August 05, 2004

The Real Issues

Pubicizing it as an effort to get rid of George W. Bush, ten different musical acts are involved in a 28-city tour through the states expected to be the swing in the November election. But if you think it is some sort of anti-war effort or even about Bush personally, you would be wrong.

In the words of Eli Pariser, executive director of the liberal political action committee presenting the tour, "The tour is aimed squarely at the radical right wing policies of Republican ideologues throughout the country." What are these radical right wing policies?

The political action committee is MoveOn PAC and they aren't spending any money on John Kerry. They are funneling donations to seven different congressional candiates. Who and why?

They are supporting Jon Jennings in the Indiana 8th, because the incumbent John Hostettler favours the "radical Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313) which removes the power of courts to determine the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act." They are supporting Lois Murphy in the Pennsylvania 8th, who "has spent her career fighting for women and families as the past president of NARAL-Pennsylvania". Or you can donate through them to Richard Romero in the New Mexico 1st because he is "pro-choice and opposed to the constitutional ban on gay marriage."

Do we see a common thread here? Let's see...

There's Jim Stork in Florida-22, "who is openly gay...focusing on critical issues including stem cell research...has been a leader on gay rights issues..."

And if you prefer a Senate race, spend your money on Joe Heoffel in Pennsylvania running against the never particularly conservative Arlen Specter. How can a Democrat stand out against Specter? According to his website, Hoeffel opposes the ban on late-term abortions, abstinence-based sex education, abstinence-based global AIDS funding, and any judicial nominee who opposes abortion.

So what are the "radical right wing policies"? When it comes down to it, they are anything that restricts sexual immorality in any way. For MoveOn PAC and the Democrats the real agenda is creating a legal and social climate where anything goes.

If you are thinking about whether to vote Republican from the top of the ticket down, all worried about the war in Iraq and whether it is the right thing, please don't be stupid. Wars come and wars go. And - shock! horror! - soldiers die. What is at stake is not control of a piece of desert in the Middle East.

Don't get me wrong, there are lives at stake. Lots of them. Most of them unborn. But there are also those lives that are influenced by political leadership that says right is wrong and wrong is right. Our salvation is not in the State, but though we are not of the world, we are in the world. And what we do in the world makes a difference.

Posted by david at August 5, 2004 03:38 AM | TrackBack
Comments

The enemy of one's enemy isn't necessarily one's friend - point taken. But other than that, your stance is just another example of the Protestant religious right - of which you're still a part, apparently - being played by American neocon imperialists (who among other things are shredding the US Constitution using the terrorist scare as an excuse).

Your English neighbours are right about Mr Bush and Iraq and oppose the war. Stop the madness.

Posted by: The young fogey at August 8, 2004 07:00 PM

I agree with you that there has been some dangerous Constitution shredding in the wake of 9/11. I don't think Al Gore would have done anything different, nor do I think a Democrat in the White House is going to dismantle the Dept of Homeland Security or abolish the Patriot Act.

I am not, however, being played by anyone. I am happy to agree with the "religious right", Protestant or otherwise, whenever I think they are right. Electing John Kerry will not stop the madness. There would be no significant change in policy. Someone other than Bush might not have gone into Iraq and enforced the Clinton-era regime change policy of the American government. But what's done is done.

I have to ask myself, which candidate and which party will most likely offer the most peaceful environment for the Church? Which will provide as positive an environment for righteousness to flourish? Which will protect the unborn?

The answer everytime is the GOP. It is not a perfect party, whether run by neo-cons or paleo-cons, or neo-paleo-cons, or whomever.

Posted by: Dave at August 9, 2004 04:26 AM

Yes, the much-vaunted Constitution shredding. Did you see the ceremony at the National Archives? It was inspiring. Michael Moore was there, in the stocks, and they paraded Barbra Streisand around with a bag over her head. They beheaded Andrew Sullivan; he would have been OK, except he left the reservation.

Actually, I just wanted to say I appreciated your post, David, but your commenter got me going off in a different direction.

Everybody talks about the shredded Constitution, but the actual provisions of the Patriot Act mostly apply methods already legal for drug traffickers to terrorists. Does the Left explain why terrorists should get a pass?

Posted by: Jan Bear at August 9, 2004 06:23 PM

Well, I would never consider the young fogey a spokesman of the Left. He is a devotee of Lew Rockwell conservatives/libertarians, e.g., Ron Paul, Gary North, Pat Buchanan, etc. And I agree with a lot that they say. (I did take on Gary North once in print, to which he had no published reply -- it's in the articles section of the website.)

I do think that the Patriot Act goes too far - the methods provided allow for a much broader sweep in the chance of finding a terrorist. I think it has serious implications for the 4th Amendment. Or more accurately, I think it dismantles the 4th Amendment.

But like I said before, I don't think that Al Gore would have done anything different. If anything, I think it probably would have been worse. I think John Kerry would be worse.

Opposing the war is pointless. There is not going to be a Vietnam-type groundswell of protest, Michael Moore notwithstanding. And anti-war protest did not stop the Vietnam War anyway. I do have a problem with the fact that the overthrow of Saddam has been a bad thing for the Christians of Iraq and on that basis alone I have been lukewarm about it at best.

Where I think Serge is off-base is in chanting the anti-imperialism mantra. Love it or hate it, it is not the most important issue in this race.

Posted by: Dave at August 10, 2004 12:55 AM