Conservatives have always argued "We don't negotiate with terrorists!" This has come into clear relief as President Bush's comments at the Knesset stoked a firestorm from Democrats who felt Bush's comments were directed at them, and more specifically, Obama, as it related to his willingness to meet with foreign dictators without preconditions, or what Bush labeled "appeasement."
Let me break down the logic as to why we don't negotiate with terrorists (and I welcome all to challenge me if my logic fails at any point):
Loosely, a terrorist is someone who uses force/threats to compel others to comply with his demands. It "almost never" (I never like to say "never") matters what the demands are: money, political asylum, etc. If someone uses force, their demands are not granted. Force can be defined as anything from hijacking an airplane to threatening to blow something up or kill someone, or any number of other dire consequences. If someone who threatens dire consequences to get what they want, and those who have the power to grant the request actually comply, this will promote/encourage others to use force/threats to get what they want. This would promote anarchy and violates one of the founding principles of democracy, the rule of law.
Therefore, we don't negotiate, nor comply with demands made by those who threaten us. Maybe you can see where I'm going with this. It is argued that conservatives must vote for John McCain or face dire consequences if a Democrat wins the White House in the fall. The consequences are laid out rather convincingly: withdrawal from Iraq and the following Genocide of Iraqis, the handing over of the Supreme Court to liberals with as many as 4 potential justice seats becoming vacant, the implosion of US business and our economy under higher taxes, etc. So, if we don't want to see these things happen, we MUST vote for John McCain. We have no other choice.The thing is, we've heard this before. We have given in to demands such as this and it has predictably encouraged others to make similar demands (i.e. previously George Bush and now John McCain). Now, in the case of elections, the arm twisting and threats are unfortunately all legal (I will concede this point is not consistent with the general logic of dealing with terrorists). George bush was supposed to be better than John Kerry or Al Gore, and I believe all things considered, he has been. But that's not how we justify good decisions. It may actually be better to let a hostage live by merely giving a terrorist $1 million, but we don't do that.
When we "settle for the lessor of two evils", we fall into the trap of exchanging our principles for expedience and practicality. I'm tired of that. I'm tired of giving in, of blinking first in a game of political "chicken" with the king-makers who say we have to do it if we want a platform to speak from, or to save our place at the table, or whatever other good and strategic thing we are supposed to get out of it. I'm tired of negotiating with terrorists who threaten dire consequences if I don't give them my vote!
If anyone wants my vote, in this free society we live in, they will have to earn it and demonstrate by past experiences that they will support my view of what America ought to be. I won't accept a politician who promises the world and poll-tests his convictions in order to get into office, only to run like he had always run before.
I cannot vote for John McCain because:
The arm twisting by the conservative elite and the Republican leadership has become clear to me for what it is: terrorism. I don't agree with John McCain on global warming, immigration, campaign finance, etc. I don't trust John McCain to run to the right once he gets into office if he is more interested in running to the left to get in (those who do this only have more political IOU's to pay out, and most of them won't be in line with conservative ideas). John McCain's reputation as a maverick has only proven that he will run against the tide of Conservatism toward the tide of Liberalism. If that's an asset from a Conservative perspective, I'm not sure what to believe anymore. There are no guarantees that John McCain will do anything about the issues that Conservatives want him to. To prove this all you have to do is look at George Bush on Immigration, Government Spending, and Global Warming.
I hear those of you screaming: "BUT WHAT CHOICE DO WE HAVE? Are you just going to let the liberals have the White House?" Well, to this objection I go back to my terrorism analogy and reply, "Where will you draw the line and demand leaders that will advocate for Conservative ideas?" Who's fault is it if a terrorist shoots a hostage? The police for not granting his request within his timeframe? NEVER! Who's fault is it if a suicide bomber blows up a wedding party because political prisoners were not released? The Jail Warden? The Governor? The President? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The terrorist alone holds complete culpability for his actions and the negative consequences of those actions.John McCain and the Republican king-makers will be solely responsible if he fails to get the true Conservative vote and loses the White House. I will not be guilted or shamed into voting for a man I do not agree with. If that's the case, why not vote for Hillary or Obama? The only difference is variation of degree.
Politicians my sell their souls to achieve certain ends; something they are despised for even though we almost expect it. But the day that voters sell their souls, we might as well start playing Taps on a muted trumpet! I expect more from myself, and hope for better from my government and its leaders.
