Politically Homeless

This year's presidential election presents an easy choice for any voter who clearly identifies with either the liberal or conservative viewpoint. Due to the increasing polarization of the two major political parties, the same is true of many of the senatorial, congressional, and local races. But for those of us who take the "liberal" view of some issues and the "conservative" side of others, it can be difficult to determine which issues should take priority in deciding how to vote. My purpose in this article is not to persuade anyone to agree with my position on any of the election issues, but rather to suggest some voting guidelines to the many people who already hold views similar to my own.

From the time I first became eligible to vote, I have been a registered Democrat. I feel that in general the positions of the Democratic party tend to favor programs to help the "little guy": the poor, the working class, people who are struggling to make ends meet. Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to favor regulations to protect both the environment and the consumer from abuses by big business.

On the other hand, I believe that no amount of money directed into welfare, health care programs, education, or any other public service will be able to raise families out of poverty unless the basic issues of morality and responsibility are addressed. I firmly believe that much of the poverty, crime, substance abuse, and violence that undermine our society today can be directly attributed to the breakdown of the traditional family. I believe that government should pursue policies which encourage strong, traditional marriage and two-parent families.

Then there is the question of abortion. I do not believe that a woman's "right to choose" includes the unrestricted right to choose to kill her unborn baby right up to the moment before birth. If a fetus is not a living human being from the moment of conception, when does it become one? If it is murder to kill a newborn baby, why would it have been okay to kill that same baby one day earlier? A woman exercises her legitimate right to choose by making responsible decisions about her sexual behavior to avoid conceiving unwanted babies. The right to choose should not include the right to kill another human being in order to escape the consequences of irresponsible behavior. (I realize that a woman's right to choose is sometimes violated by rape, and there are differing views among pro-lifers as to whether an exception should be made in that case, but discussion of this issue is outside the scope of this article.)

For the purpose of this essay, I define a pro-life view as a belief that abortion takes a human life, and therefore should be restricted. I recognize that other definitions may be equally valid, and that pro-lifers may disagree about the degree of restriction, but again I feel that a thorough discussion of this matter would distract from the purpose of this editorial.

Over the years I have given considerable thought to the matter of how to determine which issues take priority in any given election. The following are the general principles that guide my voting decisions. They are not hard and fast rules. I myself on some occasions have chosen to deviate from them because of specific circumstances of a particular race. But I have found them useful as a set of guidelines.
I am setting them down in writing for the first time, in the hopes that other pro-life Democrats, especially those who share my somewhat conservative views on other social/moral issues might be influenced to vote as I do. (Note: For the sake of simplicity I refer to candidates using the pronouns "he" and "him" in the generic sense; this is in no way intended to ignore or reject female candidates.)

1. If one of the candidates is a pro-life Democrat, vote for him. I don't care if he is running for dog-catcher; use your vote to send a message to the Democratic party that there is a constituency for pro-life Democrats. For the same reason, if you are able, consider donating time and/or finances to this candidate.

2. In all other cases, look at the position the candidate is running for. On which issues will he be empowered to act? Since a mayor or city councilman is unlikely to have any impact on abortion policy, that issue should not usually affect our votes in an election for those offices, unless you suspect that the candidate is likely to use the position as a stepping stone from which to run for a higher office. In state or federal elections, when presented with the usual race between a pro-life Republican and a "pro-choice" Democrat, my usual policy is to vote Republican for executive positions (President, Governor) and to vote Democratic for legislative positions (Senators, Representatives). My reasoning is that the abortion issue these days is being fought out primarily in the court system. Since federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) are appointed by the President, I believe that it is essential that we elect a conservative President who will appoint conservative judges to the bench. When I vote for Democrats in legislative races, it is with the hope that a Republican President and a Democratic Congress will keep each other from doing too much damage. When judgeships are to be filled by election, I am more likely to vote for conservatives in these races.

4. I usually vote against so-called "moderate" or "pro-choice" Republicans. They tend to be liberal on the issues that I am conservative on, and conservative on the issues that I am liberal on. Why should I vote for someone who disagrees with me on virtually every issue?

Having given my general guidelines, I now feel it is imperative to express some of my specific considerations regarding this year's election. To me the most crucial issue in the Presidential race is the question of who will be appointing our judges. Whoever is elected will set our foreign policy and influence our economic policies for the next four years, but the judges he appoints will serve for many years beyond the end of his term. Several Supreme Court justices may be expected to retire or die over the next four years; those appointed to succeed them may serve for twenty years or more.

The distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" judges is more than a difference of opinions on specific political and social issues; it is a fundamental difference in views regarding the role of the judiciary. Conservatives are more likely to practice judicial restraint, strictly interpreting the Constitution and the laws as written, while liberals are more likely to base their rulings on what they would like the laws to say. For example, in a recent case, a federal district court judge in New York State heard a case concerning a law which had been passed to ban the procedure often referred to as "partial birth abortion." Having heard evidence showing that the fetus does indeed experience pain during this procedure, and in spite of the failure of those opposing the ban to prove any medical necessity for the procedure, the judge ruled the ban unconstitutional, stating that he was bound by prior Supreme Court rulings. As a judicial conservative, this judge ruled not according to his opinion of what should be, but according to the law of the land. In contrast, consider the recent rash of court rulings by liberal judges to mandate homosexual marriage. In every state where this issue has come up for a vote, the people have voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Whether or not you believe that same-sex marriage should be legal, the crucial question is: How should such issues be decided? Should laws be made by legislators elected by and accountable to the people or by appointed judges accountable to nobody? Should judges read rights into the Constitution that could not possibly have been intended by its framers? In 1973, the Supreme Court "discovered" a Constitutional "right to privacy" which somehow guarantees a woman's right to murder her unborn baby. If John Kerry is elected President, there are no limits on what new "Constitutional rights" might be found and enforced upon our nation by the judges he will appoint. I do not feel it is an exaggeration to say that what is at stake in this election is our democratic form of government and the balance of powers as set up by our founding fathers.

As I stated earlier, my guidelines are not hard and fast rules. In this election, I will deviate from some of my guidelines. Because the Democrats in the Senate have prevented many of President Bush's judicial nominees from even coming to the floor for a yes or no vote by the full Senate, I will hold my nose and vote for the re-election of my state's Republican senator, even though he is one of those "moderates" with whom I disagree on most issues. This is consistent with my conviction that judicial appointments are the most important issue in this election year.