The Single Issue Voter

I have been pretty persistent in my opposition to both political parties in the last year, and I continue to be so. A lot of questions arise in my mind as I sit and try and decide how to vote. But first, an anecdote from my mother in law.

She received a call from some polling company the other day, and after consenting to answer some basic questions (age, sex) she was asked, "Who will you vote for this November, Barack Obama, John McCain, or undecided?"

She answered, "is there another option? I'm not voting for either, and I'm not undecided." The woman on the other end seemed confused by this answer, answered in the negative, and then continued on to the next question. When my mother in law asked what she had put for her answer above, she said nothing. She then asked, "Did you put undecided?" she heard a click and was disconnected.

The pollster had inserted an answer for her. Folks, these public opinion polls are useless when the answers are fixed in such a way. I'm not against polling, but when the evening news scrolls up with 45% Obama, 45% McCain, what kind of scientific study is that? It's garbage, and stinks of the Delphi Method on a mass scale. Nevermind the 5% who want to vote Green party, 5% for Libertarian party, 5% Constitution party and whatever else is out there (I'm not endorsing these people, merely pointing to their existence).

Personally, I'm interested in many things libertarian leaning, although I'm always a Catholic first, so I'm a single issue voter when it comes to abortion. The thing is, I'm not convinced that McCain will stop abortion...although I'm convinced Obama will push for more abortion. That said, I'm actually at a quandary since the picking of Sarah Palin, the pro-life magnet for hateful liberals everywhere, who could actually become Commander in Chief someday. She's brought to the front the fact that many of the liberals in leadership are hateful people, NOT the bleeding hearts they pretend to be. This is good for naive college students to see, and realize that there is more to the Left than their propaganda advertises.

I can't tell you how to vote, but here's what I'd do: I live in an "Obama state", one that will most likely go blue this time around. My vote will go to Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party. Sadly, a Baptist is a more decent person than most Catholic politicians. If you live in a red state or a highly contested state, you may feel the need to vote for McCain. So be it. If you live in a blue state like California, VOTE THIRD PARTY! Your "wasted" votes for McCain only will perpetuate the destructive two party system that has ruined our values through massive education increases, wars, financial castastrophies, and socialism.

If you vote third party, Constitution Party is good and pro life. I'm not sure about Bob Barr, the Libertarian party, although I think he is pro life. Nader and McGinney are pro-aborts and I don't think anybody should vote for them. I do think they should get the chance to debate and be on the ballot, if we pretend to be an actual democracy here in the U.S.

Should Catholics Vote for McCain?

That depends on whether or not Catholics believe that the Republican party can stop abortion. Now, Catholics must not vote for Obama, who is a pro-abortion politician. That much is obvious to the rank and file Catholic, although somehow there are a good deal of Catholics who feel like ending the war in Iraq is just as important as ending abortion.
To those types, let me point out that Barrack Obama is pro-war in Afghanistan, and has said "all options are on the table" regarding Iran. Obama is not anti-war. He has used an anti Iraq war stance to garner naive liberals into believing he is a peace president.
He is not.
So, back to John McCain III. Is this a man we want in office? Not really. Is the lesser of two evils a legitimate choice?
I'll leave that up to you ultimately. I don't believe the lesser of two evils is a good choice, and I'll explain. The lesser of two evils idea stems because:

1. There are only two real choices (a third party candidate will not miraculously win this election)
2. With Obama and a friendly Congress a ton of junk bills will get passed increasing government power and decreasing liberty in the United States

With regards to the first, I would like to point out that this has been said for decades. It's always the lesser of two evils we vote for in national politics. Every time. The 20th century has been a nonstop pragmatic decision. Each time we get a politician in office who doesn't deliver on their campaign promises, builds big government (yes, even Reagan did), and ultimately makes us worse off.
The less people that vote for the national candidates, the better the chance a third party candidate could make a showing. For example, approximately 60 million people voted for each of the two major party candidates. Getting another 60 million people behind a third party candidate would be an impossible endevour. But the less people who vote for the main two candidates, the more the gap is brought down to make a third party candidate more viable.

The second argument is more sound, although it is entirely possible that a rejection of John McCain and George Bush Big Government Republicans will bring about a grassroots swell of voters in the next Congressional election to bring in new blood. A hostile Congress with Obama in office might work like it did in 1994-and may bring about more sound policies.

