College Conservatives Maranatha Chapter is a Registered Student Organization dedicated to providing information on candidates, office holders, ballot measures, and current event issues to the students, faculty and community surrounding Maranatha Baptist University.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Don't Complain If You Don't Vote

So Vote
By Michael Dean

Well, the GOP should be proud. After months of vigorous campaigning, which has produced scandals, skeletons in the closet, personal tax debacles, and the irony of, at one point, the Tea Party supporting a man whose sole contribution to the Presidential Office would have been a sales tax, the GOP primaries are a debacle.
If I had my druthers, I would reject both the top GOP candidates right now and vote for someone with higher moral standards or someone more closely aligned with my faith; however, I will vote for either Gingrich or Romney. Yet, both of these men easily have enough drama to supply 40 years’ worth of soap opera TV.
Regarding the Mormon issue: past US presidents’ religions vary greatly, ranging from Unitarian, Deist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, and Quaker. I can vote for a Mormon, even though I am a Baptist. If I assumed past Presidential success varied directly with their choice of religion and proximity to my beliefs, I would be sadly disappointed at the results. Personally, I would rather choose a bad leader going in a good direction, than a good leader going in a bad one.
But this leads to another question: Can I vote for what I see as the lesser of two evils with a clean conscience? This is not a choice between the lesser of two evils. If anything, it is merely a function of opportunity cost. If you actually do believe this is a choice between the lesser of two evils, however, do not stop there. Go ahead and apply that critique to anything politically.
The truth is that man has a sin nature. Until Christ’s return, there will never be a perfect candidate.
In light of these facts, how should we vote? Again, we need to go back to opportunity cost. If the best option is unavailable, research and find the next best one. Be informed on the candidates and know what you value most in one.
I cannot make this decision for you and neither can anyone else. What I personally value most in a Presidential candidate is his/her ability to ensure that our country remains free. Freedom is a gift from God, and as Paul said in Corinthians, “If thou mayest be made free, use it rather.” Part of using it is keeping it. America is a great nation, but as you have hopefully figured out by now, she is not perfect. 
If you decide not to vote, you have absolutely no right to complain about anything that happens over the next four years.
If you do not choose, someone else will choose for you. Maybe even twice. So vote. 


if only I could not be anonymous said...

So when considering the lesser of evils you place Romney and Newt ahead of Rick Santorum? I'm not sure how that works. Santorum seems to outshine both of them in terms of character and conservative ideals.

Chris said...

If you are going to base your decision on who is, and who is not a "top GOP candidate." You might want to at least make your calculation on up-to-date polling. It is clear you have not been reading the news. Headlines as of yesterday included: "Santorum now tied with Gingrich nationally for second place." and "Santorum blows past Gingrich in Pennsylvania, now leads Romney by one."

Numbers for Santorum will be even better as the week progresses, as he has picked up substantial fundraising momentum, raising over $1 million in 24 hours.

Things change rapidly when we live by polls and pundits. Wouldn't you rather live by principle?

Marc said...

Complaints cannot be made unless one attempts to affect change on the system. Couldn't agree more.

The hard reality comes after the vote when the result is not the one sought after.

mustremainanonymous said...

I too am curious about your lack of mentioning Santorum. I have been so encouraged by the recent sweep in three states as well as the recent polling data that suggests that Santorum comes out on top in a race against Obama...much higher than the other two. We don't have to choose between the least of two evils. There is a third excellent option....a strong conservative candidate-Rick Santorum.

Mike said...

@ if only

This is not about the lesser of two evils. As I said, this is about opportunity cost. I wrote on Romney and Gingrich because I have heard quite a few of my friends say they will not vote in the 2012 presidential election if either of these men are the GOP nominee.

@ Chris and mustremain

Although Gingrich and Romney were the alleged front runners when I wrote the post, (the day before Santorum swept CO, MN, and MO) that was not why I wrote it regarding these two. Again, I wrote on these two because I have heard quite a few people say they won't vote if either of them are the nominee.

Timothy said...

I see the media has trained you well. Ignore Ron Paul, the only born-again Christian (who happens to be a Baptist) running with military experience and more consistency to his convictions than all of the candidates put together.

I agree with "if only I could not be anonymous".

However, about Santorum (opinion): It's nice that he thinks homosexuality is synonymous with bestiality, and that we should kill all of our enemies, that Palestinians don't exist, that contraception is evil, etc. That stuff is great for the far right crowd, but severely limits him nationally. It will polarize the vote even more, which only helps Obama.

Personally though, I wouldn't vote for him over Ron Paul because he's going to continue the status quo (just check out his voting record)--spend more money and start more wars. I don't believe that he'll do anything to seriously curtail our debt, most of this is because of the fact he voted to raise the debt ceiling five times.

The fact that he believes we neither have a right to the pursuit of happiness nor the right to privacy is disconcerting as well. His quotes around these lines sound a lot like collectivism to me.

In the end I say, "Don't complain if you didn't vote for Ron Paul".

Status quos are made to be broken said...

