Post-Election Thoughts
I am what would be categorized by the media as a member of the "religious right." I am one of those "intolerant religious extremists" who does not believe in the right to kill unborn children or euthanize the elderly or disabled, does not believe that Darwinian Evolutionary Theory should be taught as unchallenged fact, does not believe that the Constitutional language designed to keep the state out of the church means the church must be kept out of the state, and does not believe in the socialist view of entitlement. So, needless to say, yesterday's election was rather depressing.
That being said, from the state-level standpoint I'm disappointed but not distraught. Though I would have preferred Blackwell, anything is better than Taft. I am disappointed in how Betty Montgomery was smeared with the unfair and unwarranted guilt-by-association with Tom Noe. Gotta hand it to the Democrats...they were able to use the failures of just two men, Bob Taft and Tom Noe, and milk it for all it was worth. They removed several capable, good people from office and replaced them with unqualified novices and political hacks. We'll see how that works out for them (and unfortunately we pay the price if it doesn't).
From the national standpoint I'm not at all happy. If you had told me eight years ago that Nancy Pelosi would be House Speaker I would have told you that the people of this country are not crazy enough to let that happen. I still shudder at the thought. But from a historical standpoint you gotta remember that prior to the "Contract with America" election in 1994 the Democrats had controlled Congress for 40 years. That in and of itself is a mixed bag considering that 40 years saw an incredible decline in moral values, but good things still came out of that era. Now however you have a Democratic Party which is much more liberal-socialist, and looming large is the 2008 Presidential Election. Given what just happened with Pelosi I can no longer say that the people of this country are not crazy enough to elect Hillary Clinton as President, and until I see a strong candidate emerge from the conservative ranks I cannot say that there's anybody who will convincingly beat her. It will be interesting to see whether the Republicans put forth the candidate which best represents the views of the party or the candidate they think has the best shot of beating Hillary Clinton. I'm willing to put money on the latter, and I actually think they have a better chance of winning by focusing on the former.
What scares me though is the possiblity of the White House and both houses of Congress being controlled by liberal Democrats, especially if a liberal majority is achieved at the Supreme Court level. I am very concerned about what that means in terms of personal liberties (more on that in a second) and the fact that there will very likely be a further expansion of the welfare state with such things as National Health Care. NHC was Hillary's pet during her husband's administration, and the majority gained by the Republicans in Congress in '94 was a major factor in keeping that from coming to fruition. Now that such a roadblock may no longer be there if Hillary is in office two years from now, I would not be surprised to see it be pushed again. God help us if she succeeds.
The state issues were what I was most concerned with yesterday. I am opposed to a minimum wage law to begin with, so there was no way I was going to vote for what was a ridiculously structured perpetual minimum wage increase. The entire notion of having the most grossly inefficient and cost-ineffective entity in the entire world (the US Government) dictate financial policy to the businesses which have made this the most prosperous country in the world is so insane it's almost comical.
Then you have the smoking issues. These were the ones I thought about the most before Election Day. I avoided the ads as much as possible and focused on the issues themselves as they were written. What it came down to for me was that Issue 5 said "no smoking in public at all" and then gave a list of a few exemptions that the state would "graciously" grant the people, whereas Issue 4 said simply it would place restrictions for smoking in certain public places in the interest of public health but let everything outside of those restrictions fall under individual liberty. Two fundamentally different views of governmental function, and I think unfortunately many conservatives didn't understand it in these terms. The reason I say that is because, as I later learned, Issue 4 was "written by Big Tobacco" and the perception was that if the big evil tobacco companies endorsed it then it must be because it allowed them to kill more people...or something like that. Heaven forbid they endorse it because it wasn't as socialist, or *gasp* because it didn't go as far in outlawing their product (since of course the people are mindless and are forced to use their products).
Days like this make me happy I'm a Christian, trusting fully that God is in complete control and that nothing falls outside His sovereign providence. Does that mean this country will not continue down the path that will ultimately lead to its demise? Of course not. Nations rise and fall, and as ours has risen so it too shall eventually fall. But I am a citizen in a Kingdom not of this world, and my King sits at the right hand of the Father and reigns even now. One day His Kingdom will be fully consumated and I will be among my adopted brothers and sisters living in the everlasting immediate presence of the Lord God.
