www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Test of Fire: Election 2012

jjp,

Help me understand you. If you could tell us who you are going to vote for and why you may gain some converts to your position.

It'd be best to get into the merits of different candidates in a different thread or in PM. I don't want to veer toooo far off from what I think is the real discussion right now:

Can the lesser of two evils really be considered good? Or is asking for good representation now considered utopian?

In a fallen world, a little bit of evil is a lot better than a lot of evil. Only someone who has no real conception of how evil the world can be would say otherwise. That's why I despise non-consequentialist ethics--it's a cop-out: if I can't be pure, I won't play at all. In which case, of course, evil wins, every time. But hey, at least your hands are clean.

And James, the Brother of Jesus, thought his brother was a madman until after the resurrection. So, you're saying, the Church has no room for someone who repents or changes his mind? And therefore your political views have no place for someone who changes his mind?

Or is asking for good representation now considered utopian?

Sadly, yes. For all practical purposes we have two political parties. Their main priority is party supremacy; their rank and file are not allowed to be public servants. This is sad reality. To run as a national Democrat, you sell yourself to serve labor, social welfare and fringe morality. As a national republican you sell yourself to business and tax breaks regardless of deficits. And rank and file who step out of bounds will be punished.

Because the two parties basically nominate and subject themselves to very limited and undemocratic primaries, they practically hand pick national candidates. The people are given a choice of one or the other.

The reform we need is a change to open primaries and allow only registered voters (no PACS, unions, nor corporations) to finance campaigns. Party leaders in Congress should have term limts (Speaker, ProTempore, etc.) Until the power of the two parties are broken we will HAVE to vote for the lesser of two evils.

We need leaders in the House and Senate who will quit the Democrat and Republican parties and form a third party. They will be the national heroes that the USA needs. I don't see this happening unless there is a disgusting and despicable scandal so bad that would cause rioting people to stone members of Congress. This is not unthinkable.

As Christians we are not hopeless; even in the worst of times we have a better Life to look forward to. But on this pilgrimage on earth, as followers of Christ we are to let our light shine; to hide it under a bushel basket is NOT an option. Pretending that if we only voice disgust and never vote for a seemingly good person --or at times voting against a political hack instead of a lackluster candidate -- is the same as extinguishing our light.

Apathy is lukewarmness...you know what Scripture says about that...(Rev 3:15-16) "So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."

I thought of jjp when I saw this:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...5.165801456790697&type=1&theater

I don't know how to start a third party. I have no candidates even if I did. I wish jjp would start such a party or show us who we should vote for so we wouldn't settle for the lesser of two evils. Please, jjp help us here.

If you need me to answer that question for you, then you don't really take any of this as seriously as you feign.

Again, my point is not about the merits of specific candidates in this election cycle, but rather the political worldview that demands little-to-nothing from our representatives.

I don't care who you vote for, I really truly don't. I'd rather you voted for Obama because you felt genuinely that his platform was best for the country than for candidate XYZ because you hope he won't be as spineless as he usually is.

Why do you settle for so little? Do you feel your vote is that cheap?

I don't settle for so little but that you won't vote against obvious evil shows that you settle for a good deal worse. Without a serious alternative to either candidate why do you think your refusal to vote helps anything?

All third parties, if they are to be more than mere spoilers, must become broad-based, for the Constitution requires compromise and consensus to implement changes. Narrow, one-issue parties disappear unless they can appeal to a broader base. And once they appeal to a broader base, they find they must compromise in order to hold their coalitions together.

Major parties disappear when they become too closely identified with a specific region or issue. The Federalists disappeared because of their mercantile focus and opposition to the War of 1812. The Whigs disappeared because they fractured on the issue of slavery. The Democrats are on the verge of disappearing because of their association with identity politics and economic redistribution; their coalition now consists of the super-rich, academics and media personalities on the one hand; and the disaffected underclass on the other. Two ends without a middle cannot hold.

