McCain or Obama: Which would make the best president for Adventists

[John317]

This FWD helps illustrate some of my thinking on the subject:

A Father-Daughter talk...

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?'

She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always is invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0? That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears.

[Bravus]

It's a borken analogy for a number of reasons. For a start, both girls are at university. Neither has a major disability, for example, which would preclude her having the same opportunities as other people. Most rational liberals (and of course, like any other movement, we have our share of vocal loons) do not want taxes to provide welfare for those who are simply unwilling to work. They do, however, want programs and services for those who, for various reasons, are unable to work.

Progressive taxes also do not take from the rich and give to the (working) poor. They take from the working poor, and take more from the working (and hereditary) rich. In an ideal world the rich would say 'I can recognise that I have more than enough, and am accumulating more - I will give handsomely for programs to help those who, for whatver reasons, do not have the opportunities I have to succeed and earn.' I'd love to live in such a world, but it's not this world, so one of government's roles is to tax some small proportion from those who already have more than they need in order to support those who have nothing.

So, Republicans, if you want to see fewer and lower taxes, it's easy: eliminate poverty by giving generously.

[doctorj]

Who says it's the responsibility of the federal government to take care of the homeless and the poor?

Why not? Surely it is the government's responsibility to ensure that those less fortunate are cared for? Or at least there is a safety net to ensure that the homeless have somewhere to go? Who else would be responsible to look after them?

[Dr. Shane]

There are two basic views of government.

1) Government is a necessary evil and should be as small as possible. This is the Libertarian view which does not support government education, social programs, road and bridge building or overseas deployment of the military. In this view all charity would be provided by churches and other community organizations. Roads and schools would be built and maintained by the private sector like power, telephone and cable companies are.

2) Government is a tool of society which can be used by the people collectively to accomplish what individuals cannot. In this view government provides many services from health-care and mass transportation to retirement funds and unemployment compensation.

The US started out with the first view. President Abraham Lincoln pushed the nation in the direction of the second view and it has been creeping that way ever since. President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the nation another big push as did Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Obama would undoubtedly try to push the country further in that direction than McCain. I am not sure that is a bad thing. I do think that many things are done better by the private sector. I favor some kind of government-run health insurance although I don't fool myself into believing it wouldn't be more corrupt and less efficient than a system ran by the private sector.

[jasd]

>>So who do you think will do a better job of caring for returning soldiers, the homeless and people in poverty? McCain? or Obama?<<

Rhetorical and speculative; besides, the concerns of America should not be so focused upon the homeless and those in poverty. Homelessness in America often includes those belonging in certain institutions – and displaced to become the homeless – because of lawsuits initiated by the ACLU. Poverty in America often includes obesity and cable television.

>>From what I can read of jasd's post it looks like the current government is not doing so well.<<

That is a fact. The opposition is as a diseased organism infecting the body America.

[jasd]

QR frame:

No one disagrees about helping those unable (the genuinely handicapped or those who've fell onto bad times inadvertently) to help themselves. Those on the Right, and upward - as opposed to the left and downward take issue with the entitlement mentality, which translates to ginormous indebtedness for America and her citizens.

Our thirty trillion dollar$ invested in social programs (from the '60s to the end of the century) to 'give a leg up' to those 'less fortunate' cannot and will not be paid back - but will continue to generate interest for generations to those holding the paper that resulted from legislating 'feel-good' issues.

There are now third and fourth generation citizens 'gaming' the system. Additionally, there are now approaching 20 million unlawful immigrants who've, to a large extant (witness the immense numbers of mail drop businesses on our southern border) joined in

gaming the system.

Additionally, the left tends to be enamored with taxing - to socially engineer.

The above stated, the primary reason for our govt’s existence – is to provide for the common defense of the people - not to oversee the dispensation of largesse. That is the responsibility of those who most loudly advocate that sort of redistribution - by using their own monies and leave off worrying about what others ought or ought not to do with whatever monies they possess.

The idea of social democracy, as most often advanced by our leftist party – belongs to the Bundestan govts of the truly unfortunates – and not in a free society.

[jasd]

>>...tax some small proportion from those who already have more than they need in order to support those who have nothing.<<

Say what!? --Pogo

I'd venture to say that "more than they need" is really, really, really subject to interpretaion.

I'ain got nuthing. Will you please sell that nifty spiffy new bike yah got and send me - who am in really, really, bad need of supportin' - the monies received from that sale?

Say yes, and I'll PM my address.

Oh, woe is me. --jasd

Or, am I being too vocal?

Ahh, c'mon, ...just having fun.

[doctorj]

There are two basic views of government.