4 comments:
My friend Adam sent me this review of the movie Gone Baby Gone, which follows the same logic as presented above:
A Cinematographic Case Study in Ethical Theory: Review of Gone Baby Gone by David C. Cramer, MDiv, MA
John Dewey once wrote concerning the ethics of his day that “…we oscillate between a theory that, in order to save the objectivity of judgments and values, isolates them from experience and nature, and a theory that, in order to save their concrete and human significance, reduces them to mere statements about our own feelings.”1
Gone Baby Gone explores the all-too-real-life implications of this ethical oscillation, offering a graphic modern-day case study on the clash between absolute moral values and consequentialist judgments. In this adaptation of the novel by Dennis Lehane (author of another provocative Boston-based novel adapted into a blockbuster movie—Mystic River), Detective Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and his girlfriend / partner, Michelle Monaghan (Angie Gennaro), take on their first child abduction case at the request of the abducted girl’s aunt and uncle. As a devout Catholic growing up in Dorchester, Massachusetts, the same tough Boston neighborhood where the abduction occurred, Kenzie has learned firsthand what Jesus meant when he exhorted his disciples, “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves”2—a motto Kenzie adopts as his own. However, when a young girl’s life is on the line, Kenzie’s gospel motto will be tested like never before.
Unlike Kenzie, who adheres to absolute moral principles based on divine revelation, two others on the case, veteran detective Remy Bressant (Ed Harris) and Boston police chief Jack Doyle (Morgan Freeman), adhere to a very human—and seemingly more humane—guiding moral criterion: do whatever will work out best for the abducted girl. Doyle, whose own child was murdered years before, has vowed to do whatever it takes to see that what happened to his child does not happen to another’s on his watch. Likewise, Bressant confesses to Kenzie that he loves children and would do absolutely anything to remove them from harm’s way. But when Kenzie’s decision to do the right thing clashes with the goal of doing what seems most beneficial to the abducted girl, even Monaghan, Kenzie’s girlfriend, cannot accept the consequences of his decision, making his ethical dilemma all the more personally difficult.
Gone Baby Gone thus offers an ethical case study in a way that one rarely finds at the box office these days. One is constantly torn between an appeal for “doing the right thing” and an appeal for “showing compassion.” This movie does not provide easy answers, but rather forces the viewer to choose between two ethical paradigms— absolutist and consequentialist—and to witness the ramifications of that decision. Each paradigm has profound implications for the way the investigation is carried out and thus for the well-being of the child. And rather than offering a clear-cut resolution, where everything in the end is worked out for the best, this is one of those rare Hollywood thrillers that leaves the responsibility for passing judgment on the viewers themselves. And in so doing, you just might find yourself, like Kenzie, questioning some of your most deeply held moral beliefs.3 CBHD
References
1 John Dewey, The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the relation of Knowledge and Action (New York: Capricorn Books, 1960), 263.
2 Matthew 10:16 (NASB).
3 This movie rated R for violence, drug content and pervasive language. Running time: 114 minutes.
Here is a poem I wrote after a very difficult period of my life that required making some tough decisions. I think the ethical/moral clarity that came out of that event is what I still live by today, and is why I believe I have come to the conclusion about voting for John McCain that I have articulated. Here is the poem:
Dear Machiavelli
by John Laukkanen
“The end always justifies the means”
a philosopher once declared.
But why do we weigh the consequences
when judging an act either foul or fair?
Are our choices only deemed as “right”
when the results fall in our favor,
and quickly renounced as simple mistakes
when public opinion starts to waver?
Just because the outcome is pleasing
doesn’t make the formula correct.
So why do we call the actions faulty
when the dominoes trigger a wreck?
Since the effect, whether good or bad,
offers no pardon for the cause,
why allow the inconsistencies
when dolling out reproach or applause?
The error is not just in the premise,
but in the way it’s often invoked:
to condone the casualties of success
and condemn a heart that’s guilt-soaked.
But if we would see this error,
we could lighten the load we bear.
The cost of other peoples choices
wasn’t meant to be added to my fare.
It is my responsibility
to make my choices based on truth.
And only this should be my standard
when determining what I should do.
Not sorting through the likely reactions,
but weighing the value on its own.
How other people respond to it
is between them and God alone.
There’s no need to justify the end
When the means are true to God’s commands.
And oh, what freedom and comfort comes
when we bear only what God demands.
I know its rude to ask, "who are you voting for" but I am in the same predicament. Actually the upcoming election scares me. I get tired of hearing people hate on Bush, they are the ones who beleive that a new president will bring a quick fix. I think I hear more of such since I live in a predominantly democrat state. I hear so much more negative than positive on all the candidates. I want to cry out, "God, send us a worthy leader!" but also feel that all of this is a part of His plan. Help us Lord!!
Jeannie, at this stage, I will vote thoughtfully for the "down ticket" issues (issues listed below the slot for President). As for president, I may just write in the name of someone I feel is qualified. This will honor my conscience and at this point it is the best I can do. Good luck with your vote as well.
Post a Comment