"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." - Rom 8:18 (ESV)
I am what would be categorized by the media as a member of the "religious right." I am one of those "intolerant religious extremists" who does not believe in the right to kill unborn children or euthanize the elderly or disabled, does not believe that Darwinian Evolutionary Theory should be taught as unchallenged fact, does not believe that the Constitutional language designed to keep the state out of the church means the church must be kept out of the state, and does not believe in the socialist view of entitlement. So, needless to say, yesterday's election was rather depressing.
That being said, from the state-level standpoint I'm disappointed but not distraught. Though I would have preferred Blackwell, anything is better than Taft. I am disappointed in how Betty Montgomery was smeared with the unfair and unwarranted guilt-by-association with Tom Noe. Gotta hand it to the Democrats...they were able to use the failures of just two men, Bob Taft and Tom Noe, and milk it for all it was worth. They removed several capable, good people from office and replaced them with unqualified novices and political hacks. We'll see how that works out for them (and unfortunately we pay the price if it doesn't).
From the national standpoint I'm not at all happy. If you had told me eight years ago that Nancy Pelosi would be House Speaker I would have told you that the people of this country are not crazy enough to let that happen. I still shudder at the thought. But from a historical standpoint you gotta remember that prior to the "Contract with America" election in 1994 the Democrats had controlled Congress for 40 years. That in and of itself is a mixed bag considering that 40 years saw an incredible decline in moral values, but good things still came out of that era. Now however you have a Democratic Party which is much more liberal-socialist, and looming large is the 2008 Presidential Election. Given what just happened with Pelosi I can no longer say that the people of this country are not crazy enough to elect Hillary Clinton as President, and until I see a strong candidate emerge from the conservative ranks I cannot say that there's anybody who will convincingly beat her. It will be interesting to see whether the Republicans put forth the candidate which best represents the views of the party or the candidate they think has the best shot of beating Hillary Clinton. I'm willing to put money on the latter, and I actually think they have a better chance of winning by focusing on the former.
What scares me though is the possiblity of the White House and both houses of Congress being controlled by liberal Democrats, especially if a liberal majority is achieved at the Supreme Court level. I am very concerned about what that means in terms of personal liberties (more on that in a second) and the fact that there will very likely be a further expansion of the welfare state with such things as National Health Care. NHC was Hillary's pet during her husband's administration, and the majority gained by the Republicans in Congress in '94 was a major factor in keeping that from coming to fruition. Now that such a roadblock may no longer be there if Hillary is in office two years from now, I would not be surprised to see it be pushed again. God help us if she succeeds.
The state issues were what I was most concerned with yesterday. I am opposed to a minimum wage law to begin with, so there was no way I was going to vote for what was a ridiculously structured perpetual minimum wage increase. The entire notion of having the most grossly inefficient and cost-ineffective entity in the entire world (the US Government) dictate financial policy to the businesses which have made this the most prosperous country in the world is so insane it's almost comical.
Then you have the smoking issues. These were the ones I thought about the most before Election Day. I avoided the ads as much as possible and focused on the issues themselves as they were written. What it came down to for me was that Issue 5 said "no smoking in public at all" and then gave a list of a few exemptions that the state would "graciously" grant the people, whereas Issue 4 said simply it would place restrictions for smoking in certain public places in the interest of public health but let everything outside of those restrictions fall under individual liberty. Two fundamentally different views of governmental function, and I think unfortunately many conservatives didn't understand it in these terms. The reason I say that is because, as I later learned, Issue 4 was "written by Big Tobacco" and the perception was that if the big evil tobacco companies endorsed it then it must be because it allowed them to kill more people...or something like that. Heaven forbid they endorse it because it wasn't as socialist, or *gasp* because it didn't go as far in outlawing their product (since of course the people are mindless and are forced to use their products).
Days like this make me happy I'm a Christian, trusting fully that God is in complete control and that nothing falls outside His sovereign providence. Does that mean this country will not continue down the path that will ultimately lead to its demise? Of course not. Nations rise and fall, and as ours has risen so it too shall eventually fall. But I am a citizen in a Kingdom not of this world, and my King sits at the right hand of the Father and reigns even now. One day His Kingdom will be fully consumated and I will be among my adopted brothers and sisters living in the everlasting immediate presence of the Lord God.
"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." - Rom 8:18 (ESV)
posted by frumanchu at 5:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home