In either scenario, abortion will not be stopped. As I have written before, it is praying the Rosary (something I've been remiss in lately) and volunteering in grassroots efforts (something I'm very remiss in) that will help end this horror. The Republican Party is not as powerful as the Catholic Church, and our loyalty is to the latter, not the former.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us

Manias

An interesting article regarding the FED and its hopes to grow even stronger can be found here.


I'll leave it to better authors to explain this, who are more knowledgable, but suffice it to say the FED's interference in the economy is the reason for the housing bubble...and the tech bubble...and all other bubbles since the early 20th century. More regulation and central planning may sound good, but the effects will be disastrous.

Don't vote for congressmen or senators who will give the FED more power. The presidential candidates are essentially the same in this regard, so don't go looking for respite from any of them. Get in touch with a local Ron Paul Meetup group and support pro-life, free-market men and women to local offices. Ignore the presidential hoopla, unless it is viewed for sheer entertainment.

What Must Be Done Pt II

Politically, the next election looks bleak. Obama looks poised to pull a J.F.K. on McCain this fall, and Obama's pro-life record is abysmal. McCain is a 50/50 guess on the pro-life as he has voted pro-life before, but also supports stem cell research with already created embryos. Also, he generally creeps me out and seems to be even bolder than Bush in what he'll tell people...I can't imagine he would bode well for the international image of the U.S.
Obama's personality cult looks to engulf even President Clinton's if his success continues. Hillary would have been a one term president, I think, while Obama could easily hit two terms. This is scary and will likely result in a steep increase of big government doing big government things. Considering we're already broke, I'm expecting a redux of FDR's programs from the 30's. Gary North has good investment recommendations to hedge for a recession, and I recommend his site for just that.
Anyhow, back to what needs to be done. The USCCB, long known for its backbone (this is my tongue in my cheek), needs to work on creating blocs of Catholic voters who are willing to sit out elections if need be. The Republican Party is not the pro-life party...they are just less pro-choice than the Democrats. Many are choosing to sit out the election this fall, and I understand their choice. I'm unsure yet if I'll vote for McCain or a write in/third party. However, a million people (or many millions) organized under the pro-life banner refusing to vote for a weak pro-life candidate may set the stage for the next election to have some stronger pro-life candidates. Then again, there were plenty of good options for Catholics available: Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Sam Brownback (great on pro-life, not great on empire, but would have been plenty fine), Mike Huckabee (terrible on many issues but very pro-life). I think at this point even Romney might have done something just to create a legacy for himself...maybe not.
Regardless, the bishops need to get their act together and stop playing the tax avoidance game. They also need to stop saying ridiculous things like the death penalty and racism being intriniscally evil, and make it a one issue decision once again: abortion. I personally hate how our government grows and grows and wastes all of our tax money on stupid wars, but I can live with that. I can't live with abortion. We need to take it down no matter what the cost.

What Must Be Done

Catholicism has been under attack for quite some time in the U.S., as well as other parts of the world. This is nothing new. Many Catholics have little idea of this, and consider things quite rosy. A good amount of Catholics, however, do know and argue considerably over what to do. I was once the former, now the latter. For me, it was a transition from liberal fallen away Catholic to Traditional Catholic that showed me the light. My lifestyle didn't change overnight; however, I list the following suggestions to Americans who wish to live a "radical" Catholic lifestyle in 2008 and beyond.
1. Pray the rosary, every day. This is not easy, and I have had difficulties with it. Nevertheless, true change begins here.
1.5 Attend Mass more often than weekly, if possible. Find a traditional Latin Mass in your area. (PDF alert)
2. Turn off the television. This might be the hardest, but if Catholics are to begin a serious culture war it MUST be done. Even non-Catholics agree on this. Not only do television shows waste our time, but there is a constant barrage of unChristian material. Grown ups and children alike are vulnerable. Turn off the television.
3. Find like-minded Catholics in your area. You need support. Your children need friends who share their values-you don't want to deny them television at home only to hear they are watching it at a friend's house. You will likely be looked at with pity/sympathy/whatever by worldly people who don't understand you. Make sure you have some friends that do.
4. Pull your children out of public schools. If you can't, begin finding out how you can. This is possible. Homeschooling associations are everywhere and curriculum is getting easier to find. Most so called Catholic schools are not very different from public schools and use the same textbooks. Your children will learn the same liberal junk, but in uniforms and with a prayer (maybe) beforehand.
5. Culture your family through better music (chamber music and choral music) and the arts. Don't let pop culture seep back into your house.
6. Love thy neighbor. Don't look down at everyone for not being like you. Be charitable, and do your best to help others find better ways to live. But, this is last, as your family is the most important. Basically, be a good role model.

