The Values Test

NY Times ^ | October 4, 2007 | By JAMES C. DOBSON

[neverdem]

REPORTS have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.

Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.

The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of...

[neverdem]

James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of the evangelical organization Focus on the Family Action, is the author of “Bringing Up Boys: Practical Advice and Encouragement for Those Shaping the Next Generation of Men.”

[Rudder]

Well, that’s a fast fifty votes for Huckabee.

[tdewey10]

Dobson wants Hilary to win.

I am not kidding.

[nowandlater]

As much as I admire Rudy for his service during 9/11, I agree with James Dobson. There needs to be a values test for the social conservative voter.

[Joann37]

I’m more shocked that the NYT actually printed a letter from Dobson!

[Frwy]

And just where can I verify that statement?

[nathanbedford]

Motivated no doubt by schadenfreude, The New York Times has found this news fit to print.

We shall see who ultimately bears the pain and who the joy on the issue of abortion.

In the meantime, Dobson is perfectly right to stand by his position on this transcendent issue. To Dobson and many of us, the issue is our modern equivalent of national independence from Britain in the 18th century and slavery in the 19th century.

We speak here not of tax cuts, highway bills, or midnight appropriations, we speak, after all, of killing babies. There can be no equivocation, no flirting with appeasers, no compromise.

Here we stand, we can do no other.

[Darkwolf377]

While I tend to be pessimistic about our chances in 2008, nothing gets my hackles up more than those who say Republicans have to "soften" their position against abortion.

Abortion is the Quiet Holocaust, happening all around us while most Americans just go about their business and say it's such a shame but it HAS to happen, as if pregnancy is some airborne virus.

[neverdem]

I’m more shocked that the NYT actually printed a letter from Dobson!

You shouldn't be. You should check their OpEd Contributors from time to time. You'll find nationally known heavyweights from Henry Kissinger to Victor Davis Hanson.

Anyhoo, don't you think the NY Times would like to have a third party effort on the right?

[absalom01]

Whatever.

People vote for Republicans because (or when) they stand for conservative values. Pubbies lose when they are merely “Democrat lite”. No more RINOs in the primaries, ever.

We don’t get fooled again.

[rogue yam]

I’m more shocked that the NYT actually printed a letter from Dobson!

Not me. The leftists are always pumping up and stirring up the strictest social conservatives in an attempt to drive centrist voters toward the 'Rat camp.

[gridlock]

Dobson wants Hilary to win... I am not kidding.

If that is what he wants, he is doing exactly the right thing to bring it about.

[gridlock]

It is time for Republicans to focus on the basics.

Limited Government
National Security
Fiscal Discipline/Tax Reduction
Law and Order
Clean Government

That’s it. They should drop everything else. If James Dobson gets his knickers in a twist because the Republican nominee will not kiss his ring on Gay Marriage, that’s just too bad.

Let the religious right decide between the Leftists who are baying at the moon and the Republicans who just want clean and limited government and security. That choice should be easy.

[JohnLongIsland]

Abortion is the Quiet Holocaust, happening all around us while most Americans just go about their business and say it's such a shame but it HAS to happen, as if pregnancy is some airborne virus.

If Hillary is elected she will appoint judges and justices,on all levels, that make Ruth Ginsberg seem more conservative than William Buckley.

[Smokin' Joe]

Let the religious right decide between the Leftists who are baying at the moon and the Republicans who just want clean and limited government and security. That choice should be easy.

Well, when you put it that way, it is.

C. None of the above.

Who here can proclaim freedom in a land which has murdered more infants in the womb than any dictator of the 20th century murdered people?

[gridlock]

C. None of the above.

For every voter who chooses thus, there will be two voters to be gained elsewhere.

But at the end of the day, it is an empty threat. It is all very easy to threaten to go Third Party a year and a month out. It is another thing altogether to stand in a voting booth, see Hillary Clinton on the ballot, and flip the lever for a guaranteed loser like Ron Paul.

[Darkwolf377]

Yup. She can’t be allowed to win the presidency. It will be like a George Romero movie.

[Smokin' Joe]

No. Actually, it is pretty easy regardless. An empty threat? Nope. I'll vote my concience, thank you very much.

If you want the blood of millions more innocents on your hands, that is your choice.

When I meet my maker, at least I won't wear that stain.

[gridlock]

You must consider the consequences of your actions. If your actions help elect somebody like Hillary Clinton, why should anybody care about your motivations or how you feel about your vote?

This is iteration number 2,846,984 of this argument, of course. That is the reason I advocate scaling back the core Republican platform to something we can all agree on, and being silent on everything else.

The current Republican Party has no core values. It is a collection of people who have core values, but the core values of group A have nothing to do with those of Group B, and Group C is completely out in Right Field. This is not a recipe for long-term electoral success.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

They’re right about one thing. We do not compromise during the primary process BUT if we do not prevail in getting an acceptable candidate, we still pledge to do all we can to stop any totally evil Democrat. We have far more to gain by stopping them than to surrender.