What will replace the Democrats, should they prove incapable of reform and slide into irrelevancy? Most likely a broad-based coalition consisting of social moderates and economic moderates with a distinctly pro-American attitude. In response, the Republicans will moderate some of their stances, and you will have two major parties--one center-right, the other center-left, both in general agreement about major issues.

Why? Because that is the nature of the American political system based on the Constitution the Founders gave us.

Stuart,

I'm not sure I particularly like your conclusions on this issue but I believe you are correct.

CDL

I'm not sure how to express my thoughts about this election apart from saying that I want Obama to lose, but I don't want Romney to win.

2012 (perhaps like most election years) isn't a year of optimal candidates. But maybe it only seems that way. It's easy for me to say, "if only so-and-so were running..." I suspect, however, that if "so-and-so" were running this year, his lustre would have worn off at this point.

I often marvel at our ability to put men on political pedastals with great enthusiasm, only to turn on them and knock them down with equal gusto once they're up there. To me it isn't any wonder why there are only a handful of men who we would consider "great" who have risen to become president. I would imagine that the best qualified men for the office would rather undergo root canal for four years than become president of the United States. Let's face it, a genuinely great man is also a humble man, and not many humble men aspire to become president.

So we're left with reasonably competent men and women of one political leaning or another...people just like ourselves...who we then either canonize or demonize, quite absurdly. To be honest, I don't necessarily believe that the presidency requires greatness, only competence...if only we would stop inflating the presidency beyond what it ought to be.

The president shouldn't be expected to be an emperor or a god or a superhero or rock star or a legend or a fashion icon or an oracle or a panacea or a spiritual leader or the father of the nation or our Dear Leader. The president should be allowed to be just what he is meant to be: our nation's temporary ceremonial head of state, the temporary commander-in-chief of our nation's uniformed services, and the temporary chief administrator of the government.

If the president were left to be what he's meant to be, it would matter much more what the political makeup of Congress is and much less what the politics of the president are. What his religion is would be of no consequence, whatsoever.

Roman Interloper,

God I wish you could teach Obama your philosophy on governance.

If he governed the way you are proposing - he would win in a landslide. Unfortunately he governs as a monarch.
(otherwise why would they have HHS Mandate in the firstplace if not to RULE over us).
In my opinion.

One thing I must say --- my brothers and sisters in Christ on this forum are at least very thoughtful of the process of American Politics --- if only all Christians approached the seriousness of each election as all in this forum do. I appreciate all the commentary and insight - even if I disagree with some.

JOhn

p.s. sorry about my overtly emotional outbursts on Abortion - I wish I were more calm - but I'm a slav - religion = politics

The difference between us is that I see obvious evil in both candidates. That you see a degree less in one and seek to put him in office ignores the fact that you are still putting evil in office. Good luck with that.


You are presupposing that there are no "serious" alternatives. If you mean "likely to win in this cycle" then you are likely correct.

However, I plan on being around for a while, and I am concerned with the society my kids are going to live in. Crippling the country every four years with half-measures doesn't make much sense, when you look at it that way.

I vote for candidates when there are people that I actually want to represent me. I know, novel concept. At least through the Tea Party movement, more and more are beginning to do likewise.

I prefer hope rather than compromise.

True. I think that as time has passed, and as our country has changed so radically from where it began, a parliamentary system of government would be better for us now, though I understand why things developed as they did.

Imagine being able to join a political party that closely matched your worldview, and attempting to have as much influence as possible via that party. It's what the Tea Party is essentially attempting to do now, although it must stay contained within the GOP and back Romney, the near-antithesis of genuine conservatism.

There would be no need to hold your nose while you vote at all, and it puts the focus back on the spreading of ideas rather than the promotion of individuals.

Oh well.

jjp,

I agree with what you say about the Tea Party. How does one get from where we are to where we ought to be? I'm tempted to write in either Herman Cain or Sarah Palin or Ron Paul but what good would it do?