I’ve been keenly following the news and media coverage of the upcoming U.S. Presidential elections. One thing that stands out for me in this election is the enormous advantage that the opposition party (Democratic) enjoys. We have a President, whose popularity has hit record lows and whose administration is beset with problems of their own making and not entirely of their own making, such that he is practically of very little use to his party’s candidature. Some of the unfortunate turn of events in the financial market and the media’s portrayal of it have ensured that for the most part the very mention of our President’s name carries a sense of liability to the Republican Party’s electoral prospects. In a situation such as this it is natural that the opposition party would have a significant advantage. More so when their nominee is an eloquent speaker who is capable of mesmerizing his audiences with promises of peace and prosperity under the banner of “Change We Need”.
It is true that many things have changed for the worse in recent years. There are many who have lost jobs and homes, there are many who cannot afford healthcare, there are many who struggle to bring food to their table, and there are many who are losing their hope for a better future. Of course change is needed and it is needed now. However it is important to consider what kind of change do we need. Barack Obama has set up “Change” as the platform of his campaign, and the news media and the citizens have gravitated towards his message. They say that he offers hope – hope that they have been waiting for so long. Some even call him the “Messiah”. To his credit, Obama has been successful in consistently delivering a campaign message that is popular and (at least for the moment) soothes the feelings of desperation from people who are most anxiously waiting for a change of fortune in their lives. Whereas his message of change sounds promising and full of hope, the substance of the change he proposes deserves careful consideration.
Obama believes that the U.S. should fix a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and bring home the troops soon. We all want to see the war end and have our troops back safely. However, isn’t it foolhardy to announce to the enemy how long we will be on the battlefield and when we will leave?? Success in Iraq is largely measured on the sense of peace and calm on the Iraqi streets and the lack of insurgent activity. How ingenious of us to inform the insurgents our date of departure so that they might perhaps wait us out and resume their insurgency after our troops are safe in the U.S.!!! This ‘cut and run’ strategy would do nothing to politically stabilize Iraq. Of course, there are several aspects of the war that have been mismanaged by the Bush administration. However any idea of leaving Iraq before establishing a level of political stability that would sustain itself later just illustrates an attitude of irresponsibility. The war has exposed the political fragility of the country. Let’s help the Iraqis fix it and not run away from it.
In an interview he gave in 2001, Obama talked about “the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution” and seemed to espouse the idea that the constitution is a document of negative liberties that dictate what the State and Federal Governments cannot do and that the constitution doesn’t specify what the State and Federal Governments should do on behalf of the people. I’m not a student of the U.S. constitution and I haven’t read it. However, I’m positive that I’d be right in saying that the authors of the constitution did not perceive Government-citizens relationship like parent-children relationship in which the citizens are to depend on the Government for everything and the Government is to provide everything for the citizens. One of the wonderful founding principles of this country is that every citizen is to take responsibility for his/her own life. You work and earn your pay. You don’t sit in your house or waste your time roaming around the streets and expect the Government to send you checks. In the same interview, Obama implied that there were many things in the realm of redistribution of wealth that the Civil Rights movement did not achieve. Perhaps he wants to get them done. Perhaps Obama wants those Americans who have more money in their banks than he thinks they really need to give their “excess money” to him so that he can redistribute it to those he thinks must have a part in it. The section of people who will benefit from Obama’s tax breaks also includes those who do not pay tax. It makes me wonder whether some of the changes offered by Obama will slowly but surely chip away at some of the fundamental principles on which this country was founded. Of course the poor need to be helped. But help ought not to come by robbing the hard earned wealth of the rich and doling it out as freebies to those who don’t work for it. Now, to be fair, Obama’s tax breaks don’t cover only those who don’t pay taxes. It also covers many struggling people in the middle class who work hard, pay taxes, and would rightly like to see a bigger paycheck. Reducing the tax burden on these people is essential. However the reduction ought not to come in the form of extorting more money from the rich. It should come by way of the Government reducing its spending. From what I’ve seen in his campaign, Obama comes across as an extravagant spender who has no qualms indulging in luxury created from donated money. In the event he wins the presidency, I wonder what will prohibit him from doing the same as the President with the exacted money (tax) as what he has been doing as a candidate with the donated money. I believe that those who truly care for the poor will be marked by simplicity and not profligacy.
