Another option for despondent GOP voters
I’m exercising my American right this year — my American right to not vote in the presidential election. And to defend that decision, I’d like to offer some reasons why.
I think that it is not my American duty to vote, but my American right to vote. Neither the Constitution nor any of the 27 Amendments describe voting as a “duty,” which would imply a certain degree of obligation. No, four of the Amendments (XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI) refer to the “right of citizens of the United States to vote,” instructing that this right “shall not be denied or abridged.” Therefore, if it is my right to vote, and not my duty, then I may choose to abdicate that right and not vote.
After watching this election’s debates between the four leading GOP candidates and reactions from our President, I am reminded of an altercation between squabbling children in which debate mediator Jeff King plays a frustrated mother. Santorum spouts political clichés, Romney insults all three competing candidates while injecting his own agendas, Gingrich takes it on the chin and never really answers a question, and Paul just laughs. All four take their turns slinging mud, and it turns from debate to tattletaling to Jeff King.
I think that all four candidates are so reactionary in their rhetoric that it robs them of anyone calling it genuine or sincere. An example: in February, in Arizona, Santorum said he didn’t like earmarks. Seizing his opportunity, Romney quickly claimed he didn’t like earmarks either but Santorum did (while indicting Gingrich of approving 6,000 earmarks). Gingrich claimed his 6,000 approved earmarks as Speaker of the House was a grand scheme against the Obama administration and Paul said all three were crazy. Neither of the four provided a solution. All four decided a better political strategy was to discredit someone else. This only supports my squabbling metaphor.
I think I remember an elderly relative warning me of people who smile too much, and people who smile too little. I can’t help but associate the former with this cast of candidates and the latter with our current president. The former seem ingenuine and plastic, the latter seem angry and attitudinal.
I think that of the four GOP candidates and President Obama, Paul is the only one who genuinely stands by his convictions. The only problem is, I like him right where he is already. The responsibilities of the President, as defined by the Constitution, is to be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, determine military policy and sign treaties, not to plan an economic agenda. That responsibility is given to Congress. Paul has not demonstrated the leadership or the willingness to make analytical, military decisions required of a president. However, Ron Paul’s economic policies are a breath of fresh air in a reeking Congress Hall. Therefore, Congress is the best place for him to be.
I think there’s something to be said about to which cart you hitch your horse. I cannot, in good faith, put any of these candidates at the head of my beloved country. None have proven that they are men of conviction, of action or of leadership. For that reason, I refuse to attach my name to any of the candidates.
For the reasons listed above, I think I will exercise my American right to not vote in this year’s election.
To All,
As usual I enjoyed reading the Champion. It is one of my favorite publications. I usually agree with most articles wholeheartedly. Usually LU students, especially those on the Champion staff, emulate Dr. Falwell’s example of never give up, never quit, and always strive to be a champion for Christ. This issue of the Champion has one article that jumped out at me; I had to read it several times to make sure I was reading it correctly.
The article, “Another Option for Despondent GOP Voters,” sticks out like a sore thumb. It is not the kind of article that belongs in a publication called the “Champion.” It belongs in a loser publication, a quitter publication. When I realized it was written by a sports editor I was even more taken back and really surprised. Real athletes, genuine sports advocates never give up. This writer, Mr. Brown, suggests waving the white flag, giving up the game in the last quarter, because he is not getting everything he wants. What he is doing is suggesting that giving up is a viable option for voters. He suggests we give the election back to the worst president this country has ever had. He suggests it is acceptable to do so. It is never ok to quit! We take what is God offers us, remember, God is in control, and make the best we can of it.
Voting is a right as he says, afforded to us by the constitution. If we abdicate that right as he suggests we throw in the towel, wave the white flag, and march into the furnaces at the death camps without a fight. If an athlete abdicates his right to keep on trying to win he is not worthy to be on the team. He should be put on the bench and taken off the team. Voting is a right. Voting is a privilege. Voting is a responsibility. Mr. Brown says it is not a duty, well guess what if voting is not a duty, get off the team, go to a school that has no sports teams, and no goals. Be a loser. Get in line at the unemployment office; call on our president to provide for you from birth to death.
I pray this is just a weak moment of despair in Mr. Brown’s life and that he will “get over it,” recover from his doldrums and get back to work to make our country great again. Help the rest of us overcome the “Obama” travesty of the last few years. We may not have perfect candidates but we still do not have the option of giving up. Never “throw out the baby with the bathwater.”
Frank D. Goodwin
I completely agree with your view sir. I loathe the thought of voting for Romney. I was in your same position a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately, I have progressed to the point now that I have concluded I must begrudgingly vote for Romney when all is said and done. I still may not vote, however, the unpleasant thought of 4 years of Romney buttressed against the sickening thought of 4 more years of Hussein jolts me to swallow this Horse Pill of Elite GOP establishment recklessness, rather than take the poison that would be 4 years of the alternative.
Nate,
I read your article in the Liberty Champion and while I respect your right to that opinion, I find it highly contradictory to the Constitution you quoted, and to the patriotism you attempted to espouse.
I can somewhat understand your frustration with the GOP candidates however, I am curious as to how you would compare them to President Obama? You compared and contrasted their squabbles among one another, but you did not compare them to the current President.
Would you really prefer to discourage others from voting in “protest” of “squabbles”? I am curious as to what you think this will accomplish except another 4 years of President Obama? I am also curious as to how this is a “viable option” for despondent GOP voters when the opposite of a Republican is the Democrat? I am sorry but I cannot follow that logic.
