels short and simplistic, but longer disquisitions
are likely to go unread and become overly complicated. I’m unlikely to be
swayed by arguments attempting to change my mind on these issues before
tomorrow: what I’m trying to decide is which presidential candidate I would be
happier to see in office.
Abortion: This is
a key issue for me (though, obviously, not my single issue). I am against
abortion in all but the classic conservative points: rape, incest, and the life
of the mother exemptions. I believe life begins at conception, indeed, and
every cut-off point I’ve heard proposed is not based on morals or ethics, but
convenience. I was disappointed that Obama promised to make abortions legal but
rare (a preferable alternative to legal and common, as they are now), which had
a better chance of success than attempts to outlaw the practice under current
conditions. He has not shown any initiative to carry that ideal through.
You know what gets my goat, though? The complaint leveled by
many liberals is spot on: conservatives want these restrictions, but do little
to help those who are struggling and who are the most vulnerable when it comes
to carrying pregnancy to term in difficult circumstances. Things that ought to
be included with any campaign to end abortion are a far greater support for
single mothers, much greater funding for the support services that aid those
mothers as well as child care and adoption options and assistance, and real
accountability for fathers. That last is especially egregious. I’m not certain
how to go about it, but making certain fathers are financially and socially
responsible for their own offspring is vital. If we mean what we say when we
claim that all life is precious, then we had best do out best to provide for
those lives in every way we can.
Candidate: Romney
Marriage: The
least important issue on my radar, but an issue nonetheless. I’m increasingly
of the camp that says that the government should get out of marriage
altogether: make all couplings (and the inevitable future triplings and so on)
civil unions; hand marriage exclusively to social organizations (usually, churches)
to make their own rules. Historically, this has been the model until the recent
era.
That said, I’m still against same-sex marriages. I’m not
prepared to overturn history, logic, and my faith to choose otherwise, and I
think a government that endorses it is headed down the wrong path. No, my
marriage is not threatened when others marry; yes, the definition of the term
is in jeopardy when it begins to be applied to whatever we feel like. (If the
term itself wasn’t important, there wouldn’t’ be such a fight over it.)
Candidate: Romney
Supreme Court: This
may not be on everyone’s radar, but there’s a high likelihood that the next
president will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice during his term.
Given that I’m a conservative when it comes to legal interpretation, I’m
guessing that Romney would put in a justice I think more acceptable than Obama’s
probable pick. (Though given the likelihood of a slim Republican majority congress,
the candidate who makes it through is likely to be pretty moderate in any
case.)
Candidate: Romney
Economy: Like
many items on the list, this one’s a toss-up. I do think Romney knows how to
run a business, so I think he’d have a handle on things economic. On the flip
side, I am not convinced he’d help anyone except business owners and
corporations—the latter needs some help but not all of it; the former need
little to no help at all. I’m terrified of Romney’s drive to reduce
restrictions and regulations (which were put in place for a reason) and aid
corporate interests at every turn. I’m also not convinced Romney’s numbers add
up.
Obama hasn’t been the engine of change that I would like to
see, but things have been improving under his watch and I think they would
continue to do so. I don’t think that it would have been possible for anyone to
turn things around in just four years, and steady recovery is workable. I’m
somewhat disturbed by the tendency of folks to vote directly based on how they,
personally, are doing economically, rather than looking at the bigger picture
of the economy as a whole. I am not against taxes that go toward helping
others. (Though I’ve heard the argument that if we paid fewer taxes, we’d have
more to give to charity, I haven’t seen it—and government welfare was
established to help precisely because private giving was not covering the needs
of many. When tax returns show up, I rarely hear people crowing about how they
can now make bigger donations to help others…)
Candidate: Obama
(probably)
Education: Obama
is the clear winner here. His dedication to education seems far stronger than
Romney’s, and while Romney may have some useful reforms in mind, his general
lack of interest in the subject and his dismissive attitude don’t lead me to
think that things would get better on that front. Romney’s push to weaken
unions also disturbs me: to take the guidance of education out of the hands of
those who actually educate is not wise. Two areas of public interest in
particular, I think, cannot be run like businesses: education and health care.
I believe Romney would run both of them as such, and the results will be ugly.
Candidate: Obama
Energy: This is
tied strongly to the next issue of the environment, but again it seems as if
Romney’s agenda is to pump money into the economy at any cost, even if it means
pushing wasteful and dangerous energy sources, and his desire to do away with
restrictions is frightening. Green energy is going to be required in the
future—the experts only disagree on the timing. The more we invest in such
technologies now, the better off we will be in the future. There will be some
parts of the economy that will suffer, as there always will be. Obama’s
policies are more sustainable and less damaging.