Hate to break it to you Mike... But there are more than two canidates. Why should I be forced to go against my conscience and vote for someone who will not do a good job? I say vote on principles, not on who will do a better job at doing a terrible job. Vote for change, don't settle.

JoelJoseph said...


Don't worry I won't.

Mike said...

@ Timothy

Your first reply post didn’t seem to be addressing the same issues as my original post, so I will only comment on the first and last statements. I will vote for whomever I believe is the best candidate based on my personal criteria – not on media training. I will not become gun shy and chicken out of the general election if the candidate of my choice is not the nominee.

If I don’t vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, don’t worry; I don’t plan on spending my life complaining. Instead of complaining, I plan on impacting my community, state, and nation through spiritual means, political means, social means, and economic means etc.

Critics (which include complainers) are the ones who, when the battle is over, march bravely down to shoot the wounded.

Mike said...

@ Status quos

If you’re asking, there were four the last I checked.

Regarding voting based on principles: I will take a principled man over an unprincipled man any day. That being said, I will not vote for a man based solely on principles.

Winston Churchill was a drunk. The two greatest rulers of Israel (David and Solomon) were some of the most immoral men to ever live.
It’s a stretch, but bear with me: while campaigning for office Adolf Hitler did not smoke or drink and one of his goals was to restore traditional morality to German society. Voting solely on principles is unwise.

I am disgusted by and disagree with all of the GOP candidates on either major policy issues or moral issues if not both. If any of these less than stellar candidates become the nominee, I will vote for them. I will vote with fervor and passion as well as gratitude for the opportunity to impact the direction of my country. No one is forcing you to vote. That is the beauty of America. However, if you want to keep your freedom to not vote, or your freedom to even vote at all, I would urge you to start by VOTING for someone who will protect that freedom.

Wisconsin Brutus said...


Speaking of media training, you have seem to have parroted the liberal talking points regarding Santorum. Please do not perpetuate smear campaigns.

For example, the blurb regarding contraception. A fair-minded person doing research will quickly find that all he said was that he and his wife do not believe in it because they are trying to follow catholic teaching. BUT, he never would impose his ideas on others AND he have voted for funding it as a senator.

Timothy said...

@Wisconsin Brutus

Santorum has smeared himself.

Was there anything about what Santorum has said or voted for I mention nonfactual?

Facts are he has said and voted for everything I mentioned. I basically used direct quotes for the things that I thought were "nice". Also, the contraception statement is true. As the devout Roman Catholic he is, contraception is deemed as sin, or "evil". I agree with him entirely along the lines contraception as it pertains to government involvement.

You're being over sensitive. I personally agree with Santorum on those conservative ideologies. I wasn't being completely sarcastic when I said "it's nice". My point was that it is going to be difficult pull the independent vote. I'd take Romney over him on that point.

My opinion about the collectivism bit is based upon what he's said about regarding personal liberty and rights to privacy. Right now I lean towards individualism (although not entirely), and those statements irk me. But this was opinion based on facts.

Again, just stating facts, he has voted to raise the debt ceiling five times.

This happens to be another great reason why I won't support Rick Santorum:

I refuse to support a candidate who does not support Israel.
I will only support a candidate who wouldn't continue to give more aid to Israel's enemies than Israel itself, who believes the nation of Israel should be completely sovereign, and who would help retain Israel's "qualitative military edge in the region".

How's was that for a "liberal talking point" perpetuated by mainstream "media training"?

I say you ignore Ron Paul because he is the real deal, and none of this "soap opera" stuff that you're RIGHT ON about! In other words, whenever you talk about how terrible the GOP options are-along the lines of character, trustworthiness, morality, personal religion, etc.-you effectively ignore Ron Paul. It's something that is common in the media, hence my remark.

I don't think for one second you did it to spite Paul or deliberately. . .which leads me to believe you did it subconsciously (perhaps the media's doing) or out of ignorance to Ron Paul's character, etc. in comparison to what we have to choose from.

Your kids will.

Mike said...

@ Timothy

Please re-read my post and my replies. The message was not about whom I am in favor of or against, it was about voting. It was aimed at people who feel they are violating their conscience by voting for a Mormon or a blatantly immoral person if the nomination does indeed come down to one of those two. I did not write about Ron Paul because people do not have the same moral dilemma about voting for him, or Rick Santorum for that matter.

Why are people not facing that moral dilemma with Ron Paul? Because as far as I know, you are dead right about him. As far as I know he possesses character, trustworthiness, morality, and has a solid faith. However, that is the biggest problem I have with him. I trust him. I trust him to try and do exactly what he says he will do if elected. I do not have a problem with his character, principles, or morals – I have a problem with some of his policies which is why I will not vote for him in the primaries.

If you feel led to comment on this post again, please keep it on the topic of the post: the moral dilemma of voting for a Mormon or a blatantly immoral man. However, if you would like to continue talking about Ron Paul, I suggest you take a look at Joel Joseph’s most recent post. Thank you

Timothy said...

O I did. I apologize for not correctly extrapolating your thesis from the article. I appreciate your kind words for Paul.