Whom to Vote For: The Conscience of a Conservative

Jordan Richardson

February 1, 2008
Whom to choose for president? As most of you know, I am usually very hard on politicians and make several jabs at their experience and philosophy. I am critical of liberals, and wary of the conservatives who give ground to liberal’s demands. So coming from a skeptical viewpoint, it is hard to find a good candidate, but easy to weed out the undesirables. However, for all my jabs at politicians the one that I did support was Fred Thompson.

I supported Fred as far back as March of 2006. He undoubtedly stood for conservative principles and had a deep understanding of the Constitution. He and Ron Paul were/are by far the most conservative in the race. I appreciated his view that the government cannot fix everything, and therefore sought to introduce plans that enabled the free market to stimulate and improve certain economic and fiscal issues. If you visit Fred's website, he is the only candidate that has a section explaining the philosophy of conservative principles and why Federalism works and why less government is better government. (http://fred08.com/Virtual/Federalism.aspx) Fred was also endorsed by the National Right to Life, and Human Events.

However, after the South Carolina primary, and because of poor poll numbers, Fred dropped out. What is a conservative to do?

From several in the evangelical circles, I have been told that my only choice is Huckabee. The idea is that because he was a pastor and a governor, pro-life, anti- gay marriage, and has a great personality, he must the best conservative leader to elect as president. However, while I appreciate Huckabee for his strong, certain qualities, I must confess that my support of conservatism prohibits my endorsement of him.

He has a mindset of big government (whether or not he was “forced“to raise taxes)
(http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabee_fis.php_)


He is soft on immigration: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNvuHw0ee7I)

He calls a bill that does not extend state benefits (education, welfare, etc.) to children of illegal immigrants “un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life“.
(http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/28/News/316347.html)

He is for measures that would allow terrorists in Guantanamo bay to have Habeas corpus rights. (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=837)

I could go on forever. As a candidate running for the highest office, his policies and beliefs must be examined to ensure that this governor from Arkansas doesn’t turn out like the last one. While Huckabee is a likeable person and strong on some issues, I cannot with a conscience support him.

As for Ron Paul, I do agree with him on most things fiscally and economically, however, I disagree with him to such a large extent concerning national security and foreign policy, that I believe that a vote for him would not just be undesirable, but dangerous. Moreover, even if I could come to reconciliation with his security policies, he has a very slim chance of winning the Republican nomination, much less the national election.

John McCain is no better. He has serious issues when it comes to conservative values. Professing to know virtually nothing about economics, he introduces a bill to grant illegal immigrant amnesty, was against the Bush tax cuts, wants to shut down Guantanamo Bay, and is a believer that global warming exists and that humans caused it. That would not be so bad until you realize that he wants more government regulations to stop the bad Americans from driving big cars or using a regular light bulb. Hardly a conservative mindset. You, see, it is more than abortion and gay marriage that matters.

Indeed, many conservative political insiders have warned against a McCain vote. Rick Santorum, former Senate colleague expressed concern over the many on Right who are supporting McCain. Santorum said in an interview, “The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him [McCain] , 6 years in the United States Senate as leader, one of the leaders of the Senate — the number-3 leader — who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.”

(http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDllYTY5NzA2OTk2YzNhZTIyZGUwYzU5OTc4MzVhZDY=)

His recent win in Florida unfortunately means that many conservatives will believe that he has run on conservative principles, but if one looks at his long Senate record, it obvious that he is, at best, a moderate.

Rudy Giuliani had similar problems, but not as serious. He is strong on national security and healthcare; however, his big government stance troubles many conservatives. Support for gun control, abortion and gay marriage are also strikes against him. Moreover, it now appears that he will drop out after his poor showing in Florida, a state that he banked everything on. He didn’t last long enough for me to vote against him.

Where does that leave us?

“What…no! No, you can’t mean Mitt Romney!” Well, actually, yes, that is where I am leading. And, since I have led us there, it is prudent to point out the two most obvious criticisms of this man: He’s flip-flopped on abortion, and he is a Mormon. Fair enough responses, so I will deal with them.

Answering the barbs about Romney's “flip-flopping,” I think it is pretty clear to me that after actually listening and reading his explanation of that position, he is sincere. It is actually quite a plus for him; a candidate who is willing that he was wrong on abortion, and then become a staunch pro-life advocate.

