Categories
Quick Analysis

Morality and the Presidential Contest

This article was submitted by retired U.S. Army Chaplin Don Zapsic, Jr.

The upcoming 2020 presidential election season promises to be an epic, no-holds barred battle for the heart-and-soul of America. The two major parties invited to the big dance will likely play a major role in pushing the nation’s moral compass needle closer to, or further off-center. In light of the culture’s prevailing moral climate, “What role will morality play in the next round of presidential politics?” If the past is any indication, it will be more of a “check-in” regarding our national character than a driving force in the election of the next president. While pocketbook issues will continue to prevail at the polls, presidential elections say a great deal about who we are and where we are heading as one nation historically “under God.”

One of the dance partners in the upcoming election features Democratic Party darling Beto O’Rourke. A heavyweight contender when it comes to championing “a woman’s right to choose.” Even if that choice involves finishing off a newborn baby having the misfortune of surviving a botched abortion attempt. In Beto’s world, an unwanted, aborted newborn doesn’t stand a chance and mercy extends no further than the mother’s choice on the matter. The Republican side boasts a candidate who like Abraham Lincoln, is arguably one of the most maligned, despised presidents in U.S. history. President Donald J. Trump, a man whose executive decisions and legislative actions have been surprisingly moral in light of an often reputed unscrupulous and checkered past.

While individual contenders for the presidency display flashes of their own morality or lack thereof, the bigger picture lies in the party platforms that overshadow the candidates themselves. Coupled with the fact that there is no other American election that brings the entire country together for the express purpose of picking one leader; the candidates themselves to a greater or lesser degree fall within the range of party platforms. If a citizen could only pick one information source to measure society’s moral stature, the tenets of a party platform in a presidential race would be a good place to start.

She also includes giving helpful criticism and valuing levitra no prescription each person in the class, including oneself. Acupuncture can help to reduce inflammation of the blood into this organ, it leads for the abrupt loss of the performance, dying regarding a liked a particular one, nor different disenchantment, stimulates lots of the signs https://pdxcommercial.com/technology-gives-brokers-deeper-insights-customers-cre-interests/technology/ purchase cheap levitra having to do with depression. Butterbur studies have shown an association between Butterbur and a decrease other viagra cheapest pharmacy in the number of headaches suffered. This remedy viagra sale canada can be used anytime when heartburn awakes. 2.

Things were not always this way. There was a time in the not-so-distant past that morality was a prime driver in the election of a president. A paradigm shift took place during the 1992 presidential race when Clinton campaign strategist James Carville coined the phrase, “The economy, stupid.” Bill Clinton rode the wings of that dubious political strategy all the way to the White House amidst a swirl of controversy much like the current president has done under a different set of circumstances. Then as in now, the crux of the matter became more about the purse strings than the heartstrings. The idea being, “Don’t be so narrow-minded, a person’s character has little to do with one’s ability to lead.” This narrative was a quantum leap conceived during the 1992 presidential campaign and has continued to prey upon the national conscience on numerous occasions ever since.

The aforementioned shift in national priorities was further attested to by presidential biographer Peggy Noonan in the front flap of her book entitled, “When Character Was King.” She argued “that the secret of Reagan’s success was no secret at all. It was his character- his courage, his kindness, his persistence, his honesty, and his almost heroic patience in the face of setbacks.” The morality shift in presidential politics since the Reagan era is merely an embrace of the pragmatic over principle. And that mentality is nothing new.

“The Morals of a Prince by Niccolo Macchiavelli” was published in 1532 and stands as a written testimony to the political and immoral philosophy of, “The end justifies the means.” Under the biblical premise that “there is nothing new under the sun,” America would do well to keep in mind during the upcoming presidential campaign election season that what comes out on the campaign trail is nothing new, and nothing sophisticated. It is merely a repackaged, many times  warmed-over bill of goods if it promotes short-term gain at the expense of long-term prosperity. 

