Why don’t any of the leading candidates see the problem with policing the world and pretending that aggressive, militant, Imperial expansionism will certainly improve life for the conquered masses?

Thank you for posting. That article alone tempered my enthusiasm back to the realistic and moderate (at least for today lol — I *so* wish I could hope for better :]).

the bottom line is that I’m thinking that focusing on morality and responsibility may be a better way to spread freedom

I currently opine that the biggest bang-for-the-buck “focus on morality and responsibility” we could do would be to change our foreign policy. The message we’re sending abroad (and even at home) is certainly anything but Christian morality and responsiblity.

I think Obama has demonstrated (with more than just words) a disposition and ability to do ‘better’ than McCain on that particular charge. How much better, however, is something that I wish I was able to gauge more clearly. I’m trying (as Connor advocates) not to fall under the spell and lose perspective on questions like that. :)

I still haven’t decided whether I think McCain or Obama would be the lesser of two evils, the better President. Weighing them both against the Lord’s criteria (upholding Constitutional law, and being good and wise – both of which Connor has pointed out), I find them both lacking at this point. As you have pointed out, they tend to lack in different areas, but I thikn they both are lacking nonetheless.

The point I’m trying to reinforce (and I think the point Connor was trying to make in the first place) is that placing great hope in Obama as a political messiah or a leader of a great new era is misguided. He may have a magnetic personality, but I think his policies are pretty typical of liberal-leaning politicians.

Finally, anybody who doesn’t believe that more wars of aggression and occupation and military build-up [McCain proposals] are *not* more expensive (and irresponsible and damaging etc.) than government subsidized education and whatnot [Obama proposals] hasn’t really been paying attention.

I think both war and socialistic domestic policies are generally expensive, irresponsible, and damaging. But when you say that those who choose one over the other are not paying attention, what are they not paying attention to? I see them as 2 sides of the same coin – each gives government more power over people’s lives. It’s the welfare/warfare state.

That said, our nation may be losing its ability to be free through the moral decay of society. It is true that the more we give people freedom to do as they please, the more we need to be prepared for individual struggles. This is the same as Heavenly Father’s plan for His children. He wanted to preserve our agency at all costs, while the opposite plan would force us to be good and be saved (which could never come to pass – one cannot be saved by force).

So what is the best way to run our society? I think it’s to give people the most freedom they can handle. Maybe many people can’t handle freedom today. Ben Franklin said after the Constitution was signed that the Founding Fathers had created “a republic, if you can keep it”, meaning that a republic is only functional when the people pay the price to be vigilant and keep it going. Liberty is possible only when responsibility is accepted.

Maybe the best way to create liberty and freedom is to teach and exemplify morality, and right vs. wrong. I think liberty and freedom are the natural outgrowths of goodness, responsibility, and morality.

I’m carrying on now, but the bottom line is that I’m thinking that focusing on morality and responsibility may be a better way to spread freedom than proclaiming freedom itself. But proclaiming freedom has to have a place in that, being that it’s the natural fruit that flows from goodness.

I heartily agree that

Fiscal policy is carrying our nation toward bankruptcy, as has been described many times on Connor’s site and elsewhere. But Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security hardly register as much as even a sound byte from the leading candidates.

The question I keep asking myself, however, is does Obama deserve the brunt of such criticisms from “fiscal conservatives” as this blog entry and many comments seem to indicate. (I think he just makes an easy target.) That link you provided lists some of the expensive, expansive programs Obama supports. But it lacks the crucial “big picture” context of how that compares to the other leading candidates.

I particularly disagree with the numbers being pushed by “conservative” media “proving” that if the Democratic candidates got “everything they proposed” they would certainly be the most flagrant abusers of our tax system (ie spend the most, push the most inappropriate uses of government, etc.) Whatever else someone wants to argue, it has been conventional wisdom that Republicans push “fiscal conservatism” and only “appropriate” tax-funded government interventions (in the economy, in the world, etc.). We have decades to prove that false now.

In my opinion, now that the Republican Party has so flagrantly pushed out the only candidate pushing wise and sound government policies — Ron Paul, I feel obliged to look at all the candidates with fresh eyes. I still can’t see how my hope that Obama would make a better President (even fiscally) than somebody like McCain is misplaced. I don’t support all of Obama’s proposals or politics but I support even less of McCain’s – particularly his egregious foreign policy and positions on domestic civil liberties.

