To the Purist Voter

While I honor and respect any man who withholds his vote from Governor Romney on that grounds that Mr Romney is so evil from stem to stern that a vote for him will tarnish one’s immortal soul and damn one to hell, I cannot respect those who withhold their vote on the grounds that the mild annoyance of an ideologically impure or insufficiently libertarian Romney Administration is indistinguishable from an Obama Second Term.

No political contest in my lifetime, no election since before the Civil War, has been fraught with such grave and lasting likely consequences.

At the risk of sounding alarmist, I believe this election will either destroy the nation, economically and spiritually if not physically; or else destroy the Democratic Party for a generation.

While I would not be willing to imperil my immortal soul for the sake of my nation — for what profits it a man to gain the world but lose his soul? — I would be willing to imperil my ideological purity by voting for a candidate who says he supports my causes but might not, or who claims not to support intrinsically morally evil practices, but might yet. Is my ideological purity worth risking the collapse of the last nation on Earth which even plays lip service to my ideals?

The United States is the one Republican form of government left in a feotid and ever-rising sewer of broke, ugly, churlish, socialist welfare-state bureaucracies, and broke, bloodthirsty, post-communist dictatorships, and broke, inhuman, totalitarian theocracies across the Middle East. The United State is rapidly degenerating from a Christian nation to a sub-pagan postchristian neo-barbarian nation, but the cancer has not yet reached her heart. My vote is a statement for my God and my nation, for liberty and justice, and against leftwing pro-Jihadist totalitarian political correctness.

Shall I betray my nation because the GOP cannot produce a candidate sufficiently endowed with a desire to defend the Constitution? It would be like letting my mother get beaten to death on the street by a gang of thugs, and not coming to her rescue because she is a drunk.

Now, you might say that she has vowed not to be a drunk before and betrayed that promise before.

You might say that her promise to stop drinking is merely to get you to come to her aid, and perhaps the thugs beating her are not so bad. After all, the press is all on the side of the thugs and against your mother.

The old lady has a lot of toughness. She might live. A few more boots in her face, maybe it will break her nose and damage her bridgework. And who cares if Catholics have to pay for contraceptives, and Christians have to pay for abortifacient drugs? And if the press corp, hooting and whooping, draw near to urinate in the old lady’s eyes and nose and open wounds, that is not likely to kill her.

There is a lot of ruin in a nation, after all.

On the other hand, she is your mother, and a vote to save her, even if her promise to go to financial rehab is false, is better than the vote for the thugs, who claim she is not drinking heavily enough, and who want to see her humiliated and see her power broken and see her bankrupted and ultimately see her dead.

Why do the Leftist hate America? Because the old lady is not perfect. She is not Utopia. The Leftists are too pure and smug and superior to support anything less than absolute perfection.

Anything smaller than Utopia must be demeaned, suffer degradation, and be shattered like the spine of an old lady being beaten to death by street thugs before her son’s cold and indifferent eyes.

So are you failing to vote for Romney because he did not promise you to usher in Utopia this season? Because you think to vote for him is to vote for the rich, a vote for torture in Guantanamo Bay, a vote for unjust wars overseas and a vote which will not end abortion here at home? Because to vote for him is a sin?

But a man who sees his mother being beaten who does not life a hand to help her is committing the sin of omission.I tell you that indifference to the choice between a greater and a lesser evil condones the greater evil. And if the motive for your Olympian indifference to the outcome of the contest is pride, I tell you that man is a sinner and will not escape the judgment.

The patriot whose love of his nation is so great that rather that soil his lily-white kid gloves by voting for a man who will not in one hour restore the Constitution to its pristine virginity, and whose patriotism requires him to declare a curse on both the feuding houses of Jackass and Elephant, and who fails to cast a vote against the candidate who seeks to the Constitution in the name of social justice, I tell you that man is no patriot.

If it is so morally bad to vote for Romney, why can I not simply go to the confessional booth after I go to the voting booth and be shrived?

Of the destruction of the nation, I and others have spoken heretofore and at length. Maybe you think I am overstating the case, or exaggerating the risk. Maybe so. But consider the causes which lend credence to the troubling prognostication.