I ask because you claim to love America and to be dissatisfied with lies, contradictions, poor character, and ineffective leadership, lack of experience and/or poor stances when it comes to National Defense. All of those things are wrong with President Obama, but even worse we currently have a President that incites mobs, hate crimes, racism, lying, sells US military secrets, undermines US sovereignty, gives tax payer dollars to his donors?
Would you really prefer a President whose foreign policy comprises of bowing before foreign leaders? A President who “asks nicely” for OUR military drones back? The man who apologizes for US troops burning Quran’s but doesn’t allow Bibles in schools or court rooms? Or even better who does not want to detain or interrogate terrorist’s? A man who took 16 hours to give the “thumbs up” to take down Bin Laden?
I mean this a President who doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism! This President constantly allows the justice department to violate the Constitution. He appoints Supreme Court Justices who have never read anything but the “commerce clause”. He directs EPA to obliterate the 10th amendment and do everything it can to violate your liberties (that you spoke of), and to close down American companies and prevent capitalism!
I don’t understand how you could prefer a President who has accrued more debt in 3 years then all the other US Presidents combined, over one of the four GOP contenders who, while not perfect (no one is- even President Reagan believed that) are way better options than the current occupant of the White House.
Nate, I would think that you being from Texas you would not have such a “quitter” metnality and want throw fits. This is a childish attitude at best! Im my opinion your article is a disgrace to Liberty University, its founder, it’s vision and probably 90 plus % of the Universities donors who receive the LU Champion.
You spoke a lot about the Constitution and what our founding fathers intended for us. So please allow me to make a few brief comments.
Our founding fathers didn’t sit around and cry because they did not have their way. They did not wait for the perfect King of England to magically come to the throne. They knew there was something wrong and they temporarily put aside differences and they rose up and made famous statements such as “give me liberty or give me death” (Patrick Henry). They went to work and they won American Indepdence!
Our founders fought against tyrants, overthrew armies, over came disease, starvation, and insane elements and they built the greatest Nation this World has ever seen!
Nate, our Constitution was put in place to limit the Government. The government that is “by, for and of the people” is what assigns you “duty”. They gave us language in there and created elections to give you the freedom/ability to vote people out of office who tried to deny you your freedoms! They gave you this so that you could prevent tyranny. They wanted you to have the ability to preserve the rights you were so happy to ignore in your article.
Those soldiers who fought with Washington didn’t die so that you could sit on your hands. They gave everything for you to have the liberty to protect the very freedoms that you are so careless with today.
Honestly, I find your comments extremely anti American, unpatriotic and dishonorable to the millions of people who made this the great America you claim to love.
Lastly, before you ever open your mouth about the US Constution again, read the federalist papers!
Respectfully
Zach Martin
Disclaimer: All comments are merely my opinion and were not prompted by LU or any political party or candidate for public office. O, and this was written at 5am in the morning. 🙂
And the above comment is what’s wrong with Liberty. As a liberty alum, I appreciate the fact that the Champion may be actually allowing different opinions to be expressed in the newsletter. It’s fine to disagree and have discussion. But to immediately resort to ad hominem attacks and rhetoric like, “this isn’t what Jerry wouldn’t have wanted” does nothing to debate the issue.
Frank,
While I agree with you that voting is something to be encouraged and not discouraged–something I am proud to say I have exercised in every general election I have been eligible for–I disagree with your comment here. Here we have an article written by Mr. Brown, where he is sharing his opinion, which reflects the dissatisfaction of thousands if not millions of voters in our country in the choices there are for the Presidency. He is exercising the rights given to him under the First Amendment of freedom of speech and freedom of the press and he should not be criticized for expressing his opinion, even if you disagree with it. What makes America great is that people have the right to express their opinions, even if people disagree with them. I disagree with your personal attacks on Mr. Brown for expressing his opinion. Furthermore, I disagree with your criticism of the Champion for publishing this, they should be free to publish what they want to. I think it would be better for you to write a response letter to the editor in the Champion and not criticize Mr. Brown, but to explain, in a diplomatic way, why you believe people should vote, and why they should look past the imperfect candidates. To call someone a “quitter” is just unprofessional. Don’t try to intimidate someone for expressing their beliefs under their right under the Constitution, instead write a well thought out response that addresses people’s concerns. It’s okay to disagree, but let’s do so in a constructive way.
Mr. Brown,
No-one has ever said that the duty to vote is somehow embedded in the Constitution. It is in fact your prerogative to refrain from excercising your right to vote, joining the vast numbers of Americans who abstain from the political process. However, this seems to go completely against everything you, (as a libertarian/Constitutionalist/whatever else you call yourself), believe in. The Constitution was based on the idea that a voting public could restrain the centralizing and dictatorial tendencies of republic-style governments. You are somehow suggesting that your personal or political dislike of the most viable candidate gives you the moral right to let a vastly more insidious leader stay in place. You have no American duty to vote, you have a moral duty to vote, and as a Christian, you at the very least have the responsibility to vote a pro-life candidate (all four mentioned) in over a pro-choice leader (Obama). Please remove yourself from the fantasy-land of academic political philosophy, and base your ideas in real life, a life in which ideology meshes with the realities of a two-party system. Not voting for a Pro-life candidate is the same thing as voting for a pro-choice one, and this principle extends to all other areas of politics. I do not argue with the assertion that the Republican party will lead us into a big-government era, but when faced with the choice between the swift and sure process being implemented by Obama, and the slow and potentially reversible process implemented by the Republicans, I will choose the Republican side every time.
Mr. Krautter-
Sometimes a adherence to “professionalism” leads to a weakening of convictions and message. Dr. Godwin was merely using more descriptive and assertive language to describe the reality of the attitude that is evident in Mr. Brown’s letter.