Finally, anybody who doesn’t believe that more wars of aggression and occupation and military build-up [McCain proposals] are *not* more expensive (and irresponsible and damaging etc.) than government subsidized education and whatnot [Obama proposals] hasn’t really been paying attention.

That is an interesting comparison of Obama vs. Clinton. If I thought the policies he is advocating (in a more “big picture” way than Clinton) were reasons to hope, I would do so. I think his policies are emotionally provocative movements in the wrong direction.

See here. Fiscal policy is carrying our nation toward bankruptcy, as has been described many times on Connor’s site and elsewhere. But Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security hardly register as much as even a sound byte from the leading candidates.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Is Barack Obama the Messiah?

And, for balance’s sake:

No, Dear, Barack Obama is NOT the Messiah

I admire your persistence. :)

I was not aware of this author’s background. While interesting, I think his points are valid.

You make a good point in saying that the candidate should not be judged by his supporters. In Obama’s case, however, he is the one adding fuel to the fire. For example, Paul does not mention the 9/11 truth movement or pro-conspiracy theories. And yet, the media and others try to undermine his platform and viability based on the positions of isolated supporters.

In Obama’s case, however, he is the one causing the problem. I realize that his website is rich in content and specificity. However, he offers little of this in his speeches. He seems to want to be a revivalist preacher more than he does a president. I believe that his speeches should contain substance, details, and principles instead of so much fluff, eloquence, and rhetoric.

It’s not so much his positions that I’m arguing against here (though they would provide plenty of blog fodder for months to come—years, if he wins this fall), it’s the nature of his presentation, the method of his discourse, and the tactics he uses to attract and allure a voting bloc hoping for “change”.

I feel like I’m on some website trying to explain to people why Kerchik’s TNR hit piece on the “Ron Paul Newsletters” is not the sum substance of Ron Paul. I expect somebody like Brooks to be pushing this idea, but not the author or commentators at connorboyack. :]

Look, you can accurately disagree with some stupid positions Obama has taken over the years (kindergarten sex ed was one you found that I’d never heard of but, yeah, . . . whoa . . . wrong on so many levels lol). You can express grave concern that somebody like me jumps on the bandwagon by choosing my favorite of his many varied foreign policy statements. You can cite his hypocrisy when he excoriates Clinton for voting to make the Iranian guard an official “terrorist organization” — when he didn’t even show up to vote. The guy certainly has chinks in his “messianic” armor. Around here you can simply point at his CFR membership — or better yet highlight phrases in his CFR speech last year or his article in Foreign Policy. Etc.

But attacking him as having the least good fruits (heck his opposition to our endless war and the Patriot Act are pretty substantial fruits for me) or for having dedicated and possibly under-informed supporters seems kinda pointless. What are McCain’s good fruits? Clinton’s? I never thought people should judge Paul by his less impressive supporters . . . why should Obama?

Basically I find Obama’s messages about “hope” sincere and substantial. I’ve been looking into his platform, his character, and his positions. I didn’t expect to find someone as willing to uphold the Constitution as he is so close to the nomination. For me this isn’t about political party or about media spin. Perhaps my hope is misplaced but I currently believe an Obama election would send some immediate messages to the world that anything short of a Paul election would fail to do. For me the jury is still out on this Obama guy – I just can’t see the point in writing him off so surely.

OK, down to specifics, what do people who want to follow that standard do now?

Ron Paul is pretty dang good on the Constitution. The best I’ve seen. I voted for him in the Primary and didn’t mind that technically that could have helped Romney or McCain or whoever had a better chance in my primary — because none of them were better than each other on the issues that I held most dear.

But for the national election I do feel like Obama upholds the Constitution much better than McCain. (If it’s Hillary/McCain this calculus changes and I’m pretty sure I vote for Paul.) Obama is against the usurpations of civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution for the right reasons. Obama is against at least some of our un-Constitutional and unwise military actions for the right reasons. He voices those opinions and votes correctly on many issues. If it ends up being Obama/McCain and I don’t do anything to help prevent McCain and his un-Constitutional policies – both at home and abroad – then I will feel like I misused my freedom.