But we are discussing an economic crises where the factors involved will combine to create a crisis not only rapid, but immense. We are not going deeper and deeper into debt to France or Germany, or some other world power that wishes us well, or at least can tolerate our way of life; we are going deeper and deeper into debt to Red China, who is the only reasonable candidate to supplant us as a world superpower should we fall.

We are not discussing a slow economic degradation, but a run on the banks, a flight into real value, a sudden panic when the market realizes that all the IOU’s on future earning of American taxpayers are worthless, and that no other bank or monetary system in the world has any reserve credit either.

We are not discussing a world that is at peace, by one which is agitated by an enemy both fearless, intelligent and pitiless in approach, but irrational and unpredictable in choice of target, which are selected for propaganda value rather than military value. Wars are expensive. They cost lives and money. So we are talking about a crisis which can be exploited or even precipitated by a deadly enemies.

The current economic policies of borrowing money from Red China to pay for every and any frivolity under the sun, from Big Bird to Green Energy boondoggles, to the take over of GM and the student loan industry, the medical insurance industry, to the utter and humiliating prostitution of the meretricious media, will impoverish our children and grandchildren for the foreseeable future, lead to hyperinflation, to the devaluation of the currency, to additional and sustained world wide depression. I before predicted unemployment rates reaching 50%, which is only twice the current rate, which in turn is only twice the rate when Obama took office.

Of the spiritual destruction of the nation, I have also spoken. If Chicago Machine politics become the norm, the election of Obama to a second term may perhaps be the last election when the number of honest votes honestly counted has any real effect on election outcomes. We have seen the Black Panthers engaged in voter intimidation, and go unpunished, and we have seen the ferocious efforts at resisting border security effort and picture identification efforts to clean up voter roles. If the number of voters who are clients, dependents and thralls to the government and who are tax eaters rather than tax producers, the vested interest of the dependents of the all powerful welfare state will make elections into meaningless rituals, as they are in one-party totalitarian dictatorships. The American character, the American dream of independence and self-reliance and the ambitions of self-made men, will all come to an end.

If my fears are reasonable, voting for a third part candidate, or failing to vote for Romney because he is not Republican enough nor Libertarian enough nor pacifistic enough nor warhawkish enough nor insufficient sincere in his anti-abortion stance or unwilling to close Gitmo, or for any other reason (aside from fear of eternal damnation) is a failure to vote for the salvation of the Republic.

Ruin can happen rapidly.

Look at how rapidly Great Britain declined. During the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria, AD 1896, Britain had a world empire maintained by the strongest military power in history up to that day and wealth almost beyond calculation.  By AD 1982,  Britain could not maintain a single flotilla against Argentina in the Falkland Islands without overseas aid. British wealth and dignity were shattered. Her people, once famous for their reserve, courtesy, stoicism and sober good humor, are now famous for their hooliganism at soccer games, their absurdly inefficient socialized medicine, and their crime rates rising to the level of a permanent civil war.  This all happened within one lifetime of an octogenarian. Men who in their youth where subjects of the greatest empire in the world saw their grandchildren as living as if in a Third World pesthole.

Or do you think a second Obama administration will not see another sixth of the private sector consumed by the government, another hundred years of debt added to our children and grandchildren, another set of disasters in foreign policy, more apologies, more impositions on religious freedom, and a press core even more fawning, servile, and false?

The nation can survive an ideologically impure Romney. It might even, if he carries out even half his campaign promises, recover from the damage Obama has done. If the revolution in energy production that looms on our horizon is not strangled in its cradle by rogue bureaucracies, we may see energy independence and the starvation, due to lack of petrodollars, of international terrorist organizations. The hostility of the press will, at the very least, prevent a monopoly of government power.

Under Romney, my libertarian brothers, we will not see a return to minimal and Constitutional government.

But we will not see taxes raised during a depression in an insane attempt to borrow our way out of debt, nor see the Defense Department eviscerated during wartime in a suicidal attempt to achieve peace by being as unprepared for war as possible.

