Election 2008
The clock ticks ever closer to the Presidential Election of 2008. The candidates have debated, they have slung accusations and claims at one another (both within and without the respective parties), millions of dollars have been spent, and many have already thrown in the towel and called it quits. So where do I stand, you ask? Some think that a monarchist would have no interest in a democratic election. Others think that, while I may have an interest, I would not take part in a process of government in which I have no belief. So, here's what I've got to say.
First of all, for a country that values democracy so much, we have a very undemocratic way of electing our presidents. I'm not talking about the Electoral College (although that too is a very undemocratic body, as the members of the College are allowed to ignore the will of their constituencies and vote as they please), but I'm talking about the primary process. Firstly, let's face it: only the rich can run for office. In order to get your party's nomination, you have to run a very aggressive campaign filled with television, radio, and print advertisements. You have to have money to travel to the fifty states to give speeches. Secondly, the media to a great degree determines which candidates are the front runners. If the media doesn't think a candidate has a chance, they simply don't cover that candidate in their coverage, or even worse dissallow that candidate from televised debates. Do you know that Alan Keyes is running under the Republican ticket? I didn't until quite recently--he's never talked about on the news and as been forbidden from the big debates on TV. Then factor in the fact that each state has different caucus/primary schedules. The result is that people in those states with later caucuses/primaries don't have the chance to vote for several candidates simply becuase by the time they get to vote said candidates have already dropped out. To some it up, if we truly believe in democracy and egalitarianism in this country, then why don't we have a truly democratic and egalitarian way of electing our leaders?
Now on to my own views regarding the candidates. I won't vote for any Democrat, since each and every one is a hands-down supporter of abortion. But the Republicans aren't much better. The Republican candidates are either pro-abortion to one degree or another, or claim to be pro-life but say that they woud "leave it up to the states" to decide if Roe v. Wade would be the law in their respective states. That's neo-con code for "I'll do nothing to stop abortion." Abortion is the worst, most terrible crime ever known to man. I don't care if Roe v. Wade is overturned by illegal or unconstitutional means. Heck, I don't even care if it's overturned by a military coup (as long as said coup is bloodless), I just want innocent babies to live! I'll have nothing to do with any candidate who supports it under any circumstance, and you know what? No self respecting Catholic should either. I will not choose the "lesser of two evils" by choosing a candidate who "would do less damage to the pro-life cause" than the opponent. We as Catholics can never do evil so that good may come from it. Since it's evil to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, I will not vote for the one who I think will do the least damage to unborn babies. I'd rather stay home with my conscious intact.
So in conclusion, if I had to make my decision now (which, by the way, Washington state doesn't vote until the 19th of this month), I'd have to say that I will vote, in the words of Richard Pryor's candidate in the movie Brewster's Millions, for "None of the Above!"
15 comments:
I voted for Ron Paul.
The problem I have with Paul is that he would leave the decision of abortion to the states, thus allowing the likelihood that several or all states would not overturn Roe v. Wade.
In the general election I'll write in Otto von Hapsburg.
Because Dr. Otto von Hapsburg was not born on American soil, he is ineligible for the American presidency.
It is merely a protest vote.
I understand that but if you're going to vote (even a protest vote), you might as well vote for someone who has the constitutional ability to be president. In the general election I'm likely to write-in Pat Buchanan.
One can only hope that this election would cause some to reconsider monarchy.
Hi:
Excuse my bad English.
If the monarchy to be established in USA, who will be the King?
I'm monarchist from Brazil.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Empire
Dagoberto Martins.
As America has been without a monarchy since it's rebellion against England in 1776, there is no rightful claimant to the non-existant throne. If a monarchy were formed, the king would be whoever was able to achieve enough political power to claim and maintain the title of king. The only other option would be to petition the British monarch to rule as king (or in the present case queen) of America.
I thank you, Nick, for your carefully thought-out opinion. I participate in a Catholic forum where many of the participants confuse the platform of the Republican party with the teachings of our Church. The sad truth, however, is that when the laws of the marketplace are the principle factor in the political process, the majority rules, even when that majority has been brainwashed into believing in a woman's "right to choose." Neither party has the moral rectitude necessary to promote and defend a true pro-life position.
Well said anonymous!
We have a Princess recently born in the United States who is of Royal linage. Princesse Eugenie de Bourbon daughter of King Lopuis XX of France was born in Miami. That makes her a citizen, and as a Royal may be permitted to have some one rule as regent until she may rule in her own right.
I just keep thinking, "Out of all of the people in the United States, we have to pick one of THESE candidates to represent us?". And that's because they have millions of dollars to spend to spin their personalities and images. Not ONE of these candidates will do anything of value for America. You'll see.
We should go back to a monarchy. Republicans decry that it is not democratic as no one is elected, but no one is really elected here, either. Pick your poison, boys.
'Firstly, let's face it: only the rich can run for office"
Well the same is true of kings and queens surely.
Dirty Euro,
I think you're missing my point. America lives under the illusion that anyone can run for office, that anyone can become president, but this is just plain wrong: only the rich can run for public office. Not very democratic.
Post a Comment