I have been telling young adults that this is my 10th presidential election and the likely ramifications of its outcome exceed all others in my experience. This is from analysis, not a product of the drama inherent with endless, spinning political ads.
There are always policy differences between two presidential candidates. It is critical to examine the philosophies underlying the policies. If a candidate will not protect the right to life, the most fundamental of all inalienable rights, then his social agenda is merely to win favor among the masses and to keep them in check.
“Civil rights, equal rights, etc.” spring from the right to life. Societies have been bamboozled throughout history repeatedly. For all of the vaccines developed, we do not have one to immunize us against being deceived. The right to life must be paramount.
A number of people, including a few friends, have taken issue with me on this position. Looking at the long-term viability of our country makes loyalty to my children and grandchildren-to-come take priority over other relationships.
It’s not about my having insurance which would cover pre-existing conditions, which
I need, right now and at all costs (moral or financial). Whether a free market insurance system with modifications will provide what I “deserve” better than Obamacare can is not yet determined. However, I CANNOT be a participant in any program which provides for the killing of the most innocent of human beings, either by inhumane dismemberment or by medication (“the morning after pill”).
It’s not about my receiving assurance that the money my employers and I have
put into Social Security for almost 40 years will all come back to me (which I need and is rightfully mine). As FICA payroll tax revenue continues to be spent elsewhere and Congress will not agree to permit workers to be responsible for investing their contributions (as opposed to their employer’s half of taxed amounts), there is only so much a president can change. Of the two candidates, Romney could work with Congress. He has the proven track record in government, the President does not.
Nor is it about a job commensurate with my abilities. The paper mill in which I was employed for 23 years was closed in 2001, partly due to an increase in lower priced foreign imports. I’m sure that the companies Romney has worked for may have been a party to foreign out-sourcing of jobs in some industries— just as the President’s 401(k)’s have enjoyed growth from similar investments. The difference is that Romney understands the harm of past business practices and is also willing to hold China accountable for being a currency manipulator. Obama is hesitant to do anything which will anger the largest socialist country, the kind of government-reliant society he envisions for our future. His position is evident in his lack of concern for the $1.15 trillion of our national debt which China owns. (And, like China does, he also puts the state over the Church with his useless religious exemption to the HHS mandate, but that is a topic for a separate article.)
It IS about ensuring that our descendants’ future is one where they understand
that life is a gift, to which we are stewards, not owners. My fervent hope is that they will be “other-centered” instead of self-centered because they have been fooled into thinking that there is no hope except a reliance on Big Brother. Being respectful of our inevitable Judgement Day and being “other-centered” places us in the best position to solve problems.
The Romney-Ryan ticket “gets it.” I sincerely hope they get your vote!