jeffwinget.com

I was going to write a post that slammed John McCain and made fun of Sarah Palin tonight because I’m angry at the type of politics they are playing at this point in the campaign, but I’ve decided that I would rather lay out my case for Obama instead of against McCain.  Also, I want to get back into blogging and want to focus on other things like teaching, books, and sports.  However, I need to get this political post out of the way, and I wanted it to be positive, not negative.

So, without further ado, here is why I’m voting for Obama:

Reason #1: He supports a common-sense approach to the separation of church and state

This is a big issue for me.  I worry about the direction that we are taking in our country when we start to make laws based on religion.  And, I worry about people who distort the historical reality of the founding of our country to try to justify those laws.  Many of these, like Connor Boyack, perpetuate the myth that our Constitution justifies the legislation of “Judeo-Christian values“:

The second and more subtle group of Constitutional enemies are those who adhere to and advocate for a moral standard that rejects natural law, traditional morality, and Judeo-Christian values.

Not only does this statement show a lack of understanding of the term “natural laws,” but also shows a willful misrepresentation of our Constitution and its purpose.  If this was just a position posited by one extremist with a blog, I wouldn’t even bring it up; however, it’s not.  Many in congress and in other high public offices (including Sarah Palin) believe in this argument, and it’s simply not true.  That being said, McCain’s recent move to a more neo-Conservative standard makes me worry that he holds many of these same views.  I hope that I’m wrong and that he still believes that we should fight against the “agents of intolerance,” but I’m not sure.

Obama proposes a much more moderate, Constitutional balance between religion and politics.  He explained that position in a speech in 2006 (Read the whole speech here):

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

That’s what “natural law” is.  It is a moral code that applies to all people (or at least most people), a code that protects freedoms and uplifts us all as human beings.  Religion doesn’t need to be part of the discussion.  A position like Connor’s above suggests that only people that follow the Judeo-Christian faith can be moral; it even suggests to me that they are the only people who can appropriately interpret the Constitution.  That position is the antithesis of freedom, and unfortunately, it is held by many people on the right like Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, etc.  Obama’s approach will help heal the wounds opened by the christian right and its divisive policies and ideas.

Reason #2: His skill set is ideal for uniting a terribly divided nation

Obama is a wonderful speaker and a powerful agent for change.  He has shown a willingness to work with all people to find common ground and common sense solutions to problems.  I honestly feel that he will help heal our fractured country, that he will help bring everyone to the table for honest debate of issues, and that he will help find compromises on “wedge” issues that are dividing our nation so we can move to more substantive issues.

Reason #3: His economic policy is better than McCain’s

As a believer in laissez-faire capitalism, I can’t say that I like Obama’s economic plan in its entirety; however, a middle-up approach is way better than the now discredited top-down approach espoused by McCain.  ‘nuf said.

Reason #4: He believes in diplomacy

McCain doesn’t, at least not enough.

Reason #5: He has shown tremendous judgement and leadership during the campaign

One needs to only compare the direction, tone, and consistency of the two campaigns to see which candidate is better equipped to lead.

Reason #6: Joe Biden is way more prepared to be VP than Sarah Palin

I have few reservations about a Biden presidency should something happen to Obama.  A Palin presidency scares the hell out of me.

Reason #7: Obama’s SCOTUS nominees will be much more in line with my beliefs than will McCain’s

I wish this wasn’t an issue and that presidents would choose moderate, non-partisan justices, but they don’t.  One more conservative justice on the court could tip it irrevocably to the right and lead to a type of judicial activism that could be terribly dangerous to civil liberties.  This might be the most important issue of the campaign, and it really shouldn’t be.

Well, there it is, my brief (except for reason #1–do you think I have some pent-up anger on that issue?) case for an Obama presidency.  My greatest hope, however, is that people educate themselves on the issues and cast their votes accordingly.  I cringe when I hear about people voting because of one issue or because of a “feeling” that they have about a certain candidate.  America can only survive if we have an educated populace.  Debate about issues is healthy for the country, not voting for a candidate because of their lapel pin is stupid.

Vote!