Is Dobson wrong?
Colorado Springs
REPORTS have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.
Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.
The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.
One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly “splintering.” That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president.
That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a “splintering” of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.
Comment(s) »
| Advertisement | what's this? |
| Your Ad Here with AdBrite | |
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by aza spade— 2007/10/10 @ 05:25 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/10/10 @ 05:48 AM — (Reply)
Perhaps they should vow to split immediately AFTER the current election. That way they won't spoil the current one AND they'll have a reasonable alternative 4 years from now.
Comment by Farmer John— 2007/10/10 @ 06:11 AM — (Reply)
That's how I feel, Farmer John. Vote for the guy who'll defeat the Left and THEN fight our battles protecting life, etc etc. This is craziness. The thought that we Christians would give this country to Hillary on a silver platter because Guiliani MIGHT not be as pro life as he says he is is unthinking in dangerous, in my humble opinion.
Get a grip, everyone. If we don't fight terror strongly enough, thereby provoking major, maybe catastrophic attacks here in America, we won't have to worry about unborn babies.
Comment by Z in LA— 2007/10/15 @ 04:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/10/15 @ 04:20 PM — (Reply)
Well, we Los Angelenos aren't totally lost OR nuts!! You'd be surprised, Barry! is it me or does my opinion just seem like common sense? WHY would anyone advocate anything less? Even Dobson this morning said he's been misrepresented as suggesting a third party candidate should be found. Maybe he's back pedaling, but whatever he's doing, thank GOD he's doing it because we can't risk a rift in the Conservative movement..the Left's counting on it too much!! And so is ISLAM.
Comment by zabelle— 2007/10/15 @ 06:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/10/10 @ 01:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/10/10 @ 02:45 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/10/10 @ 03:22 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/10/10 @ 10:34 AM — (Reply)
Comment by ERNIE ELS— 2007/10/10 @ 10:41 AM — (Reply)
About the moral litmus test - I think it is a very dangerous idea. It fractures the voting power of social conservatives over issues upon which the president has no practical impact. Recent evidence (state benches overturning pro-family legislation) proves that the real power regarding the issues is in the courthouse. All we need is a president committed to appointing judges who are strict constructionists. His personal views on abortion or gay rights are less important than his determination to appoint conservative judges. Any president with a "do no harm" approach, meaning he will uphold current law but not expand it, is far and away better than what we can expect from the socialist left.
I'm certainly just as likely to vote against a candidate (Hillary, Edwards, etc) as for one. Politics is not the gospel and our choices are often the lesser of two evils. I believe the New Testament admonition to "be in the world but not of the world" is applicable here. We can't always play by Utopian rules - the world we live in is not ideal. This is not to say that we compromise our values but we recognize that sometimes the optimum option is simply unavailable.
If values voters abdicate their right to vote because the choices are less than ideal, then they also abdicate their right to complain when policies don't reflect their views. Furthermore, they share responsibility for the damage done by a candidate who may be elected by default, when they either fail to vote or vote for a non-competitive third party nominee.
Dobson waited too long to fight this fight - if social conservatives had stood up in the last century, a small course correction could have completely altered American history. Instead, we now find ourselves at an impasse and Dobson advocates teaching the GOP a lesson over preventing known anti-family, anti-faith candidates from assuming power. Not only doesn't his approach make sense, it's too little, too late.
Comment by Cate— 2007/10/10 @ 10:46 AM — (Reply)
Comment by ERNIE ELS— 2007/10/10 @ 11:45 AM — (Reply)
I don't think as Ernie says that Dr. Dobson is trying to get attention, he's just simply not that type.
The Family Research Council is an offshoot of Focus on the Family and given that their mission statement includes
language and policies that shape public debate and formulate public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.
They simply do not have a choice in the matter or they would be portrayed as compromising by both the media, fellow Christians and the left.
Could you hear the MSM et. al if the FOTF and FRC had endorsed the Republican nominee that wasn't pro life?
They didn't have a choice.
So Cate does this mean you're endorsing Guiliani?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/10/10 @ 01:02 PM — (Reply)
Rudy G. is not surging like he should be - Thompson has come across as a wet noodle. I'll vote for either of them, though, if they take the primaries.
Both Rudy and Fred show signs that their marketability is on the decline. They just plain lack appeal - and Fred has been so overhyped that he can't come off as anything but a lackluster disappointment. The ideal candidate would have Hucakbee's morals, Romney's intellect and eloquence, Paul's passion, Rudy's straightforwardness, and McCain's military background. Frankly, I was impressed with some of the answers coming from Duncan Hunter in the debate before last - he can't win, though.
I don't see any candidate as a standout right now but no one could have predicted GWB 8 years ago. We'll just have to see how the primaries play out.
