I constantly hear Christian conservatives say they must vote for "the lesser of two evils." This mostly translates into a vote for a pseudo-conservative Republican who, once elected, implements the same basic policies that just about any Democratic candidate would have implemented.
However, rather than admit there is virtually no difference between a pseudo-conservative Republican and an openly liberal Democrat, Christian conservatives continue to argue the benefits of voting for "the lesser of two evils."
Question: if these same Christian conservatives had the opportunity to vote for Nero or Caligula, for whom would they vote? Would they vote for Nero because he slaughtered fewer Christians than Caligula? Would they overlook the murder of the Apostle Paul because in the grand scheme of things, Nero is not regarded as bloodthirsty as Caligula?
Philosophically, the above scenario is not much different from the logic used by Christian conservatives today who choose to overlook the violent injustices to the Constitution, the continued destruction of unborn babies, and the utter contempt for less government that are routinely demonstrated by recent Republican presidents. Their only argument for the continued support of such people is, "They are the lesser of two evils." Therefore, I suppose we would hear Christian conservatives say, "Vote for Nero; he is the lesser of two evils."
When Christian conservatives attempt to defend G.W. Bush, they usually point to his signing a partial birth abortion bill as some great accomplishment which sets him apart from pro-abortion Democrats. But does it, really? I think not.
In the first place, the ink had not even dried on the paper when a federal judge struck down the partial birth abortion bill as "unconstitutional." Has anyone heard anything about it since? Has President Bush used his bully pulpit to protest the court's decision? Has he petitioned Congress to impeach the judge or to at least exercise their constitutional authority under Article II, Section 2, to limit the court's jurisdiction in this matter? No.
Does anyone believe that President Bush and the Republican members of Congress who supported the partial birth abortion bill really believe that a federal court would not declare it to be "unconstitutional?" They expected it, and they planned to do nothing about it. Therefore, the net result is, not one single baby has been saved because President Bush signed a partial birth abortion bill.
What people need to understand is that the purpose of the partial birth abortion bill was never to save babies' lives, it was only to dupe naïve conservatives into believing that President Bush achieved some great victory for the pro-life cause. And it worked.
Let me put it to you another way. Suppose there is an island with five bridges connecting it to a mainland. One bridge is located in such a place that fewer than 2% of all traffic to the island crosses over it. Suppose the president publicly states that he is opposed to traffic crossing any of the bridges, and to show his commitment to opposition to bridge crossing, he shuts down the bridge which carries 2% of the traffic volume and leaves the other four bridges which carry 98% of the traffic volume intact.
Furthermore, this outspoken opponent to bridge crossing president stands back and does nothing as a judge comes in afterward and reopens that one bridge, even though he and his fellow opponents to bridge crossing in Congress have the authority to close, not only that one bridge, but all the bridges. Would anyone take him seriously when he later repeated his assertion that he was opposed to bridge crossing?
This is e "pro-life" president. Talk about gullible!
Furthermore, the life issue is only one of many issues in which the difference between Mr. Bush and just about any liberal Democrat are about as substantial as the difference between Nero and Caligula.
For example, both President Bush and most Democrats say they oppose homosexual marriage but support "civil unions" for homosexuals. Both Bush and most Democrats explode federal spending. Both Bush and most Democrats support the Clinton gun ban. Both Bush and most Democrats support granting illegal aliens some form of amnesty. Both Bush and most Democrats support the creation of an Orwellian-style police state via the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of The USA Patriot Act.
The main difference between pseudo-conservatives such as G.W. Bush and liberal Democrats is that Bush professes to be conservative while most Democrats profess to be liberal. So, which is "the lesser of two evils?" The one who tells you he is a liberal and means it, or the one who tells you he is a conservative and doesn't?
Choosing between a phony conservative Republican and an honest liberal Democrat is no choice at all. One may as well argue the benefits of voting for Nero over Caligula. No, the only choice is to vote for a true conservative. If one cannot be found in the Republican Party, try looking to a minor party. The Constitution Party comes to mind. If enough conservatives would vote their conscience, the Constitution Party would not be a minor party, and we wouldn't be left choosing between Nero and Caligula as "the lesser of two evils."
© Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2004/cbarchive_20040207.html
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
Chuck Baldwin Live Donate Form
I also have many books and DVDs available for purchase online. Go here:
Chuck Baldwin Live Store
To subscribe to my weekly columns, click here:
Subscribe to Chuck's Column
Related
|