Three days after the election and two days after the final results were confirmed, I am still frustrated with this notion of morality electing our President. So, I will briefly point out why that is the stupidest reason ever. And then hopefully I can move on to from there.
For starters, as I pointed out yesterday, just because Bush doesn't believe in Gay Marriage or abortion that doesn't make him a moral person. There are multitudes of actions that Bush has taken that aren't consistent with someone of high morals (pre-empting a war, deception, the Patriot Act). So, you can't have it both ways. If someone is to be considered moralistic, then they should, in my opinion, be moralistic in more than just two or three ways.
But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Bush is the most moral person the planet has ever seen. Let's also keep in mind that this is a Democracy, and that Bush has already served four years as United States President. Now, let's consider what voting for Bush based on morals will do for you.
Bush is against Gay Marriage, so I'll vote for him. As a result, the nation is still in the worst debt ever, and he still hasn't recovered all the jobs that he lost for us.
Bush is against abortion, so I'll vote for him. Now that we've re-elected him, Health Care costs still are up by over 30% and over 5 million people who lost their Health Care during the last 4 years don't have it today.
Bush prays regularly, so he gets my vote. Now, Osama Bin Laden, 3 years after September 11th, is still at large and openly mocking and threatening the United States.
Bush attends church consistently, so I'm glad he got re-elected. The world community still disdains the US for its pre-emptive strike against Iraq and for how it continues on in imperialistic arrogance.
My point is that Bush's morals have nothing to do with how he governs the nation. They're not the same topic. They don't affect one another. Bush can be the greatest moralist ever, and still be a horrible President. I think he's proved as much. If you think Bush is moral (which I don't think he's any more or less moral than the next man), he's proven to you that someone can be both moral and a pathetic President.
Furthermore, no matter if Bush is for or against Gay Marriage or abortion, these issues are not going to go away. You might have voted for Bush based on his stance on Gay Marriage, but that didn't eliminate Gays from the face of the planet. They're still here, and this is still an issue whether you are for it or against it. If Gays never gain the right to get married, is that going to stop terrorism? NO!
And what is Bush going to do if he makes a law against abortion, jail the doctor and the mother for having it performed? If someone has an abortion, is that going to affect my job status? NO!
Morals are not necessarily related to governing this country!
Finally, you can be 100% opposed to abortion or Gay Marriage, and still vote on reason and not morals. The idea that if you are devoutly religious and vote for someone who is for abortion and gay rights, then you aren't sincere (or you're a sinner) is completely baseless. It might carry some weight if this country were, again, a Theocracy, but it's not. This is a Democracy, which means that the governing powers should tend to the issues that affect the daily lives of its constituents-not the opinion or moral convictions of half of them.
For example, abortion and gay rights might be a problem for Jane Doe, but not for her next door neighbor. Jane Doe may be moralistically upright and her neighbor not so much. However, how the President feels about Jane Doe's and her neighbors convictions doesn't change the fact that both of them will have to suffer because of an ailing economy which is now entering into uncharted territories with respect to debt.
Bush is an example that good morals does not mean good President. Good morals and good politics are not one in the same. And though in good government morals and politics should have a relationship, they are certainly not married!
There, I got it out! :o)
-Maelstrom
No comments:
Post a Comment