I feel like it is far enough out from the election that I can write my political post. I like to keep things friendly on this blog, but it is also my place to externally process my own thoughts.
I am a Pro-Life, Socially Progressive, Fiscally Liberal, Morally Conservative Independent. For those of you who actually work in politics or spend your free time reading and keeping yourself educated on political things, please don't pick apart my words into their exact meaning. I am a self-admitted political apathetic, but I care strongly about issues that politics affect and when I have space in my life to catch up on the present political climate, I have every intention of exercising my rights as a citizen. My terms may not reflect the present definitions and as Grant will tell you, I like to make up words or assign new meanings to previously defined concepts. This drives him crazy. But if you can handle it, I will explain what I mean and defend my choice of presidential candidates. This election, I found time to decide on the presidential candidate that made the most sense for the issues I feel most strongly about, and that was about it. I apologize to you, state and local candidates.
Pro-Life. I believe strongly in the sanctity of human life- all of it, and at all times. It perplexed me that Mitt Romney claimed to be pro-life, except in cases of rape and incest. You either are against ending an unborn life or you aren't. Romney's view seems just as pro-choice as Obama's. Thus, as someone who is Pro-Life, I do not agree with either candidates stance on the issue. I believe that once a child is conceived (egg and sperm meet and begin to form new cells) that life has begun. From a biological perspective, I cannot find one point in the continuum of fetal development where you could say that before that point it wasn't a child and after that point, it was. Before neural tube development? Before heartbeat? Any place you would try and put a pre-life label puts you in a tricky position of explaining why we should preserve and protect humans with deficiencies outside the womb. Babies born with mental retardation? Adults with heart failure who would die without LVADs or pacemakers?
Regardless of how that child was conceived, whether it was planned or not, whether it was even wanted or not, it is a child. And I believe that all life should be protected because it is sacred, thus I am pro-life. However, I didn't believe this was a one issue election- and even if I did, I wouldn't have been able to vote for either candidate.
And then there are the other pro-life/ pro-choice political platforms of war and the death penalty. I do not understand how someone can be pro-life and pro-death penalty. You either believe in the sanctity of life or you don't. And I think if you do, you cannot be pro-death penalty. The war issue is trickier and cannot be reduced down simply to whether you would be okay killing another human in times of war or not. I know many great men and women in the military and I have always wanted to ask directly how they feel about this issue. Unfortunately, I don't know how to ask the question and assure pure curiosity as my motive. If you have thought through this issue more than I have, I would love to hear your thoughts to help me hash out my own. I also understand that as someone who has never served in the military, the very fact that I can ask these questions is a luxury that I have because of the courage of those who have protected my freedoms.
Socially progressive. I believe that as a developed country with a democratic government, the very least that we can expect from our elected leaders is to enact laws that protect every citizen. The poor and disadvantaged should be cared for, and no citizen should have to go without health care or basic civil benefits.
Fiscally liberal. I believe the only way to ensure access to basic civil rights for everyone is to tax those who make more. I understand this would require sacrifice on the part of the wealthy, but the only way society can maintain it's equilibrium is for those who have much to give to those who have little. That seems more American to me then the idea that you worked for your money and shouldn't have to give it away unless you want to. I am not talking about equality, before you accuse me of being a socialist, but I cannot think of any other way to provide basic human rights to the disadvantaged then for the money to come from those who have more. The government can't float the entire social loan. Do I recognize that this means I will inherit less from my in-laws who have been incredibly financially blessed and fiscally responsible their entire lives? Unfortunately I do... :)
Morally conservative. I am a Christian woman who believes that objective truth exists in the universe. Before any political law is the Law of God, and I must follow that Law to the best of my understanding. This means that there is a right and wrong and I have a responsibility to live that truth out. It means when there is an opportunity to love another person, I do that. When there is an opportunity to protect human rights, I do that. When there is an opportunity to take care of the proverbial orphan and widow, I do that. I believe that God will take care of the nuances and judge the way He deems right at the end of time.
I feel like I voted my beliefs to the best of my ability and for the man who lined up with the issues that meant the most to me in this election. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and my own opinion has changed over time as I talked and listened to the opinions of others. But I do believe that nothing shows the current division of the church more clearly than the political season. I wish Facebook had the same privacy curtain as the voting booth- then maybe the non-Christian world wouldn't have been so exposed to the harsh opinions of Christians on election day. I don't think the grace of God prevailed. But we can try again in 4 years...