Ann Coulter explains it well: “Liberals claim to be enraged at Romney for being a "flip-flopper." I've looked and looked, and the only issue I can find that Romney has "flipped" on is abortion. When running for office in Massachusetts -- or, for short, "the Soviet Union" -- Romney said that Massachusetts was a pro-choice state and that he would not seek to change laws on abortion. Romney's first race was against Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- whom he came closer to beating than any Republican ever had. If Romney needed to quote "The Communist Manifesto" to take out that corpulent drunk, all men of good will would owe him a debt of gratitude.”

She has an excellent point. In the state where Romney served, a quick show of hands for the anti-abortion movement would not get you elected dogcatcher.

Coulter goes on: “Even when Romney was claiming to support Roe v. Wade, he won the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life -- a group I trust more than the editorial board of The New York Times. Romney's Democratic opponents always won the endorsements of the very same pro-choice groups now attacking him as a ‘flip-flopper.’ After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: "(A)s governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice."

It is important to realize that because of his involvement in life and death issues that came to his desk, Romney concluded that abortion was morally wrong. He vetoed every abortion bill. Romney stated that, "Every decision I have made as Governor in a very liberal state has been on the side of favoring life." Some his decisions include:

Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Provided For The "Morning After Pill" Without A Prescription. (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill," The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)

Promoted Abstinence Education In The Classroom. (Office of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Announces Award of Abstinence Education Contract," Press Release, 4/20/06)

Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Changed The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation. (Governor Mitt Romney, Letter To the Massachusetts State Senate and House of Representatives, 5/12/05)

Supported Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement. (John McElhenny, "O'Brien and Romney Spar In Last Debate Before Election," The Associated Press, 10/29/02

Moreover, he worked with local prolife movements to ensure a safe environment for there to be change. According to Massachusetts Citizens for Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis, "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "An Early Massachusetts Primary," National Review, 1/10/07)

Another obvious question arises, and that is, why not just vote for Huckabee, since he has always been pro-life? Good question, but while you do have a strong candidate with Huckabee on the issues of abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research, you need to realize that it is not the president that ultimately changes policy; it is the elected representatives and (more currently), the supreme court. The president can appoint constructionist judges to likely favor the conservative viewpoint, but his influence is very limited in today's political atmosphere to change these things without a long battle. As mentioned before, Romney is pro-life, and promised to appoint constructionist judges to the bench. Being staunchly pro-life by itself is not enough to elect someone as president.

It is crucial to understand that a public office requires more credentials than being socially conservative. There is a mandate (at least among real conservatives) for strong fiscal and national security policies from a conservative viewpoint. Romney excels in that area. When Romney took office in 2002, Massachusetts was losing thousands of jobs and spending excessively. Over his term, Romney closed a nearly three billion-dollar budget gap, and the unemployment rate was significantly decreased.

His experience in the business world led him to understand free market principles and why a company will succeed or fail. Romney’s plan for the federal government is to treat it like a business: do not spend what you do not have, and become more efficient and effective without increasing the size of the company. Romney is for limited government and state’s rights, and his understanding of the economy stands in stark contrast to McCain’s self-admitted ignorance.
Those are just a few reasons beyond the social focus, but if you want to read more about his ideas and philosophy, his website has detailed research and facts about his proposals.

As for the caution about electing a Mormon, critical thought is needed here. Article IV of the Constitution warns against imposing religions tests on candidates seeking public office. As voters, we should be careful to treat all people with respect. Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream “…for nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” We should apply the principle to a person’s beliefs that, if structured in a way that is in agreement with the laws of the land, and the morality of his life is plainly seen, that we should not discriminate against him or her.

We can trust people of other religions to sell our cars, groceries, give financial advice, even to be our senators and governors, but we cannot trust them to do a good job as president. Maybe one could not vote for a Mormon, but how about a Jew or a Muslim?

I believe that principles and philosophy that the Declaration and the Constitution observed were indeed Judeo-Christian. Furthermore, I believe that as a principle, the law of the land must recognize who gave the morality and reason to create law at all. Why should one follow the law if it is simply man made? If you are a nation of men, rather than, law, man may become above the law.

There comes a time, however, to realize that we live in a fallen world, and a perfect government can never exist. The leader of such a government of ours must be able to do it competently, and have an understanding of why America (and capitalism for that matter) work the way they do.

While it is preferable to have a Christian as a leader, it is vital to step back and understand that this phrase “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States“ does mean that persons should be evaluated by their merits, and who can do the best job. I think the voters should try to understand the philosophy behind this.

As a conservative, I will vote for the most conservative candidate. It is not a pleasant business, but such is the world we live in.

I do not believe that Romney is the best candidate.
I believe that he is the best candidate that is running for president