And perhaps we will not see your children and grandchildren going into hock to Red China going to pay the salary of Jim Lehrer.

But let us look at the stakes on the other side.

A vote for Romney may put an end, for a generation at least, of the Leftist domination of the Democrat Party, and hence eliminate, for a generation at least, the single greatest internal threat to the peace, wellbeing, security and liberty of this nation.

Daniel Greenfield pens a fascinating article along these lines. I hope I will be excused the discourtesy of quoting the whole thing. All his remarks are interesting, and time does not permit me to find his gems judiciously. (

Democrats do not have a great track record in the White House. The number of Democratic presidents who have won second terms is small and becomes much smaller with the second half of the 20th Century. Unlike Congressional shifts which reflect regional politics more than a national referendum, the Presidency is a referendum on the usages of the nearly unlimited power of its holder.

The Democratic strategy has been to substitute iconography for competence and their iconic presidents have invariably been men of dubious character. FDR rode to power on the coattails of the Roosevelt name, after conducting a smear campaign against Teddy Roosevelt’s son who would have been the natural candidate.

Once in power, FDR assembled a grab-bag of bad ideas from European Socialists and Fascists and employed a small army of writers and artists as propagandists to lionize his programs. Marginally competent, Roosevelt the Second cultivated an aristocratic paternal air, surrounded himself with experts and programs to create public confidence.

FDR did not fix the economy, but he did lead the country through World War II while preemptively losing World War III, which was enough to give him the iconic status that had made his presidency possible.

The Roosevelt Administration, with an assist from Harry Truman, had largely created the Soviet Empire through its betrayal of Eastern Europe and the Republic of China. The Liberal camp had been thoroughly infiltrated by Communist agents and was full of sympathizers for the Soviet Union.

Before WW2 the USSR had been a regional backwater power with a network of international agents at its beck and call. After WW2, Communists were on the verge of swallowing up Western Europe and had taken China.

Truman’s disastrous China policy led to the Communist takeover of a potential world power and to the bloody Korean War. The aftermath of the FDR Administration was largely preoccupied with covering up the disastrous results of its Communist-friendly program. The campaigns against McArthur and McCarthy were necessary to cover up the consequences of Truman’s China policy and FDR’s USSR policy.

The Democrats lost the White House and the public turned to Eisenhower to clean up the strategic mess left behind by the progressive party. The great national crisis was Communism and the Democrats had not seen the crisis coming and had no credibility in deploying a policy to combat the Soviet Union.

To retake the White House the Democrats needed a new image and a candidate with credibility fighting Communism. That candidate was to be a Kennedy, a member of a family at odds with FDR due to its Nazi sympathies, whose patriarch had taken careful care to burnish the Anti-Communist credentials of his sons.

FDR had been the avuncular figure in the chair; JFK was to be the youth candidate. The new man, a creature of the old Joe Kennedy, with fresh new ideas written for him by ghostwriters. Like FDR, JFK was a manufactured figure. And like him, JFK was a man of ideas with no ideas who disguised that lack with an army of experts and the cultivated illusion of intellectualism.

JFK was not particularly Anti-Communist, but that was a necessary qualification for any candidate looking to carry on FDR’s work. The Democratic Party had adapted to the collapse of its old coalition of New York merchants and Southern plantation owners after the Civil War by embracing Republican Unionism with a vengeance and jettisoning the last of Jefferson to become the party of big government.

FDR had borrowed Lincoln’s ruthless unionism and blended it with Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-monopolism; mixing together the work of two Republican presidents and claiming it for his own. JFK similarly took up elements of a Republican civil rights program and blended it with their aggressive Anti-Communism to create a new Democratic identity.

The underlying program in both administrations had nothing to do with the depression or war; but of building up a national political machine using the same methods of urban political machines. The core ingredient was class warfare. FDR put a genteel patina over class warfare while JFK phrased it as an idealistic ambitious form of American Exceptionalism that made it seem American.