If you can do three of these, you're on your way. Start a fourth. If you're already doing more than 5, you're in a great situation, and way to be a model Catholic! If you are at zero or one, it's time to start praying and looking at what truly matters in life: God, or mammon.

Ron Paul: No Peacenik

There are a lot of people, I believe, who find many of Ron Paul's ideas refreshing and engaging. Furthermore, these people seem to understand that he is a man who has held fast to his beliefs for 10 terms of congress, voting no so many times as to earn the nickname "Dr. No". Agree with him or no, I think a lot of non-Paul supporters admire his courage and his seeming inability to pander to an audience.
The main issue is terror!
Terrorism is a serious issue and protecting ourselves is a natural and good thing. Our hearts go out to those who have lost loved ones in violence that is motivated by those who would justify killing to further their message.
Ron Paul wants to solve the problem differently than almost all other presidential candidates: he wants the U.S. to get out of the Middle East (and all other countries) and stop aiding foreign governments. The non-interventionist approach has been argued by many and I'll simply offer links for you to explore these ideas. I'd prefer to focus on what a Ron Paul military will look like.
I'm not affiliated with the campaign in any way and these are all personal conjectures, so if he's said something contrary to what I am writing, let me know and I'll fix it!
First off, Congressman Paul wants to bring the troops out of Europe, Korea, Japan, and everywhere else we are. This situation would be very similar to us about 100 years ago, about the time we were flourishing with a growing nation, few enemies, and prosperity. No, the good ol' days weren't perfect, but we didn't concern ourselves with terrorists (my grandparents were concerned about Indians attacking them on the way to town) or much else around the world. Nor did we have too much mass media in our lives telling us what to fear next (people knew what to fear: disease, cold winters, hot summers, etc).
Now, we have a pretty large military at the moment, and not everyone would fit in all the Stateside bases. Likely, some old ones would be reactivated, and perhaps a new one or two would be created. Military careerists could choose to spend their entire 20 years in one location for family stability. Deployments would decrease dramatically with the exception of the Navy, which would cooperate with other Navies around the world and aide the United States diplomatically (not "diplomatically" as a euphemism, but truly diplomatically, as has been the job of navies for hundreds of years). However, even sailors would likely see less time at sea, as they'd not be deployed (for the next 4-8 years) to the Middle East for nine months at a time, but rather enjoy more liberty cruises and close-to-home exercises.
The military budget would shrink due to not paying the massive overseas costs, but Paul has no naivety about the need for national security and a strong military. Likely pay would continue to increase, R&D would increase, and our special forces programs would continue to be well funded. I imagine a President Paul would cut through a lot of the BS funding that goes to contractors (if you've ever heard of supply costs in the military being ridiculous, you've heard correctly) and open up market alternatives to save money while updating gear.
Our country has programs in place already to find rogue nukes in the U.S. Focusing on us, while updating and enforcing our immigration laws to find out who is in the country will keep any would be criminal forces on their toes. And slimming down the massive bureaucracy (eliminating Homeland Security) will help as well.
I don't believe Ron Paul has said anything about getting rid of spies and special agents. Yes, he opposes some of the uses of the CIA, but I don't see him pulling every single spy we have out of every single foreign country. Espionage is important to a strong national defense.
*******
On a separate note, I'd like to point out that China and Russia are wary of our growing American Hegemony. It is only a matter of time before they begin to enact checks on us by way of military buildup. Their advantage is eerily similar to ours over the Soviets 20 years ago: lack of empire to maintain. Yes, they have economic advantages to us, which over time, will not bode well for our country's national security.
I shudder in horror to think of an open war with those two while simultaneously fighting terrorism in the Middle East.
Even if he were pro-life (pdf alert, but he has good points about the Republicans) and pro-market (he's neither), I would not vote for Dennis Kucinich, who I wouldn't trust as a Commander in Chief.
Ron Paul is no peacenik. He is a man who understand the current national security situation. He is against aggressive war but not "just war". He is a man who can make the country safer from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Catholics for Ron Paul

If you are still wondering who you should vote for in the upcoming primaries, and you are Catholic, I suggest you head on over to this blog and read some very good arguments for Ron Paul from a historical Catholic perspective. I intend to add them to the ol' blogroll as soon as I figure out how to use it.