A key element of Obama’s solution to the current economic crisis is this – tax the companies more, tax the rich more, take the money from them and give it to the middle class. When he passionately talks against tax breaks for companies, he conveniently neglects the fact that when you tax a company you actually tax its employees. This has provided a good talking point for him.
In his memoir ‘Dreams From My Father’, Obama notes that in his college days, while choosing his friends, among those he intentionally leaned towards were the Marxist professors and structural feminists. This is a free country and everyone is free to choose their own friends and form their own ideologies. However, when running for the country’s top office, one ought to be forthcoming in explaining their associations with people and ideologies that go against the grain of this country’s fundamental principles. The ideas one forms in his college years have a great influence in shaping how he/she understands life and what he/she wants to accomplish in life. Obama has downplayed his associations with questionable characters such as William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright (which appear to me as acts of political convenience) but he has never given sufficient explanation as to whether or not he agrees with people like Ayers and Wright ideologically, and whether he believes that they are ideologically wrong. The prime matter of concern is not necessarily how closely Obama was associated with these characters but rather how much does he espouse their views and ideas.
As an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted to support a bill that would mandate providing sex education to children as little as kindergartners. He wants the Government to “teach” these kids about sexual predators. These are matters that are best left to be handled by the parents. Of course, the supporters of that bill would claim that they were thinking of children who don’t have responsible parents. Even in that case, such matters should be handled by non-Governmental agencies such as Churches and social organizations. It is a dangerous view to hold that the Government is to provide solution to every problem of the citizens. When a Government functions with that kind of philosophy, it would have to do so by sweeping its broad arms all over its citizens, thereby affecting and “fixing” lots of citizens who don’t need and have not asked to be fixed. Obama certainly seems to hold the view that Government should play a broader role in people’s lives. The Government should rather play limited role in people’s lives.
When discussing abortion, Obama once said that if one of his daughters makes a mistake and ends up getting pregnant he doesn’t think it is right to “punish her with a baby”. It amazes me that someone could have such a dangerously distorted view of the sanctity of live and he is supposedly the change that people are “hoping for”.
The change we need is the change towards true conservatism. It is sad that on several areas President Bush’s administration has strayed from the compassionate conservative platform on which he ran his presidential campaign in 2000. It is true that the administration has met with failures in some areas. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that these failures are a result of straying away from true conservative principles – limited Government spending, encouraging and rewarding domestic productivity, wise and diligent handling of foreign affairs, and unwavering social conservatism among other things. The change that Obama offers is a different kind of change – a change that sounds promising and mouth-watering at first sight but will slowly eat away the very moral and ethical fabric of this wonderful country.
Let’s hope that the voters realize the change they really need and vote accordingly.
- Wes
For those who haven’t heard, we are visiting India from May 6-22, 2009. During our stay, we are thankful for the opportunity to visit and minister to the children at the HEED (Health Education and Economic Development) orphanage in India. Those who attended our wedding might remember that in lieu of favors, money was being donated to the HEED orphanage. We recently found out that the orphanage is in need of a washing machine (or two), so we will use these monies to go towards a washing machine.
the orphanage has now grown to 75 children, between the ages of 2 and 19. These children come from very desperate backgrounds, many of them born into Hindu families. Along with shelter and complete physical care, the orphanage also provides diligent spiritual care and training to the children. Recently, about 35 children from a Hindu background were baptized. The orphanage is located in a caste-infested, heavily Hindu-dominated region and is thriving in the midst of strong opposition!
Please pray for us for God’s wisdom, direction, and protection as we visit and minister to these precious children on May 13, 2009. We plan to present them with at least one washing machine. If you feel led to join us in giving this gift, you can do so by sending a check to Old Cheney Alliance Church by April 30th. Please mark your check as ‘To HEED Orphanage’. The address to send your check is: Old Cheney Alliance Church, 5201 Old Cheney Rd., Lincoln, NE 68516-3231.