Friday, October 31, 2008

Enough Already

Enough already! That is what I keep telling myself regarding the elections.

Is anyone really still considering what to do? It seems not to be so. It seems that people have made up their minds what they will do and now are only arguing with others and with themselves about it.

I really think the real arguing is really that, arguing with selves. Most people have made up their minds to vote for someone with whom they are not pleased. At least this is what I perceive from those who desire a constitutional republic that truly seeks to promote and defend the good of all. By “All” I mean truly that, from the very tiniest and most helpless and without voices that can be heard, to the wealthiest and strongest and most admired in society. Little babies who are in the earliest stages of development and old codgers in wheelchairs with oxygen tanks ALL are people who are protected by the Constitution. Those who believe this to be true, even though the weak and the helpless are often deemed to be inconvenient and burdensome, believe that they nevertheless are created, yes, CREATED equal under the rule of their Creator. Those who believe this are arguing with themselves, trying to convince themselves that someone who does not honor this higher authority quoted in the Declaration upon which the Constitution is founded can be voted for without violation of conscience, without violation of one’s integrity.

The matter is greatly complicated for those who are aware of the third party candidates, especially of those running for the highest civil office in the land. There is one presidential candidate who truly stands apart from the rest. Chuck Baldwin really makes this matter more complicated, especially for those who want to convince themselves that Washington and Jefferson and Adams and Hale and Hamilton and Hancock and Franklin and Jones and the many others who were unwilling to settle for any less than what they counted as true to their convictions really don’t have anything to say to us today. Those who want to convince themselves that such absolutism is no longer possible have to work hard to justify their choice to resist voting for someone like George Washington.

But then maybe people like me are the ones fooling themselves. Maybe such absolutism has never really existed.

What do we observe from such men as the founders of this nation? Did they all agree on everything? Certainly not. Yet they nominated men with whom they agreed. If no such person could be found, they themselves ran for office. Yes, they worked together with whomever was elected, but they voted for what they believed.

Is that different than what most people today are doing, especially among those who profess to have strong convictions?

It certainly seems to be different from what I am seeing and hearing.

Perhaps in my statements I do overstate things, at least with regard to what is possible in the civil realm. But then I believe in the God who says that with Him all things are possible. I believe in the God who created all men equal in terms of their value in the world and in connection with His love. I believe in the God who says that He recreates us to be perfect even as He is perfect.

Because of this, I cannot accept the notion of settling for the lesser of two evils or the lesser of two undesirables. I believe in looking to that which is the very highest and best, even in the political arena. I believe in demanding absolute commitment from a candidate, commitment to protecting and defending the Constitution and to protecting and defending All of “We the People.”

In the past, I was less informed than I am after many years of study and experience. I the past I was less able to discern between candidates. In the past I knew less of the Constitution and of the history that led to its formulation and of the history that shows the many ways in which it has been ignored and abused.

Now I know at least a little more, and I cannot ignore what I have observed and learned. So I will not settle for a lesser candidate even though for all appearances that candidate may have a better chance of prevailing or winning. After all, what good will his victory do me, if he does not truly represent what I believe is right and good?

In this ongoing battle the issue of integrity arises. Perhaps a reminder of the definition would be a fitting ending for this post.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

Well, perhaps it is enough already. Perhaps it was enough even before this post. Perhaps it is simply time to vote and accept what is coming.


No comments: