I have been blogging about McCain and Obama a lot lately as well as posting items and making comments on Facebook about the upcoming election. I have been getting LOTS of grief from friends and even people I don’t know because I have been supportive of Obama/Biden and critical of McCain/Palin. I wanted to take a second to speak (write) honestly, from the heart, about my personal feelings.
First off, I am not a “liberal”. I consider myself “progressive” (which to many people means the same thing as liberal). Most often, I think of myself as a “small-government” conservative. I contrast this with the Republican party which is made up of “big-government” conservatives and with the Democratic party which is made up of “big-government” liberals. The party which I most closely align is probably the Libertarian party, but Ron Paul was actually a Republican, “small-government” conservative.
So what does this mean? I support anything which makes government smaller and removes government from our lives. To that end, I support the so-called “Fair Tax” (www.fairtax.org) which is essentially a national, retail sales tax. Retail outlets would collect tax at a specified percentage which would then go to the federal government for their operations. The IRS would effectively be eliminated; we would no longer file a federal income tax form in April. Furthermore, there would be no more loopholes in the tax code because there would be NO tax code. Every person who buys anything from a retail outlet would pay taxes. This would include illegal aliens, tourists, drug dealers… anybody who buys things.
Libertarians also tend to be for less government regulation, less interference and for more civil liberties. This means that I am pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. This causes a problem for many of my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I can fully appreciate their position. Without going into deep detail or starting any arguments, let me simply say that I am not “pro-abortion”. In fact, it is my deepest desire that no child is aborted. Let me assure you that the way to see this happen is NOT by banning abortions. The NRA has a saying, “If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns” and the same applies here. Banning abortions will not stop abortions from happening. It will only make them dangerous and illegal and women will die. Where the efforts need to be made are in education (to help stop unwanted pregnancy), in making adoption much easier and less expensive, and by insisting on counseling and waiting or “cooling-off” periods before abortions are performed. Government regulation and interference will not solve the underlying problem.
The same goes for gay-marriage. It isn’t any business of the federal government who a person loves or marries. It isn’t any business of the federal government what goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes. You wouldn’t want the government telling you who you could or couldn’t marry. Government tried to make inter-racial marriage illegal a few decades back and, eventually, that policy was exposed as the prejudice and bigotry that it was. The same is true for gay-marriage as well. The far-right in this country has proposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. This should never be enacted. Only one time in the history of our Constitution has an amendment been added to restrict the personal freedoms of US Citizens and that was the 18th amendment barring the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages. That amendment was subsequently repealed by the 21st.
So, that is a bit about me, personally and politically. I welcome any and all questions, comments and snide remarks. If you’re nasty or if you use too much foul language, I will delete your comment.
Thanks.
SDG,
Matty the Stranger
7 responses so far ↓
1 http://kungfuchicken.wordpress.com/ // Sep 17, 2008 at 7:03 am
I don’t claim either party for a couple of reasons. First it’s because what I believe in doesn’t line up with either one. I’m a little of both. Second it’s because I really don’t follow politics much. I only hear what the media screams about and we all know that isn’t the most balanced, truthful approach. And I honestly just don’t care enough to do the research on my own.
There have been a few times that something will we really spur me on and I’ll dig into something and then actually go vote but it’s rare.
I agree with your position on taxes, abortion and gay marriages. The government does need to back out of some things. To me those two particular issues are one of moral decision - not government legislation.
Well put Matt!
2 John Simons // Sep 17, 2008 at 10:58 am
Your thoughts frequently challenge me to think through issues, so I enjoy them.
On abortion, we are probably not too far apart. I am opposed to abortion, I don’t see it likely that abortion will ever be overturned in the US, therefore I am pragmatic about it.
You are silent about two issues, which is where the abortion battles are generally fought. The first is, what about the use of tax dollars to pay for abortion? This is an issue primarily in the arena of medicaid and in the armed forces. If you are in favor of universal health (isn’t that bigger government?) should the government pay for people to have abortions? Does that encourage responsible decisions or irresponsible decisions?
The second is what about limitations on abortion? One of the challenges facing America is the failure of the two sides to consider compromise. The pro-choice side would see a “cooling-off period” as untenable and would not consider it. They have the same approach to restriction on particular methods of abortions or very late term abortions. The people who push the pro-choice agenda see these issues as restrictions on the “constitutional right” to have an abortion. I would guess that most republican politicians are not even going to try to prevent all abortions, they will only try to limit abortions to certain settings.
