Election season: a time of vague slogans and plentiful promises, sharp accusations, flashy ads, poignant commercials and endless phone calls, all from candidates vying for you to fill in that little bubble next to their name on election day. But what happens when truth gets lost in the hype? What do the candidates stand for, really? When you feel things just aren’t right with our nation, and both candidates seem intent only on hurling accusations but neither provides any visible hope of making things better, whom do you vote for? Why vote at all? And of the two candidates more specifically, why vote for Gov. Mitt Romney?
I freely admit I am biased, but I hopefully have reasoned this through enough to at least present a logical bias.
First, Romney has a plan, a budget compromise he has repeatedly presented throughout his campaign. People pointedly criticize the bar Romney’s plan sets; yet, for so long, we have set no bar. Something needs to be done. We have not submitted a budget in three years — the longest time our government has operated without one. Calling for fiscal responsibility without a solid plan resembles trying to construct a house with no blueprint. Creating a stable building requires guidelines, measurements and knowing how much material you have to work with. Similarly, solutions to our economic problems require something more tangible than words of fiscal responsibility.
Second, Romney respects the sanctity of life. Christians can campaign to save the children, but our real position is determined by which policies we support at the ballot box. Ultimately, a nation that doesn’t respect life begins to lose respect for its weakest members. The reality: Between 2001 and 2003, then-Senator Obama voted several times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, a bill to protect children born alive during attempted abortions from being killed after birth, saying that granting a “previable fetus” (a child already born but unable to survive independently) human rights would ruin women’s abortion rights. Today, Obama continues advocating “women’s reproductive rights” and “choice,” even mentioning that if his daughters ever “make a mistake” and become pregnant, he does not want to see them “punished with a baby.” Let’s face it; supporting this president inherently supports his policies. Whether or not you are anti-abortion is not for others to determine. The real question remains: Do your choices reflect what you say you believe?
Finally, third party votes are not the answer. Romney cannot promise economic salvation, but he presents at least a glimmer of hope toward changing an unsustainable status quo that third party candidates could never realistically aspire to provide.
But why trust what the candidates say? The races seem to present as many options as the original Model T; you can choose any candidate you want, but really, they’re all the same. We must instead look at what we know. In the past four years, gas prices have doubled. The national deficit has exploded to proportions bigger than all past deficits combined. Each of us now owes more than $51,000 in debt, to be paid for in longer work hours, later retirements, the growing possibility of never owning our own house or car and, if these policies continue, inevitable economic collapse.
So what do we know? Current policies are unsustainable. As former President Bill Clinton observed, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Bad economic policies equal a bad economy, which means fewer jobs. Prolonging these debt-inducing policies only ensures that jobs won’t come.
Ultimately, these are not the only reasons to vote for a candidate. Do your own research. Form your own opinions. However, these are major issues that we must consider.
So what do we do? It’s time to break status quo. Change will not come through rhetoric. Romney is no savior, but he presents options that illusionary third-party presidents cannot and that Obama never will. It’s time we set a bar. America, confronted with a soaring deficit and frighteningly stagnant economy, can no longer make concessions to this insatiable crusade for “change.”
