REPORTS have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.
Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.
The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear…
Dobson is allowing us to peek inside the purpose of the secretive Council on National Policy. It’s a place for Conservative groups to meet and plan their agendae. To wit, the gathering of Religious Right Pundits to discuss their political strategy concerning Abortion. But my main reaction to his op-ed is the irresponsibility of his basic logic. In essence, he’s ruling out any Presidential Candidate who does not primarily support his agenda – "Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles." He is saying that his constituents should not vote for any candidate that doesn’t pass his "Values Test." Frankly, I’m delighted to hear that from a political point of view. He’s taking a large number of block voters out of the game. But there’s more.
Many of us feel that America’s invasion of Iraq was fundamentally wrong – wrong in the moral sense of the word – much like Dobson’s views on "the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles." While I’m sure most of us will vote that sentiment, there’s no block vote – no policy statement. It would be unheard of to speak for a large segment of voters as if they were "controlled." The term Pro-Choice is more than one referring to women’s decisions about being pregnant. It refers to voters too. Vote your "choice" on this issue. There are Pro-Choice Organizations, but none that speak for the voters. They speak to the issue.
But there’s an incredible arrogance in what Dobson says. And it’s an arrogance that has cost the country dearly. In the opinion of some, it has threatened our country’s principles with destruction. By focusing on this issue alone, Dobson shepherded an Administration into the White House that filled it with Neoconservative Hawks who plunged us into one disasterous war and threaten us with another. Dobson aided and abetted an Administration that believes in a Unitary Executive, torture, discarding the Geneva Conventions, un-warranted domestic spying, vote tampering, perverting the justice system, and controlling the populace with half-truths and manipulation. By focusing his followers on his limited set of issues, he opened the Gates of Hell, all in the name of Jesus. That’s not what Jesus was about…
Check out one terrific investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com. He gives me hope that we have a few future Edward Murrow and Walter Cronkite types. Boy, do we need them today. Keith Olbermann is great but he’s all alone on cable.