1) Government is a necessary evil and should be as small as possible. This is the Libertarian view which does not support government education, social programs, road and bridge building or overseas deployment of the military. In this view all charity would be provided by churches and other community organizations. Roads and schools would be built and maintained by the private sector like power, telephone and cable companies are.

2) Government is a tool of society which can be used by the people collectively to accomplish what individuals cannot. In this view government provides many services from health-care and mass transportation to retirement funds and unemployment compensation.

From an Australian perspective we have a country largely governed from the second of your two views. We have a free country that actually looks after its poor, runs government schools (but also we have private schools too), and does a good job in providing a safety-net for those people who are without jobs.

View one, is a foreign idea to us Australians, although to a certain extent we straddle between the two views, as we have some businesses that are not government owned providing telephone, power, and the likes. We probably are moving towards more private ownership than we had a decade or so ago.

THUS in my thinking the better of the two presidential candidates would be Obama, as he stands for something that I know works reasonably well in my home country. The McCain view of the world is rather foreign to my way of thinking. That is why I would favor Obama over McCain.

[jasd]

>>THUS in my thinking the better of the two presidential candidates would be Obama, as he stands for something that I know works reasonably well in my home country. The McCain view of the world is rather foreign to my way of thinking. That is why I would favor Obama over McCain.<<

I am killing some time so am able to, as is my wont, interject my sentiments into a post addressed to another... to your benefit, I'm sure ;-)

I suppose Aussies have a distinct advantage over weAmericans; you see, what with all the flip-flopping going on with our presumptive candidates we - well, we just don't know what either guy actually stands for or how either intends to administer - despite their oratory rhetoric, that is, lies.

Anyway, curiosity prompts, what is the "McCain view of the world"?

It might even help me to decide which way to vote. Then again,

nahhh, don't thinks so: 'bama's is too much a pig in a poke.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

There are two basic views of government.

1) Government is a necessary evil and should be as small as possible. This is the Libertarian view...

...The McCain view of the world is rather foreign to my way of thinking...

McCain is not a Libertarian. He is a Republican. Both Republicans and Democrats view government more from the second perspective than the first. The first US President to really embrace the second view was Abraham Lincoln - a Republican. The next President to really push that view was Franklin D. Roosevelt - a Democrat. Then came Lyndon B. Johnson - a Democrat and Richard Nixon - a Republican. So history itself shows us that both parties have done their fair share of shifting the US to more of the second view than the first.

[doctorj]

McCain is not a Libertarian. He is a Republican. Both Republicans and Democrats view government more from the second perspective than the first.

So are you saying that there is little difference between the McCain view of the world and the Obama view of the world?

[Dr. Shane]

In respect to how they view the role of government I would say there is very little difference between the two.

[John317]

There is probably a greater difference in viewpoint between McCain and Obama than between any two candidates for the presidency since Carter and Reagan. But the fact is that there is more in common between them than there are things that divide them. Obama has already made lots of changes in moving toward the center during the last month. I would predict that if he is elected, he won't bring troops home from Iraq until he knows he can do it without putting at risk the victory that Americans have won there.

[Dr. Shane]

The reason I say Obama would push the nation more to the second view than McCain would is principally because he favors universal health-care. However from an academic point of view, both Obama and McCain believe government should do something to assure all Americans health-care. They disagree on what should be done. The Libertarian will say government shouldn't do anything and has no business in the health-care industry at all.

[doctorj]

So with so little, or so much between each of these candidates, who is going to be the better president to appeal to adventist voters? For example, who is going to provide a stable environment for Adventists to get about doing its business? Or is it really a non-event? Either would provide that stable environment for Adventists to get about doing its work?

[John317]

I don't think most Adventists vote any different for President than other Americans. We certainly don't urge each other to vote for a particular candidate or feel that someone is making a mistake if they vote for one or the other. Voting for president is actually a very private matter for many Americans as well as Adventists. A lot of them don't know for sure who they will vote for until they go into the voting booth. I probably won't make up my mind definitely until shortly before November.

As a matter of fact, quite a few SDAs don't even vote for president. They vote more on issues than for individuals. That's in accordance with Ellen White's counsel, also, although of course there are many who do choose to vote for a presidential candidate.

[doctorj]

As a matter of fact, quite a few SDAs don't even vote for president. They vote more on issues than for individuals. That's in accordance with Ellen White's counsel, also, although of course there are many who do choose to vote for a presidential candidate.

I was not aware that Ellen White gave counsel on voting. Where do we find that and what specifically is the counsel?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

As a matter of fact, quite a few SDAs don't even vote for president. They vote more on issues than for individuals. That's in accordance with Ellen White's counsel, also, although of course there are many who do choose to vote for a presidential candidate.

I was not aware that Ellen White gave counsel on voting. Where do we find that and what specifically is the counsel?