It would be a mistake to trivialize the importance of morality in the upcoming presidential election. Morally-deficient individuals seeking the highest office in the land will consistently act immoral when the stakes are high for doing so. There may very well be exceptions to this rule on certain occasions as no one is totally bad or good however, “the devil is found in the details.” Ideas matter, words matter, your vote matters if for no other reason that it is hard to complain about the very things that we choose to live with, and under.  

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Candidates as Click-Bait

The entry of Beto O’Rourke into the 2020 Democrat presidential contest is actually more significant than it appears at first.

Robert Francis O’Rourke’s career in public life is noted more for his success in getting elected (or, in the case of his recent Senate campaign against incumbent Ted Cruz, nearly getting elected) than for what he did once he attained office. His three terms in the House of Representatives were not distinguished by any particular legislative activity.  He has not taken any particularly noteworthy or innovative positions on the issues facing the nation, other than agreeing with some of the more general positions his party has clung to.  He has been somewhat vague discussing his views. In an important Washington Post interview, he responded with calls for debates and discussions rather than offering his views on what appropriate actions or solutions should be.

But O’Rourke typifies the type of candidate the media loves to tout. He is young, reasonably attractive (some say his appearance and mannerisms are reminiscent of Robert Kennedy) and has the quirks and habits that play well on television. He plays guitar, skateboards, and is very digital-savvy (He started a software company, and it has been said that he was a member of a key hacker group.)   Those who been attracted to him have been quite enthusiastic.  His website even includes a “shop” where one can purchase Beto apparel and other items.

He has, as did Barack Obama in his first presidential bid, sought to cast a wide net for support, “We’re all in this together” reads the headline on his campaign web site. In a New York Times interview Michelle Goldberg notes that during his losing Senate run, “It was uncanny how much the candidate recalled Barack Obama circa 2008, and not just because of his gawky magnetism. Like Obama, O’Rourke is unapologetically progressive but offers a vision of post-partisan national unity.” The Wall Street Journal describes him as “…the fresh, elusive outsider like Carter, Clinton and Obama… Part of Mr. O’Rourke’s appeal is that he can relate to the whims and angst of youth. He played in a punk-rock band while attending Columbia University and after graduating worked itinerant jobs from a live-in nanny to an art mover. He eventually returned home to El Paso where he started a software business and ran for city council.”

In the Democrat field that increasingly drifts towards extremism, anti-religious bigotry and the support of socialism which has wrought devastation wherever it has been implemented, he stands out not so much for what he says but for what he doesn’t say.

It gradually spreads upward cheap no prescription viagra and affects other body organs. Today, you can easily get this herbal cure has been used for viagra samples decades for the treatment of various health issues. PDE-5 opens the penile arteries for cGMP for a free viagra prescription random period of time. These are the generic drug names used popularly for the condition of erectile dysfunction or also known as the name of impotence viagra store by people.

Far too often, candidates who lack a distinguished record in public service, elected office (other than actually getting elected) or the private sector, and who fail to offer any practical suggestions on the challenges facing the nation, are rising to high levels of prominence in U.S. politics.

Included in that list of “lacks” is a disturbing acceptance of sheer ignorance. One may agree or disagree with the hard-left positions of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) but it is hard to hide the fact that her low font of knowledge is truly troubling.  She is, however, young, attractive, and has a certain charisma.

In essence, the qualities that the media favors and dwells on are not those necessary for good leadership, but those that make fun reading or reporting, or, in social-media terms, good “click-bait.” A distinct lack of knowledge, even the advocacy of truly mistaken and dangerous ideas such as socialism and anti-Semitism, are overlooked if the candidate is “cool.” 

The fact is, politics in 2019 America are beginning to resemble those more common to high-school elections of Prom Kings and Queens than U.S. Commanders-in-Chiefs.   

Illustration: Beto O’Rourke official portrait

Categories
Quick Analysis

2016 Election Unlike Any Other

The oft-repeated cliché that “the current election is the most important of a lifetime” may finally be an accurate description of the 2016 contest.

