Last Thursday, a good friend sent me the link to Dr. Dobson’s NY Times Op-ed (his first ever!) concerning the “Values Test” for presidential candidates and a meeting in Salt Lake City, UT last Saturday with 50 pro-family leaders. While I waited to hear Dobson on H & C last night, I mulled over this piece. Here is the crux of what took place:
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
I can’t think of a time when I ever disagreed with Dr. Dobson. I certainly don’t disagree with his morals, thinking, or political involvement here. But I do take issue, ever heedful, with his conclusion.
Watch what Dr. Dobson had to say Hannity & Colmes last night:
I tend to err on the side of caution, not perfection in politics. I understand it is a game that must be played. On the same token, I also know that it is one of several pillars of life that God has created (others are: law, science, philosophy, ethics, history, etc), and has commanded Christians to participate and be influential in. Like most things with God, participation and influence trickles up, not down. Dobson is talking about swaying a presidential election when Christians have yet to significantly impact their local elections. The good news is that America’s design can absorb the shock of an atrocity like abortion and not go to war or divide the country. That’s also the bad news. American Christians have yet to be truly persecuted, from a macro view. We’re too comfortable enjoying the many freedoms our biblically-based Constitution affords. I’ll be the first to say, “Shoot for the stars!” But let’s not pick one in another galaxy. When it comes to moral issues, Christians need to maintain perspective and outline their work and goals beginning with school boards and city councils.
Furthermore, I think that Dr. Dobson may have temporarily overlooked the fact that abortion is a moral issue. It was transformed into a political one by liberals in 1973. Much like the One Ring had to be returned from whence it came to the Land of Mordor to be destroyed, abortion must be quelled in the hearts of people before presidents.
Thirdly, it’s important to point out that every liberal is not 100 percent satisfied with the Democrat candidates, but they don’t have any drawbacks with voting Democrat, as long as most of their priorities are met. In the case of Giuliani, his pro-choice stance is a big red X, but his limited power from the office of president coupled with his commitment to nominate constructionist judges, downgrades that big red X to a minor hash mark in the minds of most conservatives. And it is something that conservatives can easily monitor and hold him accountable to during his first term. If he stabs us in the back, he can be replaced.
That said, I tend to agree more with Gary Bauer, who also participated in the meeting via conference call:
“It would break my heart if we ended up with two pro-abortion candidates. Nonetheless, I urged extreme caution to those attending this meeting. We should not forget that the Clinton presidency came about because a third-party effort divided conservative votes in 1992. The Clinton years were a disaster. The one thing the pro-family movement would be very hard pressed to recover from is another Clinton presidency in 2009.”
Being an Official Event Blogger for the Values Voters Summit in Washington, DC in less than two weeks just got A LOT more interesting.
Hot Air says it well:
It’s fine to warn the party that you aren’t happy with the candidates and that you’ll do what you can to hold the party to its conservative principles no matter who wins the primary. I don’t think it’s wise to toy with third party talk. He didn’t do much of that in the interview tonight, but he has been doing it here and there in recent weeks. That’s the nuclear option in my opinion, but it’s being deployed against one’s own party. It’s really a Samson strategy, and deploying it will bring the house down upon us. Would that get us closer to or farther away from becoming a more conservative country? It’s hard to argue that handing the presidency to the likes of Hillary Clinton can do much but damage the country as a whole and the conservative movement in particular.
So, you may have all heard Dobson can’t support Rudi, based on principle. Well, that principle could actually cause more aborted babies than Rudy. Yes, most of us would like no aborted babies; but will take one abortion over two or three if those are our choices