I think the Lord said it best:

Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. (D&C 98:6-7)

So, anybody who is a strict Constitutionalist is okay. Anything other than that – not good.

The criteria we must analyze, as you mention, is the Constitution—that document that elected leaders swear to uphold and defend, but rarely do. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that we hold our leaders accountable and, as Jefferson said, bind them down to the Constitution.

What constitutes the “Lesser of Two Evils” in the first place? Any candidate who falls short of perfection? . . . I’m supposing that people here aren’t being that silly. I got excited about Ron Paul because for once I found a candidate that I believed could truly promote more good than harm . . . is that a reasonable criteria for transcending the “evil” tag: “more good than harm”?

I guess basically I feel like the “Lesser of Two Evils” is a worn-out abstraction — perhaps the same amorphous evil you find in platitudes about “hope” lol. Without more substantial criteria to discuss you can potentially dismiss all candidates on all sides in all contests as the “Lessers” of multiple evils and nobody can really call you out on it because there isn’t clear criteria to analyze.

When they asked Nephi to be King and his understanding of governance caused him to blanch he didn’t pull the “Lesser of Two Evils” card, he seemed to understand that an imperfect system was better than anarchy and at least something to work with. When Benjamin found himself King — and also seemed to have a good understanding of all the problems that entailed — he simply strove to be the best one he could (not the lesser of all possible evil kings although you could philosophically argue that is the same thing).

There are certainly things in life where “none of the above” is a better choice than “the lesser of two evils” but I’m not sure President is one of those things.

Finally, I actually do believe that bombing innocent people and starting wars of pre-emptive aggression is far, far more evil than any expansion of ill-conceived government social ventures. Furthermore I think you can support a candidate like Obama for the parts of his platform you agree with and continue to voice your opposition to the planks you disagree with. In fact, that’s pretty much your civic duty whoever you support.

It’s funny, because I know people have complained about Lo2E candidates for as long as I can remember (the 70’s, FYI), but this is the first time I’ve actually thought that one party had fielded such a strong group of candidates. (Talking about the Democrats, of course.) All the Republicans (bar one) sound like they’re running for Bush’s third term.

I think you just reinforced Connor’s point. That is, it sounds like you’re saying Obama looks pretty good when compared with someone else (Bush). That sounds like the lesser of two evils argument to me.

Among McCain, Obama, and Clinton, none of the three give me much hope.

This analysis makes sense — if you forget that we actually do have a president that is bombing people!

Bush has set the bar pretty low. At this stage, anyone who doesn’t bomb the wrong country, throw people into secret prisons, wiretap my phone, use the Bill of Rights to roll joints in, or take a dump on the Oval Office rug is lookin’ good!

If they can actually manage to make some reasonable policy decisions, that’s a bonus.

While Obama was specifically mentioned in this post (as he is the largest purveyor or political “hope” in this campaign), the main indictment is on his supporters. Consequently, the same indictment may be made just as easily on any other candidate’s supporters—those who have a budding hero-worship, and praise the man more than the principles.

…I have a hard time seeing Obama as the bad guy. Or the worst guy anyways.

Indeed. Many would agree. This, then, leads to the “lesser of two evils” approach, which assumes that as long as Obama isn’t bombing people, he’s a good pick for president. Thus, he could get away with any number of social evils, so long as he didn’t physically injure another. One might argue, under this premise, that it’s far easier to be evil in this regard than in the other, for the bomber is easily seen as evil, whereas the Robin Hood is praised continuously for being a do-gooder.

I think this all boils down to what one perceives as proper presidential support. Do we support the lesser of two evils, or do we stand firm for truth, righteousness, and morality? Do we throw our weight behind the “practical candidate” (as many former Romney supporters are now support McCain, their one-time bitter enemy) or vote for the person that meets the Lord’s requirements of being honest, good, and wise, regardless of his so-called “electability”?

This most certainly is a conundrum, for the “lesser of two evils” camp is winning. As the lesser of two evils is still evil itself, what do we get election after election? Certainly not anything that moves the cause of liberty, that’s for sure.