A Tale of Two Candidates
Hillary Clinton is terrible.
Between Libya (and not just Benghazi), the email scandals, the health questions, lying to either Congress or the FBI, and so on, I could write an entirely separate (and lengthy) article on why Clinton is a poor choice for POTUS. But instead of regurgitating what many already know, I'd like to focus more on what has become the Republican nose-holder's mantra, "But what about the Supreme Court?"
Like Clinton, Trump has many things going against him. Between the sexual assault accusations, history of eminent domain support, lack of respect for women, wanting to "take out" innocent women and children while fighting ISIS, and repeated examples of flip-flopping on issues, Republicans seem to be running out of excuses for the outlandish Trump. Many evangelical Republican voters--who once considered themselves as holding strict moral standards for voting for a particular candidate--are forced to come face-to-face with the dilemma of either looking for other options or voting for Trump at the risk of sounding like a hypocrite. It is these voters (evangelical conservative republican) I will address with this piece.
With historically high unfavorable ratings for both Clinton and Trump, some see their only option is to vote against their most feared candidate. There are those who use the vacant Supreme Court seat as the sole justification for a grin-and-bear it vote for the Don. While on the surface this may sound like it makes sense, lets look to see if there is historical evidence to support this approach.
Historical Perspective
First, a judge simply being appointed by a Republican president is no guarantee that the judge will interpret the law in a conservative manner. Take John Paul Stevens (appointed by Republican Gerald Ford in 1975) and David Souter (appointed by Republican George H.W. Bush in 1990) who were both considered to be on the "liberal side" of the Court by the time they retired. Conservative Republican presidents have appointed judges and still had their appointee supporting the "other side." Still, some may argue, the opportunity is too good to pass up.
Former Supreme Court Judge George Sutherland gave a remarkable speech in 1917 that I think is appropriate for the current political and social environment we live in today:
"The trouble with much of our legislation is that the legislator has mistaken emotion for wisdom, impulse for knowledge, and good intention for sound judgment. 'He means well' is a sweet and wholesome thing in the field of ethics. It may be of small consequence, or of no consequence at all, in the domain of law. 'He means well' may save the legislator from the afflictions of an accusing conscience, but it does not protect the community from the affliction of mischievous and meddlesome statutes."
He goes on to say:
"Progress, let me suggest, is not a state of mind. It is a fact, or set of facts, capable of observation and analysis — a condition of affairs which may be cross-examined to ascertain whether it is what it pretends to be. But you cannot cross-examine a mere longing for goodness — an indefinite, inarticulate yearning for reform and the uplift — or an uneasy, vague state of flabby sentimentalism about things in general."
It is imperative to find presidents and judges that do more than "mean well."
Next, lets ignore for the moment Donald Trump's historical progressive tendencies and general disdain for the Constitution and pretend that he gets elected and nominates one of the most conservative judges he can find. How do Republican-controlled Congress and Republican-appointed judges function in the same political environment? We can look to recent history for a fine example.
With a majority in both houses of Congress, the presidency, and a majority in the Supreme Court for four years (2003-2007), Republicans failed to pass legislation that would overturn or severely limit the outcome of Roe v. Wade. This lackadaisical approach to what is arguably the main flagship issue for so many evangelical pro-life voters is hardly the strategy (or lack thereof) one would expect from a group that largely claims to be "pro-life." I'm afraid that a majority of the Republican politicians that are vying for conservative votes aren't as anti-abortion as they let on. It could be inferred--based on this lack of action--that the great majority of Republicans have talked-the-talk, but failed to walk-the-walk.
Bringing this thought full circle, Trump has historically been pro-choice (he changed his views 5 times in 3 days but has--from what we can tell by his words in the majority of his public life--been known to be pro-choice).
Trump: The WILD Card
I have no idea what kind of Supreme Court judges Trump will nominate. Neither does anyone. Trump has changed his mind on so many things countless times. There's no way to trust him. Frankly, I don't think Trump even knows what his opinion is on things half of the time. Ask yourself this: does Trump's behavior in other areas of his life (how he treats and talks about women, how he handles his business, his seeming lack of humility and integrity, etc) really make you more able to trust him or less?
A good predictor of future behavior is past behavior; especially when it comes to politicians and individuals running for office. If history is any indication, Trump will nominate progressive judges because he's been a big-government democrat up until it was convenient for him to change (thirst for power).
Analyzing The Alternatives
Gary Johnson is the Libertarian running for president. He was the two-term Republican governor of New Mexico from 1995 - 2003; cutting taxes many times and leaving the state with a $1 billion surplus.
On the issue of abortion, libertarians (find out what a libertarian is by clicking here) are often divided. Johnson falls in the pro-choice camp. Despite this, Johnson seems to be the most pro-life--when compared to Trump and Clinton--because of his strong stance against the current conflict in the Middle East which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost.
Clinton's deadly foreign policy speaks for itself (see Libya and Syria). In concert with her stance on abortion, pro-life voters typically have little in common with Clinton. Trump's "bomb the shit out of ISIS" foreign policy stance specifically includes the loss of life by family members (according to Trump's own words) and innocent men, women, and children (I have linked in the second paragraph above). As I mentioned before (and linked), Trump's stance on abortion changed 5 times in three days recently, so he probably does not have a lot in common with pro-life voters either. Neither Trump nor Clinton will reduce the killing of innocent people. If one cares about protecting innocent lives, that might be worth considering. One might conclude that if one claims to be a one-issue pro-life voter, there's no reconciliation for voting for either of them.
In my opinion, Jill Stein fails on the economic side and Evan McMillan fails on the pro-life (he's pro war) side. Stein (45 states) and McMillan (11 states) have had issues with national ballot access, further reducing their potential impact. Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states and DC.
Of course, you could always skip the presidential question all together. A respectable and reasonable choice if you can't bring yourself to vote for anyone.
Final Analysis
Johnson very likely won't win. This election is lost from the standpoint that we can elect a leader that will actually advance freedom and liberty. It was lost when Republicans elected a progressive to represent them. However, with Libertarians getting even 5% of the vote nationally, it makes it much easier from a future fundraising standpoint. This is a defensive move preparing for the next election when we may be faced with another Trump-Clinton false choice. This election is more of a strategic one, positioning for better placement in the next election. Even if you aren't a libertarian, its always good to have another option. Voting for Trump in a red state is like adding a drop to an already overflowing bucket of water. It would seem that a vote for Johnson would be the only vote not wasted.
The media will always tell us that this presidential election is important. It's time to reject Trump and Clinton. If Trump loses, the blood is on the hands of the Republicans who nominated him. I, for one, won't be compromising my values this November. I refuse to lower my standards because a bunch of others lowered theirs. I'd rather vote for someone I like and lose than vote for someone I don't like and win.
Voting for Johnson is exactly the same as voting for Hillary, because you are voting only with your standards, not with REALITY.
My vote is for the candidate whose box I check at the ballot box. If you're so worried that your candidate will lose that you start blaming other people for your candidate losing, its time to admit your party chose a poor candidate. Your party is not entitled to my vote. If you want it, your candidate is going to have to earn it. Trump has done a horrible job at that.
When you see Trump and Hillary as the same person, a vote for Johnson is the only vote against Trump. Its also the only vote against Hillary. The logic that a-vote-for-Johnson-is-a-vote-for-[insert the person you're most afraid of] is completely invalid.
Congratulations @tylerg! You have received a personal award!
Click on the badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about this award, click here
Congratulations @tylerg! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP