This coming Tuesday I will proudly cast my vote for Governor Romney, after having undertaken an extensive vetting that has really, in many regards, been an ongoing process for the past four years following his previously failed run. Before I list the positive reasons why I will vote for Romney, let me thoughtfully attempt to explain what I find both commendable and objectionable in the other candidates. This is not meant to be exhaustive, and much more could be said, but these are, in my estimation, the salient points.
Ron Paul: Any objective observer has to admit that Dr. Paul's principled commitment to economic liberty is unmatched by any other candidate. He rightfully believes in individual responsibility and has spoken candidly and truthfully about our nation's financial woes, dispensing the difficult but necessary news that our country needs to hear; we would be wise to listen to much of what he has to say in this regard. Additionally, his personal integrity and fidelity to his wife, coupled with the fact that he has delivered over 4000 babies, marks him as a man of inestimable and unflinching virtue in my eyes. With regard to foreign affairs, I do not think it fair to classify him as an "isolationist" but believe he should be rightly viewed as a non-interventionist, as he does not oppose trade, but excessive nation building and foreign wars. While I think his view of recent conflicts is grossly in error, I believe he makes some salient points regarding the folly of unbridled nation building that we would do well to heed. Having said this, while Dr. Paul is running as a Republican, he is, at heart, a libertarian, and while libertarianism has always played a role in shaping certain aspects of conservatism, in totality it has always been rightfully rejected as a viable governing philosophy when taken to its logical end. Over the past several weeks I have debated, vigorously and earnestly, many of Paul's supporters, some of whom are dear friends and co-laborers of the Gospel. While most applaud his libertarian ideals, I contend they go far beyond the scope of God's moral code for society. Case in point: Marriage and abortion. Dr. Paul has repeated over and over the mantra that forms the heart of libertarianism - the idea that one can do as they please as long as one's actions in no way harm or injure another. This sounds all well and good to a society consumed with individualism, and appeals to those demanding individual responsibility, as well as to those desiring to be left alone to do as they please, but this is in no way remotely conservative, nor I believe biblical, which is my ultimate standard so far as is possible in the realm of fallen men. Dr. Paul has stated that marriage can really be whatever anyone wants it to be so long as it is not imposed upon others and that the government really has no interest in its definition, maintenance and preservation, because, in his estimation, the constitution is silent on it. Better to leave it to the states in accord with his 10th Amendment views. The same can be said for his views on abortion, though he seems to constantly vacillate on a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. I simply cannot accept this. While fidelity to the constitution is vital, fidelity to the transcendent principles that undergird it is far more vital to the health of a society, something Rick Santorum has brilliantly pointed out for several weeks now. Paul's positions on marriage, stating that it should be a private matter of the church or private contract, and abortion, stating that it should be dealt with at the state level, betray, it seems to me, the foundational responsibilities of government, that of protecting life and safeguarding the institution that cultivates civilization itself. His policies would guarantee the relativism of marriage throughout the land and ensure that abortion, in some states, will prevail indefinitely. This is cultural insanity. Just as we could not live "half slave, half free," we cannot, and more importantly, should not, live with personhood conferred on the fetus in one state but not in a neighboring state. That this was the status quo before Roe makes it irrelevant to the question of whether it is just. In the words of Herb Schlossberg, while statism deifies the state, libertarianism deifies man; thus, both are humanists to the core. For this reason, I simply cannot endorse Mr. Paul in the primary and would advise conservatives to forgo support for him as well.
Rick Santorum: Senator Santorum is a valiant defender of the family, exceptional husband, father and cultural warrior par excellence. His defense of life and marriage have been inspiring to many over the years, especially to me. I remember vividly listening to his eloquent words when he was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in the early Nineties. Like the great British statesman, William Wilberforce, his fiery tongue has been used for great good and to advance the cause of life and marriage in an age when both have been under fierce assault. In South Carolina, he admirably defended the place of transcendent moral absolutes to voters challenging his cultural positions, showing the folly of living life without fixed standards of right and wrong. Additionally, his understanding of the constitution far exceeds, in my estimation, that of any other candidate, including Congressman Paul, as simply invoking the constitution over and over is not synonymous with actually understanding it (think of how many invoke Scripture without really understanding its overarching narrative). Having said the above, he has shown a penchant for all too quickly relying on military action to address deeper problems of diplomacy. He seems all to willing to commit military forces to regions of the world in a reflexive manner, lacking at times, prudence and caution. Additionally, he simply does not, in my estimation given the current climate, present the best possible face for conservatives going forward, as his demeanor bespeaks of gloom and defeat. He needs more time to mature in leadership, and while this run may not be successful, I think the future is bright for the once defeated Senator from Pennsylvania. The nominee would be wise to seriously consider him as a running mate.