FDR and JFK both borrowed Lincoln’s martyrdom, FDR by acting as a long-serving wartime president, and JFK, posthumously through his assassination. Obama has taken on a crude form of that martyrdom by virtue of race.

JFK’s death left his upgrade of Eisenhower’s “Dime Store New Deal” unfinished. LBJ took up the baton as the consequences of Vietnam tore apart the coalition between Liberals and Leftists leading to a culture war.

FDR died before events would have forced him to block Communist ambitions in Europe and turned the intelligentsia against him, allowing him to retain the services of the progressive propaganda corps. But JFK’s façade of Anti-Communism had committed him to international policies that broke apart the coalition between Liberals and Leftists. As much as the left might have supported JFK’s domestic program, and even forgiven his domestic show of affiliation with the Anti-Communists, by the time he was replaced by LBJ, the stress fractures were just too big and they tore apart the Democratic Party.

After that the Democrats lost the ability to compete on national security. Their attempts at salvaging the white male vote led them to two southern governors. Carter imploded on National Security, but Clinton thrived through two terms in the Post-Soviet period when history no longer seemed to matter. But history did matter.

The Communism menace had risen on FDR’s watch. Muslim terrorism began its ascent under JFK and reached critical levels under Clinton. The Democratic failures on Communism made Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan possible. Their failures on Islamism made Bush possible.

Obama was the third Democratic bid at an iconographic presidency. Like FDR, he was confronted with an economic crisis, and like JFK he faced a global conflict. And like both men, he proved inept at handling both, relying on armies of experts and making unwise decisions. As with JFK’s first term, the consequences of his foreign policy have not still struck home with a decisive enough emphasis to turn the public against him, but unlike FDR, there is no war to distract from the economic situation.

Obama has been running on his iconography for a while now and like an old beat up car, he never noticed that it gave out on him a while back. The debate was a wakeup call, but it won’t be the last one. He has to run on something, but he can’t run on the economy or race and that just leaves national security. The Benghazi attack emphasized the disastrous consequences of his foreign policy, but they also did him a favor by shifting the debate to the foreign policy arena.

With FDR fading and the cult of JFK not as strong as it used to be in the twilight of the Boomers, the Democratic Party needed a third icon to further integrate its political machine into the infrastructure of the government.

The Democrats needed to win badly in 2008 because it put them in a position of exploiting a crisis to protect and expand their institutions, both private and public, that might have otherwise been targeted by a Republican on an austerity mission. Defeating McCain, who despite his own reputation for pork had a cost-cutting streak, was a major victory because it avoided the specter of having McCain do to them what Prime Minister Cameron, another non-conservative conservative, had done to the institutions of the liberal state in the UK. Defeating Romney, who is also running as a cost-cutter, is an even bigger priority for the same reason.

The ideological and emotional issues are secondary to this core bureaucratic mandate of protecting the political machine that the post-Civil War Democratic Party had built up. Unlike Bush, Romney is not running as a compassionate conservative looking to reconcile social spending with conservative politics. And Romney’s campaign is not focused on the international politics that might divert him from putting the domestic house in order.

Pushing Romney back into Bush territory, as Benghazi may have done, may neuter him even if he wins, and shifts the focus away from the economy. But the public does not appear prepared to follow that shift with polls still showing the economy as the primary focus. And that focus contains a dangerous trap.

Any shift to foreign policy risks a dangerous discussion about the Islamist rise to power that was aided and abetted by Obama, in the same way that FDR had aided and abetted the rise of Communism. The Democrats did not survive the debate when it broke out during the Truman Administration. Should an honest discussion begin about the defeat in Afghanistan and the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the Middle East under the guise of the Arab Spring, the result may be as great a blow to Obama’s prospects.

Obama’s last stand is also the Democratic Party’s last stand. A hundred years of foreign policy and economic failures at the hands of a corrupt mafia is about to come home to roost. The Democratic Party has marginalized itself, abandoning mainstream Americans while openly embracing a trillion dollar welfare state.

Iconography elevated Obama as it did FDR and JFK, but it cannot see him through a constellation of crises. And if he falls, then his party falls with him.



  1. Comment by joeclark77:

    After insisting for months that I would never vote for Romney, I’ve decided to vote for him for two primary reasons.

    First, I realized that I was nevertheless hoping he would beat Obama. In other words, I was hoping for other people to do the dirty work while I “washed my hands of it” and this, I think, is the sin of cowardice. I should either vote for Romney or decide that I didn’t care who won.

    Second, I realized that although I have no power to make Romney fulfill his promises, I have some power to *veto* his fulfilling those promises, by not voting for him. So I decided to vote for him as an act of faith, to give him the chance to prove me wrong. This is sort of like Pascal’s wager. Even if I’m 95% sure Romney will disappoint me, there’s a chance he won’t, and the alternative is a 100% chance of a much worse outcome, so I might as well take the chance on Mitt.

  2. Comment by Curubethion:

    You provoke great thought about this topic, sir. I will be mulling this through.

  3. Comment by atmcdo:

    I believe it was Argentina not Brazil.

  4. Comment by Charles Hoffman:

    “Look at how rapidly Great Britain declined. During the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria, AD 1896, Britain had a world empire maintained by the strongest military power in history up to that day and wealth almost beyond calculation. By AD 1982, Britain could not maintain a single flotilla against Argentina in the Falkland Islands without overseas aid. British wealth and dignity were shattered. Her people, once famous for their reserve, courtesy, stoicism and sober good humor, are now famous for their hooliganism at soccer games, their absurdly inefficient socialized medicine, and their crime rates rising to the level of a permanent civil war. This all happened within one lifetime of an octogenarian. Men who in their youth where subjects of the greatest empire in the world saw their grandchildren as living as if in a Third World pesthole.”

    What are you talking about? Sure, we (the British) gave up our empire, thereby leading the way for you (America) to take over our role. But that was mostly because we’d just fought two world wars, and even for us that was pushing it. Our record in the Falklands conflict was near-flawless, and we had next to no international aid when we were fighting it.
    Your stereotypical view of a British (read: English) person is stereotypical, and hence is likely to be shattered by the facts. Reserve, stoicism, courtesy and sober good humour (and sober good spelling of the word ‘humour’ :D) all remain present, although they are not manifested particularly obviously, yet we still queue, we still appear reserved to internationals and the ‘British spirit’ still exists.
    We are hardly famous for our hooliganism at football (‘soccer’) games, and I cannot think what would create our impression. The NHS is rather wonderful, in my and, apparently, the nation’s opinion (even the Tories go with it), and hardly ‘absurdly inefficient’. And I’ve not noticed this civil war on my streets, nor do the crime rate figures suggest such a thing, indeed, crime rates are falling year on year.
    I take offence at my country being compared unflatteringly to a ‘Third World pesthole’, and would appreciate it were you to desist from doing so.

    You would do well to comment on your own country instead, or at least stick to the facts when commenting about others’ countries.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      In America, we have heard the rumor that you do not still queue, and I took that as a sign of the end of Western Civilization.

      And I’ve not noticed this civil war on my streets, nor do the crime rate figures suggest such a thing

      Again, I can only go by what I hear. This is from your country. I assume not from your party:

      I take offence at my country being compared unflatteringly to a ‘Third World pesthole’, and would appreciate it were you to desist from doing so.

      I salute your patriotism. It ill behooves any American to mock the mother country from whom we take our language and culture and common law. I hope you will accept my apology. Your land is not a Third World Pesthole.

      I apologize from my exaggerations, but not for the facts. Great Britain is still an industrialized and civilized nation, but the NHS has gutted your manliness, and your addiction to it addicts you also to telling and believing lies about it. Or has the law of supply and demand been revoked by an Act of Parliament, so that you can get something for nothing there? Suffering from no loss of quality, and with no need to ration scares resources?

      Your politicians merely economize in those areas, with those patients, not likely to startle the voting public into close examination of the price of the Faustian bargain. Compare your rates of cancer patient recovery to those with any other industrialized nations.

    • Comment by Sandy Petersen:

      I recommend reading the excellent book by Paul Kennedy – The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery. Though sympathetic to the British, it clearly delineates what led to their current international impotence, which as has been accurately pointed out, has gone from the premier international power to near-irrelevance.

      He does not blame morals, but finances. I have visited Britain many times and have many British friends. The decline is real and no amount of pollyannism can change that fact.

      • Comment by John C Wright:

        “He does not blame morals, but finances.”

        Morals inform finances.

        That is why Dante puts hoarders and wasters and usurers in the Inferno, not to mention the covetousness that is the steam engine and motive power of socialism.

        Not that the World Wars did not cripple Great Britain and topple her from her lofty position as history’s greatest empire, and, in my opinion, did more good than harm when compared to other empires. But the collapse into socialism between the wars and after the Second World War was like going to a physician who uses leeches rather than antibiotics. The cure aggravated and accelerated the disease.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      I was sharply reminded of your sneering note above, when, this very hour, I received a letter from one of your fellow subjects of the Queen. I had solicited his opinion about the nature of Islam. He said, and I quote, “This is a subject which I cannot comment upon publicly because it is illegal here in the UK…”

      You can imagine my astonishment, born as an American, who look in the air of freedom with my mother’s milk, to learn the mother nation of the English tongue and law and custom has so betrayed the ideals of English government, as old as the Charter or older.

      I regret that I answered you letter politely and with respect. You deserve neither because you lied to me. Let me rectify that now, by saying what I should have said in reply to your dishonest sneers:

      How dare you, a slave, have the insolence to address me, a free man, as if we are equals?

      Your nation, once hailed as the Mother of Parliaments, and your Empire, the greatest single force for civilization in the world and the hope of mankind, has turned itself into a sewer hole, a cheap knockoff copy of a Soviet State, and you dickless worms were not even conquered. You did it to yourself, voluntarily.

      Did the man who wrote me jest? Was he lying, in error, exaggerating, insane? If so, prove it. Prove yourself to be a man. Blaspheme the Prophet Mohammad in public, and see if your own Thought Police fail to chastise you, or fail to protect you. Do it. I dare you. Prove me wrong, eunuch.

      But do not lie to me again; and do not talk to me as if we were equals, boy.

  5. Comment by False_Keraptis:

    Every time the presidential elections roll around, people on both sides tell me that this is The Most Important Election of Our Lifetimes, and I MUST vote for their candidate, whatever his flaws, because the alternative is complete, irreversible ruin. I don’t buy it, and even if I did, my vote is just too small to make a difference anyway. It’d take much better man than Romney or Obama to take my vote away from “Homer Simpson.”

    • Comment by DGDDavidson:

      I would like to vote for Princess Luna, who has promised that, if she is elected, we will have an eternal night in which to debauch ourselves while we take vengeance on our Solarist enemies. But I’m not going to, because I know my vote would then be wasted.

      Let us say Mr. Wright is exaggerating. Are you therefore leaping to the opposite and equally exaggerated conclusion that the election does not matter? How many socialist presidents does it take to gut the First Amendment or utterly ruin the nation? Let us say that, instead of one, it takes five or twenty or a hundred. Are you then comfortable, while men bent on destroying the nation or taking away the right to freedom of religion are running for office, to toss your vote away on a fictional character?

    • Comment by Sean Michael:

      Hi, False Keraptis:

      I disagree. I truly do believe this election is crucial. For the simple reason that the US is broke, busted, bankrupt. Only Romney/Ryan are offering any ideas which gives us some hope of getting us back on the right track. ALL we will get from Barry Obama is more of the follies leading us to what I call the Great Crash.

      Sean M. Brooks

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      There is a natural tendency to exaggerate claims, which is what produces the cottony dullness and indifference when a real crisis actually looms.

      But what can I do? If I see a wolf, and I cry “wolf, wolf!” it is not my fault that other men less honest than I have been crying wolf every time they see a dog, or a leaf blowing in the wind.

      However, that said, let me draw your attention to one thing. I and other who vote against Obama will do so because of what Obama says in his public speeches he will do if reelected. Namely, continue to run the nation without a budget, cut defense spending, increase the welfare state.