As for the “fair tax,” well it may not be as fair as you suggest. Generally speaking, who should be taxed more, those who live paycheck to paycheck or those who have vast wealth? The current system is a progressive tax system. It is intended to give the working poor a break, while letting the wealthy pay a bit more of their income to support the country. The fair tax would wind up hurting the poor because they would pay federal taxes, where otherwise they might not. The rich don’t have to spend as much of their income, and would pay a smaller percentage of their wealth/income on taxes.
The “fair tax” also eliminates the ability of the federal government to encourage charitable giving (through the charitable gift deduction) and to discourage the accumulation of vast estates (through the estate and gift tax). This last goal is an attempt to avoid the development of a landed gentry in our country. Those who are very wealthy, who eventually own everything, but don’t need to work, as seen as something to be avoided. The estate tax helps prevent this by breaking up large family estates. So, while I am for small government, I have some issues with the “fair tax.”
Finally, with gay marriage: well I have some issues here. Ultimately, I believe it is where our country will wind up going. I would prefer that it have a different name than marriage, even if it carries all the same legal rights. Marriage is a religious concept, as much as it is a legal concept. The government made policy decisions to encourage the concept.
My other problem, is where does the line get drawn? If it is okay for two men or two women to marry, what about one woman being married to two men? What about an adult man marrying a minor child? What about the person who wants to marry his pet cat? While it is easy to say that government shouldn’t impinge on the freedom of consenting adults, and I am ultimately fine with that, there are a lot of the implications - from inheritance, to taxes, to protection against creditors that all get affected by how you define marriage/civil union. If homosexuality is a personal preference that should be stigmatized by the law, what about pedophilia, and other sexual orientations? This is not a facetious argument. There are groups that are talking about extending marriage beyond gay marriage to polyamory and pedophilia. There will eventually need to be a limit.
3 mssc54 // Oct 22, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Since you have SAID you are a Christian and that you are an Obama supporter, I was wondering what your take is on this…
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/huntleybrown.asp
4 admin // Oct 29, 2008 at 10:55 am
mssc54~
I respect Huntly Brown’s take on the situation and, as long as people are content to be one-issue voters, there is very little I can say. This is a great big country, in a great big world, with great big problems. I do not believe that the abortion debate is the world ending problem many conservatives believe it to be. I hate abortion, as I have always said. I also do not believe that the conservative plan to pass a law to stop it is the best way to bring down the number of abortions performed. I have said all this already and you, mssc54 in particular, are like talking to a brick wall. You don’t hear me when I say I am against abortion. You also, apparently, have missed the several places where I have said I am NOT planning to vote for Obama. This will be my last response to you, mssc54, on this subject.
5 mssc54 // Oct 29, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Thanks for the response. I just wanted to clear something up.
I was NOT addressing conservative/liberal. I believe ALL true disciples of the Savior should be a ONE ISSUE voter.
That issue is if Jesus (Himself) had to vote who would He vote for.
One candidate wants to reverse Roe and leave it up to each individual state to legislate.
The other candidate voted to support the practice where the Dr. uses ultra sound to determine the position of a near full term baby, then grap (with forcepts) the baby’s legs and pull the body out… just leaving the head inside the mother. Then the Dr. inserts scissors into the brain through the base of the skull then opens the scissors (making the hole larger) thereby allowing the Dr. access to place a vacuum tube into the skull to remove the brain. At that time the now dead baby is delivered.
How do you think a disciple of Jesus Christ would explain that vote on judgement day?
I believe these are eternal consequences not conservative/liberal.
6 admin // Oct 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm
mssc54~
Jesus never lowered Himself into a political debate. He resisted it, in fact. I don’t believe Jesus would vote.
I appreciate the horror and the graphic nature of the procedure you have described. I also stipulate that Sen. Obama voted against a law which purported to stop such procedures. However, Sen. Obama does not support such procedures being legal. He voted against the law because it was a bad law and he had the balls to stand up against this “symbolism over substance” legislation. Do not confuse a person’s understanding of politics and what’s best for this country with that same person’s personal beliefs.
Do you believe that Christians will be required to answer for everything they have ever done on “judgment day”? I believe that I am saved and my sins are gone. I have been declared righteous by the blood of Jesus Christ. There will be no judgment for me.
7 mssc54 // Oct 30, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Admin you either are a blind Obama supporter or do not understand his voting/position on partial birth abortion.
Look here:
http://www.frcaction.org/videos
Regarding Christians not being required to answer on “judgment day”. Could it be that the one’s who said “Master, Master we cast out demons and healed the sick in Your name” are the “Christians” who would also vote to support a person who supports partial abortion?
Prolly
Leave a Comment