Candidate: Obama
Environment: This
is a big one for me, and the evidence all leads to one side. Yes, trees and
owls and mice do matter as part of the ecosystem. There may be tweaks to be
made to accommodate industry and nature, and serious consideration to be given
to employment, but Romney’s desire to do away with restrictions for pollution
and resource extraction, and his goal of opening up the wild lands that remain
in our country to more industrial exploitation, makes me ill. As with so many
things, we are sacrificing long-term stability for immediate gains, and we are
already paying some of the cost: I fear that the future costs will be
unsustainable. While I’m not completely convinced that global warming is
entirely human-caused, evidence suggests that it is at least partly true, and
if I’m not certain, I would far rather play it safe than be sorry later. Those
who suggest that, since it hasn’t been proven in their minds, we should continue
as if it isn’t a possibility seem incredibly short-sighted to me.
Candidate: Obama
Health Care:
Sorry, conservative friends: this is one that I am quite liberal on. I’d rather
have my options severely reduced if it meant providing basic services to
everyone. I don’t know if I’d call health care a right, but it is a service
that should be available to all. The only reason I don’t like Obamacare is that
I’d rather see a single-payer plan. It was a real blessing in Canada when we
lived there, and I’d go for it in a minute here. The argument that it cuts down
on competition and innovation doesn’t seem to hold water, and I have faith that
universities and corporations will still pursue health care even if they can
only earn large profits rather than the staggering profits they are seeing now.
Candidate: Obama
Immigration: I’m
utterly undecided on this one. On one hand, I think we need stronger
enforcement of immigration law, and I don’t have the same problems with efforts
such as those in Arizona that some do. Sneaking into the country, for whatever
reason, is illegal: it may be understandable, but we don’t let people off the
hook for other crimes just because they had good reason to commit them. If your
family is hungry and you steal, that may be understandable; you still get
charged with theft. Those who argue that such laws—and those policies recently
unveiled in California—are deporting people for minor infractions are missing
the point: they are being deported for minor infractions committed after breaking the law to enter the country. I have great
compassion for those born into difficult circumstances, but from a civic
standpoint, much as it might be desirable to help every soul, a country’s
resources are limited, and as a political entity, government must attend to its own citizens
first.
On the other hand, something does have to be done with the
vast number of illegal immigrants we have now. Denying them services does not
normally force them to re-emigrate; it just creates a huge underclass who have
no other options than crime. I don’t know if the DREAM Act is an answer, but
some form of amnesty has to be put in place for people already here coupled
with stronger enforcement. I don’t know, from the candidates’ shifty answers
and minimum effort to actually deal with this problem, who would do the better
job here.
Candidate: ?
Foreign Policy:
The candidates presented themselves as so closely aligned on these issues that
the choice seems almost immaterial. Obama certainly engenders more goodwill
overseas, and Romney’s gaffes have been ridiculous. Though Romney has the
stronger stance on Israel (which is important to me, though not as
apocalyptically important as it is to many others of my acquaintance), both
have pledge support to that nation, and the complaints leveled against Obama on
that score have been relatively slight (though not immaterial, and certainly
worrying). I might regret either choice depending on what happens in the next
four years, but based on what’s happened so far, I can’t suss out who comes out
on top here.
Candidate: ?
Role of Government:
Again, a toss-up. I’ve been very disturbed by some of Obama’s moves on this
score, including the assault on moral objections to provisions of health care
and his insistence on some government programs that seem wasteful. On the other
hand, Romney’s stripped-down version of government—which seems to exist solely
as an aid to business—scares me almost as much. A hands-off government which backs
the power of the dollar before people, or one whose octopus-like tentacles
reach into every area of life: which one is worse? I haven’t figured that out
yet.
Candidate: ?
So Obama wins on points, but some of the points that favor
Romney have a higher priority. Where are the scales to weigh this out?
What is it that ultimately scares me?
Under Romney, a country where my moral values are upheld,
but many against them become militant in the face of seeming dismissal by the
powers that be. A country ravaged environmentally by business interests. A
country that puts corporate interests above social welfare and trades in
long-term stability for today’s gratification. A country that leaves its poor
to become poorer and helps its rich to become richer. A country where education
and health care are up for sale, and the losers are cut off as unprofitable.
Under Obama, a country that continues to slip down the slide
of relativism, where my morals are more and more seen as dangerous attacks on the
selfhood and dignity of others rather than ethical statements. A country in
which the government overpowers our freedoms in the name of safety and
security. A country where everything is allowed and celebrated, save for
disapproval, and conscience is trumped by political correctness. A country in
which the government’s hand is in every transaction and bureaucrats decide what
is best for me and mine.
So: what do I do on Tuesday?
