OCTOBER, 2018

What Did You Vote For?

Two years ago, after the Presidential election, I wrote the following editorial.  With the mid-term elections coming up next month, I feel it is appropriate to reprint this editorial.
___________________________________________

Caution: You may disagree with this editorial in a big way.  All I ask is that you consider it.  If you don't agree, let's agree to disagree, but still be friends.
___________________________________________

The question is: What did you vote for in the 2016 presidential election?  You read the question right.  I did not ask who you voted for, but rather, what you voted for.

In the 2016 presidential elections, perhaps even the majority of people felt torn between voting for the lesser of two evils, or not voting at all.  As a matter of fact, in Wisconsin, 45,000 more people voted for state and local candidates and issues than voted in the presidential election.  45,000 people simply skipped, and left blank, refusing to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump for president.  But by doing so, they did vote for something.

In our system of government, where we have two major parties, each promoting their own party platforms, all of the candidates which run for office under their paty name are pledged and commited to supporting their party's platform.  Most times what the party stands for is blurred by the rhetoric which goes on duiring the campaign; and in the 2016 campaign, the actual issues supported by the two parties were hardly even addressed.

Both parties build their platforms on the basis of faith based philosophical ideolgies.  The Repubican platform assumes that there is absolute right and wrong - there is absolute truth.  It is sometimes called Natural Law, and it is referred to in our law books as the basis upon which our government, including its legal system was built.  Now, building upon that well established faith premise, the planks of the party platform say that it is wrong for a mother to be able to hire the murder of her unborn child (abortion); that while people have the right to choose whatever lifestyle they want to, a marriage is between a man and a woman; and we could go on and on.  The planks of the party's platform are built on the belief that there is absolute truth - some things are morally right and others are morally wrong.

The Democratic Party platform, on the other hand, is based on the faith based ideology that there is no absolute truth - all truth is relative.  This is called a postmodern philosophy.  Your truth and my truth may be different, but neither is better than the other; because there is no authoratative basis for determining truth.  Each individual becomes the one who determines what is truth for themselves.  This is where we get the call for "tolerance."  We must each be tolerant of other people's truth; because our truth and their truth are on the same level, even though they may be opposites.  Therefore, if you believe in legalizing the murder for hire of unborn children, and I don't; then I am intolerant and bigoted, because I do not believe you should have the legal right to commit murder.  Why do I believe that?  I beieve that because, on the basis of absolute truth, murder is wrong!  Let's go even further.  If you believe it is okay for members of the same sex to participate in sexual activity together; and I say, if you like, go ahead and do that if that's what you're going to do, but don't enshrine it in law; then I am intolerant and a bigot becaue I believe in absolute truth.

But that's only the beginning.  People who believe that there is no absolute truth demand their legaized rightes; but they are also very militaristic against those who differ in opinion, wanting to punish them for their beliefs.  If you are one who does not believe in abortion or alternative lifestyles, look out - you're going to be persecuted.  You will be minimized, called intolerant and bigoted, and silenced.  They condemn and despise those who they consider less tolerant than themselves and they want to punish them.

We cannot leave this subject without looking at the Constitution from both points of view.  If you believe in absolute truth, then you believe that justices on the U.S. Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution literally, for what it actually says, and in the manner that the authors meant it when they wrote it.  If you believe that truth is relative, you want justices who will interpret the Constitution in the spirit in which it was writter - not literally, but figuratively.  When the Constitution was written and accepted by the 13 colonies which then became states, it applied only to the Federal Government and did not trump state constitutions.  Yet, in 1947, the Supreme Court ruled that when the Constitution says "Congress shall not..." that does not mean only "Congress."  That also means your state legislature, your city council, and even your city's water and sewer commission, and public library board.  How is that a literal interpretation.

We could go on for a long time citing examples.  But let's bring it back to the 2016 election.  If you voted Reppublican across the board, you voted for a platform based on the existence of absolute truth.  If, on the other hand, you voted across the board for Democrats, you voted for a platform based on relative truth (a post-modern philosophy) based on the rights of certain peple and the repression of those who don't agree that truth is relative.  Then, there are those who split their ticket, forgetting the platform and voting for individuals; in effect, voting against themselves.  There is still one more group.  That is the group which voted for congressional candidates and state and local candidates, but did not vote for president.  If you are in that group, you actually voted for the platform you oppose.  Oops!

The entire pohilosophy of relative truth is absurd.  It doesn't work in real life - only in the field of philosophy.  Tell me you don't believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4; instead you, with your relative truth believe it equals 5.  You are wrong!  Relative truth desn't work.  Tell me you don't believe in the law of gravity.  It may be alright for some; but it is alien to your truth.  Go ahead, jump off the Empire State Building, and you will discover that your truth was wrong!  Relative truth does not work.  It doesn't work in real life either.  Suppose someone breaks into your home and steals your valuables?  Suddenly their truth is not equal to yours.  Let someone murder a close relative; and their truth is suddeny trumped by yours.  I guess that makes you intolerant and bigoted!

How absurd!
___________________________________________

Click here to return to Editorials by Ken Williams.

Click here to return to Home Page
___________________________________________


 
 
 

 

 

  Site Map