      The Libertarians and Catholics I know who do not care to vote for Romney — at least the ones who have shared their opinions with me — refuse to cast a vote for Romney on the grounds that his support for repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood or PBS, or appointing anti-aborticide Supreme Court Justices is insufficient, or, in other words, they the do not believe he will do the things he says in his public speeches he will do if elected.

      So the man who says he will ruin the nation is telling the truth and the man who says is not is not. In such a case, what iota of difference is there between them? The difference is that if you are bleeding to death, applying pressure to retard the bloodloss is better than applying a pump to accelerate the blood loss.

      There is a smaller group who believe that Romney’s war efforts will involve morally unacceptable actions, such as bombing civilians by air, or the use of torture and rendition. To them I would point out that Obama does these same things anyway, except that the fervidly pro-leftist press does not report them to the public. A Republican president would have an adversarial press corps, and the evils done in the name of warfare would be exposed to public outrage, and in the light of publicity brought to a halt. So a vote for Romney tends to end, rather than promote, any allegedly grave moral evils our nation does.

      There is a much smaller group of wackjobs who say they cannot tell the difference between the candidates, or what the stand for, what programs they support, or what their party platforms are. Such persons should not be allowed to vote. They have betrayed the great boon of the franchise entrusted to them on behalf their posterity, and betrayed their stature as a member of a sovereign and self-governing people.

      Since I am a Roman Catholic, and it is MY church being raped and then blamed for the rape and stoned by the press as making “war on women” in an outrageous act of anticlerical unconstitutional insolence as no Republican would dare and no Democrat has ever heretofore dared, to me two candidates and what they represent differ greatly indeed.

  6. Comment by Gigalith:

    I may be one of those who do not vote for Romney, in short, out of fear of eternal damnation.

    First, it is no good to do some wrong and simply plan to go to Confession afterwards, as that is the additional sin of presumption. Committing with deliberate foreknowledge and intent the most venial sin is itself a mortal sin. This is not to say that voting for Romney (or anyone else), is necessarily a sin. A case can be made for the moral rectitude, if imperfection, of voting for Romney, though whether it is sufficient I cannot say. But either vote for Romney boldly, with confidence in doing right, or do not vote for him at all.

    Second, this is a war to be fought with prayer and Communion, not votes. If in good works you vote for Romney, so that your faith is not dead, by all means do so, but it is neither the end of our faith nor, I doubt, the means for the salvation of this nation. For myself, who easily turns to black and white thinking, I fear not that Romney is too imperfect for my tastes, but that I might, in voting for him, believe that he is perfect, and nothing else needs done save checking a box on the ballot.

    Nevertheless, in considering this I do not consider myself superior to those who do plan to vote for Romney, for there is an elitist poison also deadly–that of believing the only thing wrong with America is that some third party, the libertarians, the greens, the constitutionalists, or whomever, do not have the power they need, and you, the chosen few members, are the only ones who are able to repair the world. In short, I do not know if they will do a better job, and do not wish to act as if I did.

    I say I am planning to do this or that, because it is not election day yet, and things may well still change, and it is presumptuous to read the mind of God.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Please don’t misunderstand me. I do not believe the reports that we are torturing captured enemies at Gitmo. What has been described to me is not torture. I believe this war against the Jihad is not only right and just, but necessary, that is, I hold it would be morally wrong NOT to fight.

      So I am not one of those who thinks that Romney is saying or proposing any grave moral wrong, nor do I think casting a vote for him involves me in grave moral wrong.

      I do think Obama is an ardent pro-abortionist who has the blood of countless babies on his hands; and I do think that the HHS Mandate commanding Catholics to trample the crucifix and spite on statues of the Virgin is insupportable. I think any Catholic who casts a vote for Obama has committed a sin.