Comment by Cate— 2007/10/10 @ 01:43 PM — (Reply)
Off Topic, Elmer's Bro, could I just tell you how much I admire your site? I've just been to FPM and it's going downhill so fast and it's so good to come here and read calm, intelligent, respectful comments. Keep it up, Bro, you're a blessing!!
Comment by zabelle— 2007/10/15 @ 06:26 PM — (Reply)
you just haven't seen us get going in awhile
and I feel like my real talent is to be the class clown
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/10/15 @ 06:38 PM — (Reply)
GIVE IT UP? Say it ain't so! I don't get the connection of class clown and giving this up. Be the class clown HERE!! We can take it! Oh, brother...ELMER'S BROTHER.......don't give it up. what a loss.
but, you'll do what's right. will my pouting help any?
Comment by zabelle— 2007/10/15 @ 06:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/10/10 @ 01:13 PM — (Reply)
this might work well if the polls that state there are somewhere between 80-85% of people who CLAIM to be christians, but otherwise a very bad idea.
there are already candidates in the line-up who are great in the christian arena - bill koenig, for one.
dobson is making a grave error not only for christians, but for conservatives in general.
i will hold my nose and vote republican if it comes down to it - and after you'll find me at the wheel of the porcelain bus because this time around we're probably going to get exactly what we deserve - considering people of faith have dropped the ball on so many issues in the last 15-20 years.
not only are we all "fat, dumb and happy", but we're about to be forced on a diet of epic proportions.
God help u.s. as we no longer deserve Your blessings.
Comment by — 2007/10/10 @ 02:04 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/10/10 @ 02:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by ERNIE ELS— 2007/10/10 @ 04:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/10/12 @ 02:49 AM — (Reply)
Hillary will slaughter Giuliani just like in NY. Dobson will hammer Giuliani. Romney is a flip flopper. Thompson is the only one who can beat Hillary. He is going to need a good team, a unified party and a solid VP candidate.
A little bit of Gore and Hillary cat fighting wouldn't hurt either.
Hopefully Hillary will screw up and say SOMETHING that will push the voters who already dislike her over the edge.
A little more success militarily in the middle east in the meantime wouldn't hurt either.
Comment by ERNIE ELS— 2007/10/12 @ 03:18 AM — (Reply)
whatever happens in the primaries - ALL conservatives need to rally around the MOST conservative of choices. it's going to be a smorgasbord until then and there won't be ONE who covers all the bases - shameful, i know.
good men are not meant to sit in the white house any longer - the corruption must be overwhelming.
Comment by nanc— 2007/10/10 @ 03:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/10/10 @ 04:39 PM — (Reply)
Thanks
http://www.holidayshub.com/france/
Comment by France tours— 2007/10/10 @ 07:14 PM — (Reply)
It's either Kang or Kodos, elbro. Sometime ya' just gotta vote for Kodos!
Comment by Farmer John— 2007/10/11 @ 12:58 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/10/11 @ 05:30 PM — (Reply)
*sigh*
I hate to fall into the "anybody but" category, but I think I'm there.
Comment by Brooke— 2007/10/12 @ 07:33 AM — (Reply)
I disagree with Mr. Dobson, that's a dangerous stance he's taking. He should listen to Senator Peter King, a man that NARAL just totally hates, he's throwing his support to Guiliani, who is a Hyde ammendment supporter and a supports strict constructionist judges.
Go Fred.
Comment by Joe Gringo— 2007/10/12 @ 10:07 AM — (Reply)
I tend to agree with you. I am a Dr. Dobson fan but I think he's wrong here.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/10/12 @ 11:58 AM — (Reply)
Having wasted my vote on several occasions and therefore having contributed to the victory of the worst of the candidates in the field, I won't do so again.
I hate politics! It's a dirty business!
Comment by Always On Watch— 2007/10/12 @ 05:32 PM — (Reply)
Dobson is voting his conscience and being faithful to what his organization has set out to achieve. I can't fault him for that. I don't think that such organizations should endorse presidential candidates, though. I do sympathize with him because the currently most popular Republican nominees are nothing but psuedo-conservatives, and that especially goes for Fred Thompson.
I'm surprised at all y'all. Don't you know that Thompson's campaign chair is Spence Abraham? Don't you know that Thompson is a CFR member? I mean really guys. What are you endorsing?
And then there's this defeatist, "woe is me" attitude that says things like "I like such and such but *sigh* he can't win." It's like you've given up before you've even started to fight. Take this for what it's worth, but all I can see in those statements is cowardice.
Tancredo in '08.
Comment by InRussetShadows— 2007/10/15 @ 01:51 PM — (Reply)
your point about Dobson is what I was trying to say. While I respect it, I don't believe it's a good idea to give the election to Hillary.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/10/15 @ 02:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/10/15 @ 02:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Damjan— 2007/10/16 @ 01:35 AM — (Reply)