Politicians do not do well as bulwarks of righteousness. Christians who look to Capital Hill for help are regularly embarrassed or corrupted. However, I do love America, and I do believe that conservative principles better reflect the biblical ethic than do liberal principles. In the last election liberalism seemed to smash conservatism; however, the reaction to the implementation of unvarnished liberalism was swift, loud, and prolonged. In this column Gene Veith reviews a wise gameplan for the success of the Tea Partiers:
Veteran conservative activist Richard Viguerie thinks the “Tea Party” movement may actually have a chance to roll back government to its constitutional limits, something even Ronald Reagan was unable to do. For it to do so, however, and avoid the fate of other transient political movements, he recommends this game plan: Be independent … Go on a policy offensive … Pressure institutions to change … Avoid the third-party trap … This doesn’t mean we should automatically support whatever candidates Republicans put up. The tea party electoral strategy should be simple and consistent: We must run principled conservatives in the primaries and then throw our support behind the most conservative major-party candidates in the general election.
My one great concern is that the Tea Party movement will redefine conservatism as simply limited government and supply-side economics. I love the Constitutional emphasis of the Tea Party movement. This can provide an invaluable service to our country and the world, and I hope it succeeds. However, the Tea Party has limited value if it is just a change-agent for fiscal responsibility.
Numerous commentators and radio hosts have espoused the philosophy that voters should consider the totality of a person’s voting record, as well as the strategic impact of voting for a Republican who aligns on most issues, but not all. This all sounds well and good except for the niggling little problem of morality, right v. wrong.
There is a threshold that must be crossed before I will consider supporting any candidate: the commitment to innocent life. I consider a vote to be an ethical decision, and support for innocent life is highest value that a politician may espouse.
I may not vote for a candidate simply because he is pro-life; however, I will never vote for a candidate who is not pro-life.
Leave a Reply