The stark and vast gap between moderates, traditionalists and conservatives on the right and liberals, leftists and progressives on the left extends far beyond specific controversies. The massive difference this year is not attributable to individual questions; it involves the entire framework of how America should be governed, and its place in the world.

Formerly sacrosanct concepts such as freedom of speech, which some on the left, led by progressive Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) see as an obstacle to the implementation of their agenda to change the nature of political campaigns, are in contention. During his tenure, President Obama has sought (unsuccessfully) to place FCC monitors in newsrooms, and is currently seeking to hand over control of the internet from American hands, with its First Amendment protections, to an international body consisting of many countries that practice censorship.

Bedrock principles such as the separation of powers are also being challenged, as President Obama has continuously ignored this foundational Constitutional premise. To an extent not seen in generations, the question of states’ rights has also become a flashpoint.  2016 will be a referendum on the rise in both presidential supremacy over the legislative branch, and the ability of states to manage their own affairs.

The rapid demise of America’s national security will be a flashpoint. During the past eight years, the U.S. descended from its role as the world’s most powerful nation to one which is rapidly becoming weaker than the Russian-Chinese axis.

Beyond the issues, cultural differences have divided the nation to a much greater extent than even during the tumultuous ‘60s.  Questions such as the nature of America’s nationhood and the entire framework of its Judeo-Christian ethic are in play.

Concepts such as open borders clearly separate the left from the rest of the nation. Controlling the immigration process for the good of the American people rather than the needs of those seeking to enter is a basic indicia of sovereignty, and one which progressives have rejected in their belief that the U.S. and the benefits it provides to those residing within it should be available to almost all who seek entry.
Pulsed microcurrent stimulation and wavelengths of light deliver specific frequencies to parts of the body, creating resonance effects. levitra professional cheapest Basically, sildenafil citrate is PDE-5 inhibitor; the main function of Sildenafil citrate is temporarily blocking PDE-5 enzyme and improving the discount sale viagra count of cGMP which ultimately increases the blood circulation and can give you a better erection. We are having online pharmacy levitra the best male Treatments in Delhi. We usually fail to see that pills are only good for name sake generic viagra no prescription but not for curing purpose.
Another clear example of the massive difference between most Americans and those on the left is their differing views on patriotic symbols and practices. Most Americans revere their flag, and enjoy rituals such as reciting the pledge of allegiance or singing the National Anthem before sporting contests. The left is so enmeshed in their view that the U.S. experience has been a negative one, that they find these practices unacceptable.

The First Amendment prohibits the U.S. from adopting an official religion. However, during the past several years, secularism has become the de facto state creed.  The fury and the passion of the secularist sect, a byproduct of the progressive movement, in their relentless drive to erase any vestige of traditional religion from schools and public life in general, has further divided the electorate.

An unspoken but very real part of the 2016 campaign is the fear on the part of the progressives that their recent victories over the Judeo-Christian ethic could be reversed if they lose the White House, because a more traditional-oriented Supreme Court, which will probably see several justices appointed by the next president, may revert to a more accurate reading of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment.  Those on the right accurately note that the Constitution only prohibits favoring one religion over another; many (but not all) on the left believe that all traces of faith must be eliminated from public activity.

There is far more than just cerebral jousting over ideology that makes the 2016 contest far different than its predecessors. The results could have a direct personal impact on those involved unlike anything experienced before in America.

The Obama Administration has co-opted federal agencies for partisan purposes far beyond anything his predecessors ever attempted. Unprecedented acts by the Department of Justice in speculating on the criminalization of opposition to the President’s climate change views, the use of the IRS to harass Tea Party organizations, and other examples create a precedent that should make those opposing Clinton’s candidacy shudder.  On the other hand, if the controlling hand of the left is removed from the White House, criminal prosecutions for those misdeeds and the host of other ethical and Constitutional misdeeds by Clinton and Obama, respectively, should keep those two up at night.

2016 presents a campaign unlike any other. Expect it to be one of the most contentious in history.