Light On Dark Water

The Election Should Not Matter This Much

From Jonah Goldberg, writing in USA Today:

The mere fact that presidential elections matter this much is not a sign of national health but of national dysfunction. The more the federal government gets involved in every aspect of our lives — for good or ill — the more people will feel that their livelihoods, lifestyles, even their actual lives are at stake in a presidential election. If the federal government didn’t have so much leverage over your life, politicians wouldn’t be able to scare you into the voting booths.

For instance, beneath the partisan distortions and hyperbole, Obama’s “war on women” rhetoric is the idea that the federal government should be the guarantor of “reproductive freedom” — a malleable term that includes everything from the right to abortion on demand to subsidized birth control pills. Whatever the merits of that argument, the simple fact is that a government that has the power to give you everything you want has the power to take it away, as well.

You don’t have to be a libertarian to agree with this. I’d go as far as to say that if the combined  tendency toward centralization and micro-control is not reversed the existence of the country, not just its health, will be in danger. Goldberg’s whole column is here.

Maclin Horton
,

14 responses to “The Election Should Not Matter This Much”

  1. Louise

    That is the problem with all our governments just now – they have far too much power. Although they seem to have no power at all when it comes to doing good. When was the last time any of our governments voted even just to reduce the number of abortions for instance?

    Reply
  2. Mac

    Actually, in this country, governments below the national level do it all the time. But frequently they are over-ridden by the national government. The states in the United States were originally envisioned as having a great deal of autonomy, and restoring some of it might reduce our civil-war-level tensions. Alabama could ban abortion, California could provide it at taxpayer expense, and if you were in either of those states and didn’t like the law, you could move. But now there’s a mania for federally-enforced uniformity.

    Reply
  3. Louise

    Of course, I was thinking more of the useless politicians here.

    Reply
  4. Louise

    Well, looks like the louse won. Or was it the flea?
    http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/11/a-louse-versus-a-flea-who-really-cares-about-the-us-presidential-election.html#comments
    Anyway, commiserations.

    Reply
  5. Mac

    Thanks; commiserations are certainly in order.
    I don’t have time to read that piece right now, but judging by the title I fear that Hitchens misses a crucial point. Both candidates were pretty bad, but there was a very significant difference: one of them, despite being a nominal Christian, is waging an attack on the Catholic Church which has vast implications. And he won.

    Reply
  6. Rob G

    B.O.’s war against Catholicism has ramifications for all conservative Christians, and is in fact a war against traditional Christianity in general. The RCC however, being the largest and most visible target, as always gets the brunt of the attack.
    This is one reason why I have a problem with neo-conservatism. It is far too accepting of Enlightenment principles, and seems to forget exactly how anti-Catholic the Enlightenment really was. Liberalism is liberalism, whether it’s of the Left or Right variety.

    Reply
  7. Craig

    Condolences all around. It seems the battle is now well and truly joined.

    Reply
  8. Mac

    Indeed. More later–busy morning.

    Reply
  9. Mac

    Rob: “but Obama is a Christian himself, you nutjob” is the lefty response to that, betraying a deep ignorance of the state of modern Christianity. Did anybody on either side ever believe that Obama’s professed Christianity had very much to do with the historical faith?
    I agree with what you say about right and left liberalism. The thing about right-liberalism, though, at least in the American tradition, is that it respects Christianity and sees it as at least a useful partner, while left-liberalism sees it as an enemy. What we’re seeing now is the transformation of a right-liberal country into a left-liberal one. The outlook is poor.

    Reply
  10. Janet

    Well, you know, it’s like Carl Sandburg said.
    AMDG

    Reply
  11. Mac

    The fog comes on little cat feet?!?

    Reply
  12. Janet

    http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/20748
    I think we discussed this a long time ago.
    AMDG

    Reply
  13. Mac

    Yes, I’m pretty sure I know what that is even without clicking on it…yep.

    Reply
  14. Louise

    Oh yes, Maclin, Hitchens does miss this very important point, I agree. I just liked the flea and louse thing!
    Surely Obama’s battle is that of secularism (The Great Heresy) which is aiming to eradicate the whole of the Catholic Faith, especially the ten commandments (which I realise are recognised by both Jews and Christians generally).
    As such O’s “Christianity” doesn’t mean much.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Janet Cancel reply

Instagram / TikTok / X

Designed with WordPress