Election Apologetic

The election is over. It is an appropriate time to examine the statement, “I could never vote for XXX because of their ethical and moral failings.”

At the outset we must admit that all of us have moral and ethical failings. During this election, we have an unprecedented disclosure of the failings of the candidates. At least before the fact of election, instead of the normal timing of “later.”

First we will address the specific charges. “I will not vote for a man who denigrates and demeans women, minorities, and the handicapped.” And, by implication and occasional declaration, “Anyone who does vote for him either condones or participates in those same egregious activities.”

Using that logic, then those who backed the other candidate condoned and committed acts of prevarication, murdering babies, scofflaw activities including using unsecured emails to manipulate classified materials, and contributing to terrorist murders of American citizens.

Obviously neither of these characterizations is accurate. We all have failings, or shortcomings, or to be frank, sins. The act of voting for one candidate did not validate the peculiarities of the candidate nor signal collusion in those activities. Quite simply the electorate was presented with a set of two flawed candidates. (The alternatives demonstrated the futility of their selection by their election day statistics. I tol’ ya so.)

The question was not “voting for the lesser of two evils,” but which accompanying platform is preferable. The choice was very clear. The direction of the Supreme Court for the next 20 to 30 years and the concomitant social issues that have and will continue to face the judiciary is one critical consideration.

A second is the role of government in personal freedoms, ranging from freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and others. The present administration had clearly signaled the direction in which it purposed to proceed. One candidate promised to continue that train while the other was adamantly opposed.

The third, but not necessarily in any specific order, deals with the fiscal policy of the country. The present administration has nearly doubled the national debt from 10 to 19 trillion dollars and counting. One candidate enthusiastically endorsed that policy, much as Rehaboam threatened to do upon his succeeding of King Solomon. (Although the current administration may not be charged with possessing the wisdom of King Solomon.) The other proposes to move toward a more balanced budget.

The final issue, but not the only one left, is the role of the United States in international interactions. These range from control of borders to interactions with established allies to responses to announced and potential adversaries.

The two parties lined up in exact opposition on all of these issues. The choice was not complicated by conflicting priorities, to many minds, anyway, on these competing issues. It seems like there was a perfect alignment of values on all of these policies. Based on the political, and not moral, inclinations on these concepts, a number of “offended” voters, including this one, chose a Presidential candidate.

Those on both sides of the political spectrum must resist the temptation to align the “other side” with the foibles of their opponents. The ongoing unity and strength of our nation hangs in the balance.

Abraham Lincoln gave us our marching orders in his second inaugural address. “With malice toward none, with charity for all....” Notice the order. No malice first, then charity for all. Thank you for the good advice, Mr. President. (Who was selected by the Electoral College, by the way. See the preceding post.)