Mailvox: on voting your conscience

WA asks me to respond to David Kupelian’s article on the November election:

Christians, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, constitutionalists, patriotic independents and other traditionalists: When you look at George W. Bush today and are dissatisfied – dissatisfied that he raised the federal budget sky-high, that he granted de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, that he doesn’t always follow the Constitution, that he invaded Iraq, that he hasn’t done enough to fight abortion and gay rights, that whatever …

What conclusion do you draw?

One conclusion is that Bush is a globalist, money-grubbing elitist Bonesman conspirator, or at best a clueless, sold-out puppet.

Another interpretation at the opposite end is that Bush is a general at war – a general who knows more than you do, who sees the lay of the land, who comprehends the odds, who knows what troops he’s got, and determines which battles he can and must win and which ones he has to concede, at least temporarily – even if it looks bad to his supporters.

As there is a plethora of information in support of the former which is also backed by the history of the ruling parties two factions, while there is absolutely nothing but blind trust supporting the latter assertion, I don’t see how any thinking being can possible conclude the latter. Every argument for President Bush’s re-election posits that he is a good and decent man, primarily because he claims to be a Christian. Well, so do the Archbishop of Canterbury and the gay Episcopalian priests, and I don’t hear any conservatives asserting that they are therefore genuinely good leaders worthy of support.

I pay very little attention to words and a lot of attention to actions. The irony of the pro-Bush conservative’s position is that he is forced to argue that the president does not have the political capital to enact policies that have far more popular support than the war on Iraq upon which he spent it all. If nothing else, this makes him at best a lousy political general in whom to place one’s trust. But I don’t think that’s the case, as I’m quite confident that he’s nothing more or less than a globalist tool, functionally identical to Jean-Francois and almost every other politician in the ruling party.

One aspect of Europe that I found markedly superior to the USA when living there was the far more astute attitude of the populace towards the politicians. They know the politicians are all corrupt, whereas in the United States we insist on excusing them on the basis of “stupidity”. When individuals and institutions succeed repeatedly at achieving what they set themselves, for good or for ill, stupidity is unlikely to be involved.

Kerry would betray the unborn, betray our youth, betray both the haves and the have-nots, betray us all. With inspiring rhetoric and fanfare, he would unravel what remains of our national sovereignty, leading us down the road to servitude, poverty and insecurity in a thousand smothering ways – all the while piously thinking he was ushering in a new era of peace.

And this is different from George Bush in precisely what way? If you want to vote for a winner, go ahead, vote for whoever is ahead in the polls on November third. But don’t try to pretend to me or anyone else that principle is involved. If your strongest argument after four years of governance is “don’t think, just close your eyes and trust”, you don’t have a leg to stand on.