In the second volume of the Comprehensive Index to the writings of Ellen G. White, under Political Matters, Political questions, Political Strife, etc. She has quite a bit to say about such things. For instance, she says in Gospel Workers, p. 391, the church is not to be divided over political matters. There is a whole chapter entitled "Our Attitude In Regard to Politics," in Gospel Workers, pages 391 to 399.

[doctorj]

In the second volume of the Comprehensive Index to the writings of Ellen G. White, under Political Matters, Political questions, Political Strife, etc. She has quite a bit to say about such things. For instance, she says in Gospel Workers, p. 391, the church is not to be divided over political matters. There is a whole chapter entitled "Our Attitude In Regard to Politics," in Gospel Workers, pages 391 to 399.

[John317]

....

Quote:

I call upon my brethren who are appointed to educate, to change their course of action. It is a mistake for you to link your interests with any political party, to cast your vote with them or for them. Those who stand as educators, as ministers, as laborers together with God in any line, have no battles to fight in the political world. Their citizenship is in heaven.

Given that counsel it seems she is saying that we should not even vote at all!

What about us in Australia. In our democracy it is compulsory to vote, and if we don't we get fined for not voting. So how does that sit with the counsel that we should not even vote?

Is it possible to vote on propositions and not according to parties? For instance, I don't vote along party lines but rather on issues. In Australia, do you have to vote with a particular political party? Can't you register as an independent?

I can't imagine being told I will get fined if I don't vote. It seems like people ought to be free to choose to do it or not do it.

Mexico is similar to Australia that way. My wife and her family are from Mexico. They are also compelled to vote.

Anyway, there is good reason for Mrs. White's counsel being what it is. Political questions could split the church, and we are a church for only one reason, which is to spread the gospel, not debate political issues and take sides against one another. I enjoy discussing the election, etc., but I've been really saddened at times to see SDAs getting angry with another over who to vote for. So I can see some good reasons for Ellen White's saying what she did about that.

Does the SDA church and its leaders in Australia discuss how to deal with the issue of voting in relationship to Ellen White's statements on the subject? I am sure many do not even know what she wrote about it or why.

[Planey]

In Australia, do you have to vote with a particular political party? Can't you register as an independent?

Aussies do not have to "register" as belonging to any political party (and in fact while many will generally favour one or other of the main parties, very few actually belong to a party as a member.)

When it comes time to vote, you just rock up to a polling station, get your name marked off, and are then given ballot papers. In a federal election these would consist of a House of Representatives ballot paper (equivalent to Congress) and a Senate ballot paper. The House of Reps ballot would contain the names of the candidates who are standing for election in your electorate. So you would be voting for who would represent your local area in the Federal Lower House. In the Senate you are helping to elect a number of Senators - this ballot paper is the same for every voter in Australia.

Note that you DO NOT vote directly for the Prime Minister - the party which obtains a majority in the Lower House forms a government and the Members of Parliament that belong to the winning party then choose a leader and he/she becomes the Prime Minister. Note that at any time in the term of that Parliament (normally three years or so) the Party may change leaders so we may get a new Prime Minister at any time (without voting in a new election) Cool, eh?

Now at an election, when given your ballot papers you may, if you wish, just drop them into the ballot box without writing anything on them at all and you are still counted as having voted. So if you objected to voting you could in fact not vote and still not break any law.

Graeme

[Dr. Shane]

I believe in the parliamentary system, since you vote for more than one senator, you can vote for senators from different parties.

[John317]

Sounds somewhat similar to the British system, which, of course, is not surprising. Do you know what the thinking was on the part of those who designed the system when they decided that voters would not elect the Prime Minister directly?

I remember what a great shock it was to many Americans in 2000 to discover that voters don't directly elect the President.

Do Australians also have different propositions to vote for or against? Or do they only have choices between candidates? I take it that the Parliament makes all the laws. Here we have a way for voters to directly make laws if they choose to (provided, that is, that the court doesn't decide later that the voters passed an unconstitutional law!).

It's good that they give voters a way of not voting if they really don't want to.

About the election of the Prime Minister, doesn't that mean that if he is not popular for some reason, the Party could elect another leader? I can see how that could be good sometimes, but I can also see how that could be bad.

[Dr. Shane]

I think the states got hurt more than the people got helped by the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution which made senators elected directly by the people. By design the House of Representatives was the people's voice in the federal government. The Senate was the voice of the state legislatures in the federal government. The 17h Amendment removed the state's voice from federal affairs.

[John317]

Completely agree with you. It made the Senators consider what is popular rather than what is best for the nation, and of course the two are not one and the same. The masses can be very fickle, and if the nation changes its policy or goals with every poll, it would create great instability.