Speaker Gingrich: Like Rick Santorum, I have followed Newt Gingrich since his ascendancy to Congress in the early 1980s; he was and remains a master rhetorician, capable of turning an argument back on his opponent in stunningly simple, clear and devastatingly effective ways. His leadership and vision helped usher in the the first Republican majority in the US House in over forty years, and his drafting of the Contract With America served to embolden and galvanize conservatives throughout the land. I remember reading it in 1995 and being inspired! Newt is nothing if not a cornucopia of ideas, and many of them have been sorely needed by a conservative movement at times lacking creativity and the ability to offer relevant solutions to modern impasses. Newt has also articulated the pro-life position very well over the years, and has, in my opinion, rightly pointed to the fact that the 14th Amendment serves as a foundation to abolish abortion in our land today, short of a Human Life Amendment being passed and signed into law through the amendment process. Having said the above, Newt has always appeared to me to be an incredibly self-centered man, whose narcissism reaches "truly staggering" heights at times. His serial marital infidelity lends credence to a man who simply has not matured and who has shown very little, if any, remorse and repentance for his actions. Like many others, I take him at his word that he is a changed man, but that is wholly different than whether he should be the standard bearer for a party that must find the will to fight the great cultural battles of the day, whether successful or not. His lack of discipline and ability to build coalitions would be disastrous to a party, and more importantly, to a country needing, not grand rhetoric (we have had enough of that!), but wise, disciplined and persevering leadership; the sticktoitiveness that marks the great men of history, men like Wilberforce, Churchill, and Reagan. Considering his personal pattern of recklessness, combined with his grandiose view of government solutions to every pressing issue of the day, I cannot vote for him and would plead for conservatives considering voting for him to seriously reconsider their vote. While many think he could best Obama, Newt will, as he always has, become the issue and policy will be moved off center stage, thus ensuring defeat and the solidification of the Obama worldview over American politics for the next generation - something disconcerting to fully comprehend. Newt's unprincipled and disastrous leftist assault on capitalism as of late has only served, in my mind, to solidify his image as a man willing to say anything and be anything to win an election.
Mitt Romney: I have followed Governor Romney since his run for the United States Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994; I remember the entire conservative movement being elated that he actually had a chance to defeat the Liberal Lion himself. Romney did phenomenally well considering the odds, losing by less than 10 points to the lesser prince of Camelot. I have always viewed him as a man of immense character, integrity and patriotism. The son of Michigan Governor George Romney, Mitt could have taken the easy path of inherited wealth and lived the life of ease. That he chose not to do so says quite a bit about him. His business prowess and leadership skills are far superior to any of the other candidates in the race at this point. While ideology has always been vastly important to me, it seems that we are, at this moment, in desperate need of wise, prudent leadership, the kind that Governor Romney seems to demonstrate. In another era, perhaps Newt's lunar colony would win the day; for now, we need the wisdom to chart another course, one of fiscal responsibility, economic growth, and private sector ingenuity, all areas where Mitt excels in my estimation. While I understand the concerns of my fellow conservatives in many ways regarding his recent embrace of life and the sanctity of marriage, I think it vitally important to look at his actual record as the Chief Executive of Massachusetts. When one does objectively, they can only conclude that his motives are altruistic, as his actions demonstrate great fidelity and commitment to social conservatism. Furthermore, he has given support to a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution and to a Marriage Amendment as well, something both needed in my estimation if we are to preserve any semblance of cultural sanity and survive as as prosperous, thriving people capable of the basics of self-government. He also has the ability to unify various wings of the party to achieve victory against Obama and to reach a significant number of Democrats and Independents whose votes will be needed to win as well. That he has received the endorsement of men from Chris Christie to Robert Bork speaks well to his ability to unify a fractured electorate and actually get something accomplished for the good of the country. I have not come to embrace his candidacy lightly, and while his Mormonism is not disqualifying to me, I cannot say that it is completely irrelevant to his candidacy. A man's heat cannot be divided; what he is in private is what he is in public. The potential validation of an unorthodox religious system as something Christian causes genuine concern, and while much has been written on this subject, both pro and con, I must ultimately base my decision not on whose theology is more orthodox, but on which candidate best exemplifies the standard set forth in Scripture of justice, mercy and humility, combined with integrity and the actual leadership necessary to govern for the good of the citizenry. When that is done, it is clear to me that Governor Romney becomes the best choice to serve as the next President of the United States.
