tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post5958348396665998197..comments2024-03-27T07:18:39.229-05:00Comments on In Medias Res: The Only Reason I Feel Conflicted About Voting Against McCainUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-55081999699082299602008-11-04T12:23:00.000-06:002008-11-04T12:23:00.000-06:00Russell, I think that at least of the general auth...Russell, <BR/><BR/><I>I think that at least of the general authorities really do want the membership of the church to draw a line in the sand in regards to abortion, and you and I are probably on the wrong side of it.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm still not convinced of that. I think Prop. 8 in California is an example of the line-in-the-sand deal you are speaking of (though members are still free to vote how they want of course with no punishment for feeling differently as I understand it). But with abortion I think there is clearly a line drawn in terms of personal morality, about the gravity of it(like unto murder) and the boundaries (exceptions in case of rape, incest, health of the mother, but still in counsel with Bishop), BUT, in terms of public policy, no clear direction that I see. Vague references to being for the right choice, but I don't take that to equate with making the procedure illegal in all cases. Am I missing something? <BR/><BR/>And in terms of an either/or choice, both platforms are "wrong" on the issue if measured against church policy (one platform to the right and the other to the left). So I guess I don't see it as starkly as you do. But I do agree very much with you that it is a terribly thorny issue for any progressive-leaning member of the church (or person of faith in general I suppose) in terms of supporting certain candidates or parties. Harry Reid has done pretty well though being a progressive without adopting the hard "pro-choice" stance. I take heart in his success in the party.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the dialogue. I think we've got a lot in common (as in LDS faculty members in similar fields). And yes, I've read a lot of communitarian writings. Also interested in American pragmatism.Rick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09112334715256426392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-85460616851670733152008-11-04T12:18:00.000-06:002008-11-04T12:18:00.000-06:00One other comment seems apropos. At least as far a...One other comment seems apropos. At least as far as the Presidential races have gone, I don't recall any really big popular vote victories during my lifetime, with perhaps the exception of Reagan/Mondale.<BR/><BR/>Thus I don't know if your reasoning can apply to a presidential race. Peggy Noonan had something to say about that recently, about how a minority as large as 43% is not something that can or should be fairly ignored or marginalized too completely, mostly I think in the name of not fomenting an excess of unrest. <BR/><BR/>Naturally, if Obama gets a 60/40 popular split, or a 400+ electoral wipeout, I'd expect the Democrats to run with the ball, as it were, just as much as I'd expect rightist strong-executive ideologues to "support the President!" in his defense decisions.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618647194288598056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-87410275995467186112008-11-04T11:44:00.000-06:002008-11-04T11:44:00.000-06:00Russell, I don't think I'm using faction control t...Russell, I don't think I'm using faction control the way it's generally understood, but I could be wrong. The point is simply to pit them against each other, so to speak, so that substantive debate is possible. <BR/><BR/>The Clinton years, for example, there seemed to be well-oiled government and much more careful use of the military.seemed this way, primarily because Clinton, for all his faults and foibles (and I'm thinking primarily of partisan strategizing, the kind of thinking that got Bill Orton of Utah tossed under the bus, not the Lewinsky impeachment), had to contend with Republicans more than a bit, in order to get his policies passed.<BR/><BR/>I liked that balance, and didn't begrudge him his Supreme Court choices on those grounds.<BR/><BR/>But I admit I'm still quite callow compared to the likes of Rove and Ickes...Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618647194288598056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-7239073973940757172008-11-04T11:27:00.000-06:002008-11-04T11:27:00.000-06:00I too, have been conflicted. My vote for Bush in ...I too, have been conflicted. My vote for Bush in 2000 was cast in reaction to Stenberg v. Carhart and the two candidates' reaction to it. As much as my choice then has turned out to be a really bad president, I don't regret it at all. It's just a reminder of the kind of choice that voting is.<BR/><BR/>But as much as I still respect McCain and would expect some good things from him if he were elected, I can't vote Republican this time. If nothing else, his campaign, in some ways in spite of McCain himself, has showed the fundamental unseriousness of the conservative movement right now.<BR/><BR/>How lucky was I though, living in Indiana--the two places we lived are represented by pro-life Democrats.<BR/><BR/>Jeremiah J.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-50230619400221606042008-11-04T11:11:00.000-06:002008-11-04T11:11:00.000-06:00Kathryn,Glad to know I'm not alone! Thanks.Rob,I'm...Kathryn,<BR/><BR/>Glad to know I'm not alone! Thanks.<BR/><BR/>Rob,<BR/><BR/>I'm not much for "faction control" and "centrism," as least as the terms are usually used; I tend to think a responsive democracy requires a government capable to truly translating the will of the voters into legislation, and if the voters hand out a big victory, then the spoils--and control of government--ought to be unambiguously theirs, whether left or right. But, as I said, I'm glad to know I'm not alone with all my navel-gazing out here!Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-11068502289174142142008-11-04T11:08:00.000-06:002008-11-04T11:08:00.000-06:00Rick,I really like Mary Ann Glendon's discussion a...Rick,<BR/><BR/><I>I really like Mary Ann Glendon's discussion about the abortion issue in her book Rights Talk (are you familiar with it?)...she contrasts the U.S. rights-trap language with the much more pragmatic approach of Germany. Much different, and very much reduced abortion rates.</I><BR/><BR/>Mary Ann Glendon's books is a bit of an ur-text for a lot of communitarian thinking, so yes, I'm familiar with it, and yes, it is a real eye-opener. Some of her data has been challenged, but her basic argument reminds sound, I think.<BR/><BR/><I>I think the answer lies in what the brethren have said, which is basically, let's help people make the right choice. Seems to me an Obama who is actually governing could still be pro-choice but move to a more pragmatic approach to the issue that actually puts policies in place to help facilitate the right choice. But that will take some change in thinking.