I drew this quote from msnbc.com: "Republican Newt Gingrich told a Georgia audience on Friday evening that the 2012 presidential election is the most consequential since the 1860 race that elected Abraham Lincoln to the White House and was soon followed by the Civil War.
"Addressing the Georgia Republican Party's convention, Gingrich said the nation is at a crossroads and that the re-election of Democratic President Barack Obama would lead to four more years of 'radical left-wing values' that would drive the nation to ruin."
What struck me as ironic about this comment is that Gingrich is comparing this race with the Lincoln race, and he's doing so in Georgia. I don't think he intended the overtones this comment brings with it in context. The context might lead one to conclude that Gingrich thinks that the 1860 race went the wrong way. After all, Lincoln advocated the authority of the federal government over the rights of individual states like Georgia, and Georgia opposed Lincoln. Furthermore, Gingrich stands for a substantial reversal of the trajectory the Lincoln administration solidified with regard to federalism.
The current Republican party has ironically done a 180 flip since Lincoln and become the party of states' rights over the authority of the federal government. It is no wonder it is strongest in the south. I strongly suspect that a fascinating side effect of the movement to elect Presidents who appoint judges who might overturn Roe-v-Wade is that we have found ourselves voting for an anti-civil rights, states' rights agenda.
P.S. Indiana just passed the toughest anti-abortion law since Roe vs. Wade--no abortions after the 20th week. And it had nothing to do with the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Since these sorts of things are so sensitive, I need to make it very clear that I am not saying anything against voting for a Republican president. I have done so often. I'm saying the abortion issue should not be the only reason a person votes for such a candidate. I have known people who have said this was the only reason.
I suspect that Mr. Gingrich's comments may have included abortion, but I'm sure they are much broader than that. He was talking about a contest between freedom and tyranny. About whether America will be free to develop its own energy resources, or be forever at the mercy of the likes of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. About whether our businesses will be free of crushing governmental regulations or will be tied in knots so tight that men and women will be discouraged from trying to succeed and prosper. About whether America will continue to be under the burden of the highest corporate tax rate in the world (35%), or will be free to compete with other nations on a level playing field. About whether you and I will be free to take care of our own responsibilities to our families, or have to come on bended knee to federal bureaucrats for our health care, our education, our choices of food, and beverage, and medicine, and insurance, and toilets, and light bulbs and who knows what else "progressives" will think of? I think people are tired of the nanny state, and are rising up everywhere for freedom. You and I as Christians should welcome that, believing as we do that God has given us free will to serve him with unfettered consciences.
You probably know more about the context of what he said than I do. I just thought it was ironic to mention 1860 in the south when you're more of a state's rights kind of candidate.
Ken,
I agree that as Christians we need to be aware of more than one issue as we decide who we are going to vote for.
On the other hand while a state may have passed an abortion law, it will almost certainly result in hearing before the Supremes.
Fair enough
Gingrich holds to conservative views concerning the State, as as such, is defending the South's claim about its financial viability, as to the issue of slavery. I thought that the Tenth Amendment protected the right of the State.
Doesn't allowing "the local" to dictate what becomes law, maintain the respect for the local culture?
At the same time, the nation-state also has interests to defend in unifying these differences, somehow...it is the age old question of how the individual (or State) has power over and above the society (or nation)...Liberals tend to defend the collective or unifying principles, "the collective", while the conservative makes distinctions and defends the right of resistance (individual and State).
Ken, You're right, overturning Roe would throw the issue back to the states, including Indiana where they "just passed the toughest anti-abortion law since Roe vs. Wade" and others that have done their best over the years to restrict abortion. Those innocent well intentioned voters are aware of more than you give them credit for.
Calling bull on this. Anyone who wants to get elected says that it's the most important election ever, the end is neigh, the Barackalypse is now, etc to get the 50% of non-voters to the polls. I've been voting for 5 election cycles now and I've heard it every time. Ho-hum...
If perfect love drives out fear, there is precious little love in politics.
I have reworded that part of the post to keep things more general. I will need to do more research, but this tactic reminds me of Israel's bombing of Lebanon a few years ago. Sure, it had an effect. My question is whether it creates as many problems as it solves.
I have much to learn about such things, certainly...
John Stewart, on NPR, urged his fellow liberals to take the long view and relax about the Tea Party. "We've been through a civil war! We'll be just fine..." Of course, one could point to the excesses of either side and how they pose real and present dangers, but the very existence of the republic hasn't seemed to be at risk for a good 150 years.
Post a Comment