I'm always fascinated by what issues people choose to turn their votes on. I don't mean that to be as condescending as it sounds. I don't mean that I think other people are idiots because they base their votes on things that I find irrelevant. I don't believe that at all. I mean that it is truly interesting to me what issues can turn the tide. I was having an e-mail discussion with a friend of mine the other day, and her voting issues were abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research. For me, those are not voting issues, at least not for the office of President.
When I vote for President, I think of the broader spectrum issues: What will impact the very governing of this country? What will impact our relationships with other nations around the world? What will bring an end to war around the globe? What will improve our economy? What will impact the planet itself?
What will benefit the greater good? I focus on social issues, like poverty, war, disease, and cultural issues. I focus on economic health and strength. I focus on the planet. And I focus on how we can best mend fences and build bridges around the world.
Abortion is not a voting issue for me at all. It is something that will never again be illegal in this country (not that I think it should be). I believe in regulating abortion, and our government is doing that. But we will never again live in a country where abortion is illegal. Hell, George W. Bush appointed
two justices to the Supreme Court, and abortion is still legal. Granted, the "right case" hasn't come up to test
Roe v. Wade under this new Court, but I think that, if anything, any changes to
Roe v. Wade would be minor. Do I like that abortion exists? No, I don't. To
my mind, there is not a single scenario that justifies ending the life of a child; and I believe that life begins at conception. I could never have an abortion myself. However, I am so grateful to have the right to make the decision to
not have an abortion that I could never justify denying another woman the right
to have an abortion if she feels it is necessary.
Now, I suppose one could argue that abortion, as a medical procedure, has an impact on the economy, especially in an environment of increasing talk of socialized medicine.
But the opposite could be said, too: If unwanted or gravely sick or disabled children are born into the world, there is an impact on society and the economy. But back to my point, at its very base, abortion is a personal choice issue. It is not an issue that effects global interests or even the daily governing of this country. So, for me, it is not a voting issue.
Likewise, gay marriage is not a voting issue for me. It is a moral issue for some, but not for me. Love is love is love is love. Homosexual couples have just as much right to express and live that love as heterosexual couples. Besides, what is the difference between Bob and Bill living together as "partners" or as a "married couple"? Are they still not living together as a homosexual couple? It is a simple matter of semantics, and semantics -- in this case anyway -- do not effect the greater good or the governing of our country. If Bob and Bill get married, will global warming increase? No. If Sue and Jane get married, will the war in Iraq drag on longer? Of course not. If Andy and Jim make it legal, will the economy tank? Absolutely not. The world will keep turning, the country will not fall into total disarray, and we will all go on living our happy little lives. Why? Because, again, it is a personal choice issue that really only affects those people involved in the relationship. I appreciate that some think that homosexual married couples will put a "drain" on the insurance industry, but if Bob married Sue instead of Bill, the insurance company would have to pay out to Sue, right? So what is the difference? Again, it's not a voting issue for me.
As for embryonic stem cell research, it goes back to the abortion issue. But here's what I think about it: If there are 100,000 embryos out there that were created by infertile couples who no longer need or wish to use them, and if they're going to be destroyed anyway, then why shouldn't the greater good benefit from them? Now, don't get me wrong. I would hate for embryos to be
created for the sole purpose of testing; but if they already exist and are going to be destroyed, then why shouldn't people like my cousin Danny, who is suffering from ALS, benefit from the life they could potentially bring. Isn't it a greater sin to waste that microscopic life altogether than to benefit mankind from it? But, once again, this is not an issue that affects international relations or global warming or poverty, so it is not a voting issue in my mind.
So what are my voting issues exactly? Well, first, taxes. Call me crazy, but I don't mind paying them, and, frankly, we cannot function as a nation without them. How would we support this multi-trillion dollar war without tax revenue? How would we maintain the infrastructure without taxes? How would we subsidize alternate energy research without tax dollars? We wouldn't.
And "user fees" are just taxes that get passed on to the poor and marginally poor. Do you think Donald Trump would be contributing any of his billions of dollars in a "user fee" system? No. He wouldn't be using public transportation or other public systems because he already owns everything he needs. It would be the poor, minimum-wage dad who is trying to feed four kids and keep a roof over their heads who would be supporting the government. So to me, it's important to vote for a candidate who recognizes that taxes are a necessary evil and that they should be paid based on what you can afford to pay.
Another voting issue for me is the environment. I'll make this short and sweet: I don't want to leave my grandchildren a planet that has been destroyed by our greed.
I also focus on social programs. I won't dwell on that one because I have already discussed my feelings on
social programs. Suffice it to say that my ideal candidate recognizes his responsibility to his fellow man.
And I vote for peace. I suppose there are times when war is necessary. Certainly, if you are attacked, you must defend yourself. But I don't ever believe that
we should be the aggressor. And I don't believe that war should be on-going and unending. Drawing war to a close is not an admission of defeat. We aren't talking about a blinking contest here. We're talking about the lives of hundreds of thousands of service men and women, not to mention the lives of hundreds of thousands of often innocent civilians.
So that's it. That's what is important to me: The greater good.
That is my voting issue.