I don’t like mixing politics with morality, but sometimes it’s unavoidable. What I mean is this: how can anyone cast a ballot for a man who they know will continue to kill people in other countries merely to advance US policy objectives? That’s the question people need to ask themselves.In all honesty, I used to deride those people who treat the abortion issue as their make or break point on whether or not they would vote for this or that candidate. I would say to myself, "How parochial!"
Under normal circumstances, I can understand the “lesser of two evils” theory of voting, just as I can understand why people would think that Obama would be better president than his GOP opponent. But these aren’t normal circumstances, are they? After all, we’re not just talking about which candidate might be more inclined to protect Social Security or Medicare. We’re talking life and death. The question is whether one is willing to throw their support behind a policy that kills people in exchange for the presumed protection of Social Security?That’s a pretty cynical calculation.
Knowing what we know now, we can say with 100% certainty that Obama will continue killing people wherever he deploys the US military, the US intelligence services and US drones. How can anyone in good conscience sign on to that type of thing?
~ from Is It Immoral to Vote for Obama? by Mike Whitney ~
But I have come around to understanding WHY it is such an important issue to many people. As Whitney points out in the snippet above, issues of life and death SHOULD trump more pedestrian issues, even economic ones. Consequently, for those individuals who are staunchly anti-abortion, I now understand why that one issue is the only one that matters to them.
In this same vein, I simply don't understand how anyone who purports to support peace and be against indiscriminate killing could rationalize that a vote for Barack Obama would be consistent with their moral/ethical beliefs. Obama has escalated the use of drones throughout the world and we KNOW that drones routinely kill and maim innocent people. They don't make the world safer; the use of drones breeds resentment and, at some point, retaliation...which will only lead to MORE indiscriminate death.
I don't know about you, but I don't want innocent blood on MY hands, especially by consciously selecting the man that will put it there.
For almost the same reasons as the quoted person, I have never voted. I can't vote to be controlled by someone who uses murder as a method. I do not need someone to control me and I do not need someone to tell me right our wrong, especially when it is apparent that they don't know.
ReplyDeleteI have voted in the past, but I am now more inclined NOT to vote for candidates and only for ballot initiatives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Trey, our moral compass must guide our voting habits. For me the crunch issues are; a common sense approach to the economy, and a respect for human rights.
ReplyDeleteToo many people in the UK vote a certain way because they always have, this has allowed quite a lot of corruption and laxity as the incumbent politician knows that they can rely on the habits of voters.
I don't usually abstain from voting, but try to cast my vote for the least objectionable candidate. At least that way I can still have some sort of say.