Monday, November 01, 2004

Election 2004 (op-ed piece)

Vote to Defend Liberty, Democracy
October 24, 2004


The Democratic and Republican convention slogans say a lot – if you understand what they really mean. “Stronger at Home, Respected in the World” is Senator John Kerry’s mantra, indicating his support for a more restrictive government and the replacement of traditional American values with U.N.-approved moral relativism.

The Republican platform advocates “A Safer World and a More Hopeful America,” hence President George W. Bush’s policies that promote freedom worldwide – while working to protect our own – and his vision of an “ownership society” that restores individual choice and the potential of the free market.

Two different plans for America; one very important election.

Kerry’s strategy on the home front will, if anything, advance and enlarge a stagnant welfare state, strengthening government control and the forced redistribution of wealth.

Mr. Bush’s goals for economic change, particularly on such issues as social security and taxes, support free market distribution and allow citizens to control more of their own money. His agenda will expand individual liberty, uphold private ownership rights, and encourage personal responsibility.

Overseas, as well, Bush policies promote freedom. While aggressively confronting terrorists and their state sponsors, America’s moralistic intervention has targeted the roots of terror through the spread of liberty and change.

Over on the left, Mr. Kerry’s view on the issue is fascinating: Despite voting to authorize the Iraq war (which he would still do) and still agreeing that Saddam Hussein was a (terrorist-supporting, WMD-pursuing, mass-murdering) threat that needed to be dealt with, Kerry criticizes Iraq as the “wrong war” and a “colossal error” and proudly voted against funding for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (after saying that it would be “irresponsible” for anyone to do so). But he promises to continue fighting this noble “diversion,” and to do it more effectively. (The plan: gain more allies by blatantly insulting our current ones.)

Of course, the Senator’s staunchly anti-military and appease-our-enemies record destroys any credibility for his claim of pursuing a muscular war on terror.

But there’s another, immensely important issue in this campaign that is often overlooked: the multiple Supreme Court vacancies that will be filled by the next president. As has been demonstrated in recent decades, unelected judges are capable of imposing devastating new laws and undermining the essential tenets of democracy. The next president may shape the court and its rulings on key issues for years to come.

President Bush has a consistent record of nominating originalist judges – ones that will interpret laws rather than make them – and has promised no less for his second term. Sen. Kerry has also pledged to appoint “strict interpreters of the Constitution,” adding that they must support Roe v. Wade (translation: only liberal activist judges). No one doubts the kind of leftist legislators Kerry will put on the court. A judicial oligarchy, anyone?

Indeed, this issue sharply highlights each candidate’s positions on the social issues. Of all Mr. Kerry’s apparent “flip-flops” and politically motivated contradictions, the abortion issue is among the most absurd. Kerry’s position, like that of most Democratic politicians, can be “clearly” stated as follows: Of course I agree that life begins at conception, which is why I personally oppose abortion (the legal killing of innocent human beings), but it would be unconstitutional to do anything about it. After all, it’s not the government’s job to protect its people from being killed.

Also of great significance, Kerry promises to use federal money to fund the destruction of human embryos. The more famous people with illnesses that die, the better this position scores with the public – provided he maintains his demagoguery about the potential of embryonic stem cell research.

Same-sex marriage, though, has developed into the premier social issue of this election, and it threatens to become national policy under Kerry’s judicial appointments. This won’t be difficult: The state will suddenly have an interest in regulating and privileging homosexual relationships. In fact, it will be constitutionally mandated!

This is made more publicly acceptable, of course, by the melding of actions with desires, which completely undermines free will – and dupes the American people into dropping any moral qualms. Nevertheless, if you care about preventing the implementation of a widespread social experiment that denies the importance of both fathers and mothers, defies our own physiology, and sanctions sodomy…

If you care about the grave threat that judicial tyranny poses to this nation…

If you care about economic liberty and choice…

If you care about taking action in the face of a massive terrorist threat…

And if you care about advancing the cause of freedom and justice around the world…

If you care about any of these things, then John Kerry is not your candidate; George W. Bush is. “A Safer World and a More Hopeful America”? Vote on it!

Creative Commons License