</I><BR/><BR/>I want to agree with you, and considering that I'll be voting for Obama today, I suppose I do. But I'm not confident that the counsel of the general authorities of the church is as conducive to "merely" pragmatic approaches to abortion reduction as you suggest it may be...I think that at least of the general authorities really do want the membership of the church to draw a line in the sand in regards to abortion, and you and I are probably on the wrong side of it. This gets into sticky issues of obedience and interpretation and so forth of course, which for today I'm happy to leave aside. But they still bother me, and will likely continue to do so, as the almost inevitable Obama presidency moves forward.<BR/><BR/><I>And of the choices on the ballot, I'll wholeheartedly say that I feel Obama "will act with integrity and [that he is] wise, good, and honest" and he will "most nearly carry out my ideas of good government."</I><BR/><BR/>On that, I completely agree. Thanks for reading and commenting!Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-41028368300992803202008-11-04T09:33:00.000-06:002008-11-04T09:33:00.000-06:00Wow, Russell, I think you went through some of the...Wow, Russell, I think you went through some of the same agonizing that I did, before deciding that I should cast my vote using a different calculus than who has the least insensible social policy.<BR/><BR/>Mostly, I vote for the sake of faction control and for a dampening of partisan excess (quite apart from fiscal irresponsibility). I think this approach guarantees good centrist government. <BR/><BR/>But the conflict was still so great, and my wife's just as great as mine, that we entered into a kind of soul-saving pact to affect the outcome not at all. I voted for Obama. She voted for McCain. We together cancel one another out, and Washington State goes along its way with a null result from Rob's household. <BR/><BR/>Regarding the social agenda, it occurred to me that the chances of the Dems going filibuster-proof this election were small. (20% or so, according to fivethirtyeight.com). Since my state doesn't have Senators in the classes up for election this year, I don't really have a say in that, either. <BR/><BR/>And something else occurred to me. The Justices on the Supreme Court are human, and not immune to partisanship. They'd wait for a President who would replace them with a like minded legalist. <BR/><BR/>That plus a number of other factors lead me to believe that no matter who is elected today, abortion law will not change. Right now it seems like the ideological pro-choice stance has primacy, and that there isn't any way to move that needle with current political tools.<BR/><BR/>Seen that way, wouldn't it be one valid strategy to hand the GOP such an electoral drubbing that they choose to either peel off the ideologically stubborn on the question, or face a generation of being marginalized on every other issue? <BR/><BR/>Not everyone I know is very confident that such a strategy will work. In fact, they're willing to give the Democrats a veto-proof hegemony for at least two years, so that their leftist misbehavior becomes so egregious that a new center party emerges in the United States, perhaps even with specific congressional redistricting reform, nationwide.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618647194288598056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-84170675468466906402008-11-04T08:55:00.000-06:002008-11-04T08:55:00.000-06:00Really nice post Russell. Very thoughtful and thor...Really nice post Russell. Very thoughtful and thorough. (Rick M from the T&S thread by the way.) I really like Mary Ann Glendon's discussion about the abortion issue in her book Rights Talk (are you familiar with it?)...she contrasts the U.S. rights-trap language with the much more pragmatic approach of Germany. Much different, and very much reduced abortion rates. <BR/><BR/>I guess I'm more confident (but not very confident) that Obama could help get the country past the polarized debate and toward that third way; more confident than I would be with a Republican anyway. I feel all hell would break loose if Roe were overturned. I think the answer lies in what the brethren have said, which is basically, let's help people make the right choice. Seems to me an Obama who is actually governing could still be pro-choice but move to a more pragmatic approach to the issue that actually puts policies in place to help facilitate the right choice. But that will take some change in thinking. While the platform does have new language about service to help women who choose to keep their child, if you look at the language carefully it is implied that unwanted pregnancies create a "need" more pregnancies. I would much rather that say demand. <BR/><BR/>I think you're right, that until Obama can acknowledge the wrongness of abortions of convenience, he probably will not move us toward that third way. But still, if you just look at the historical data, the likelihood is that the abortion rate will drop more under a Democratic versus Republican administration. See http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/abortion-rate<BR/><BR/>I think we can safely cast our ballots for Obama (I did!) without fear of going to hell. I think the brethren meant what they said in the First Presidency letter. It is our choice and judgment. And of the choices on the ballot, I'll wholeheartedly say that I feel Obama "will act with integrity and [that he is] wise, good, and honest" and he will "most nearly carry out my ideas of good government." Even if he doesn't exactly line up with my favored policy approaches each time (abortion for one, sure, but also health care...I'm for a single-payer system).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks again for the great post, and go Barack the vote.Rick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09112334715256426392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-11399896533116612332008-11-04T08:39:00.000-06:002008-11-04T08:39:00.000-06:00I feel your pain, Russell.Thank you for this.I feel your pain, Russell.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for this.Kathryn Soperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04533912759742260989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-29405030949929130392008-11-04T07:36:00.000-06:002008-11-04T07:36:00.000-06:00Yeah, these kind of endless navel-gazing ruminatio...Yeah, these kind of endless navel-gazing ruminations have become typical for me, haven't they? Thanks for reading it all Adam, just the same. Maybe I'll through up something shorter and less ruminative about the race today.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-87546396197931848202008-11-04T06:18:00.000-06:002008-11-04T06:18:00.000-06:00A very RAF monologue.-Adam GreenwoodA very RAF monologue.<BR/><BR/>-Adam GreenwoodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com