      You are correct that no one can commit a sin intending to seek confession, because that forestalls the possibility of honest contrition. I was not making light of the blessed sacrament of reconciliation. I should have made it clear that I meant “in the case you trust his promises, and it turns out he lied, and it after the fact turns out that you helped a man into office to commit a grave moral error or an abomination, then seek confession for having aided and abetted.” — but don’t avoid casting a vote just because of an unsubstantiated fear that he MIGHT do something wrong. (Especially if what you know about him is nothing but propaganda from his foes.)

      Hope this is clearer.

  7. Comment by Maypo:

    Does this post mean the end of the Wright Shea Mutual Admiration Society? I sincerely hope not, but I perceive Mr. Shea to be a little bit brittle on this topic.

  8. Comment by david g.:

    Daniel Greenfield’s understanding of U.S. history seems to me somewhat one-sided.
    The Democratic Party of 1960 was not the Democratic Party of 1860, just to make one point.

    All this talk about committing sin if voting for the one or the other candidate seems to me entirely beside the point, because we all know, in most cases, which candidate will carry the electoral votes in the state in which we vote. I, for example, vote in California, and of course I vote for Romney, but no Republican has carried that state since, when was it, 198o? And why not? Because of the large-scale importation of Democratic voters; we all know this.

    So a single man’s vote if of less importance than a man’s prayer in Dante’s Hell, that is, of none. Why we still vote our conscience I leave it to you, John, to explain.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Alas, if you do not understand that mystical and uniquely Christian concept of making the last man first and being led by a little child, I cannot explain democracy to you. The purpose is that all who vote participate in the sovereignty of the nation. If your fellow sovereigns outnumber you, so that you do not get your way, this does not expel you from the mystical body of the state nor rob you of your sovereignty. If, however, you do not exercise the franchise, then you have abdicated.

      To the dim eyes of worldly men, to the Machiavellian calculation of power, the result is the same. In the eyes of the angels it is not the same, for they will note if providence has given you a kingly crown, and you toss it aside in the ditch as rubbish.

  9. Comment by paradox33:

    On this topic, Alan Keyes gives the best commentary on this lesser of two evils paradigm…

  10. Comment by KFJ:

    I and other who vote against Obama will do so because of what Obama says in his public speeches he will do if reelected. Namely, continue to run the nation without a budget, cut defense spending, increase the welfare state.

    I refuse to vote for Romney because of what he says he will do if elected: keep on increasing the endless flood of immigrants, which is to say, moochers, looters, and Democratic voters.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Half a loaf is better than no bread. Under a Romney administration, some chance exists, even if small, that pressure from the congress and public would get him to lower the rate of incoming illegals. Under Obama, the Federal government will use both legal and illegal tactics to sue any state government which attempts to secure the boarder, and will run guns, get boarder agents killed, arrest boarder agents who defend themselves, and so on.

      Your choice is between aggravating the problem by not voting for Romney, or having some chance of diminishing the problem by voting for Romney. Casting a protest vote or sulking in your tent like Achilles will preserve an admirable sense of resolution and a refusal to compromise your principles, which I honestly admire, but the pragmatic effect is to grant Obama a mandate and blessing on his next four years.

  11. Comment by Steve Skojec:

    I have invoked you, Mr. Wright, in my latest post at Catholic Vote. Thanks for providing me food for thought that helped me to make my decision.

    “Why This Third Party Voter is Voting for Romney, And You Should Too”

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      My wife just gave me a new rosary for my birthday, so my ability to be invoked, even when the stars are in the right positions, is less than it has been.

      Oh, wait. Not that kind of invocation. Sorry.

      I would like third party voters to vote for Romney. Because I do not think the nation will recover from the additional damage a committed radical like Mr Obama (who, unlike Mr Clinton, did not pivot to the center to win more vote, but instead stuck to his socialists ideals) whereas I do think the nation will recover from any damage Mr Romney might do, and he will be more responsive to our will, and the press will at least partly do its job again of being a watchdog against corruption.

  12. Ping from Why I’ll be Holding My Nose and Voting for Romney « The Orthosphere:

    […] see this topic in a different way, consider the following quotation from “To the Purist Voter” by John C. Wright [HT commenter Leo]: Shall I betray my nation [by not voting for Romney] […]

    Leave a Reply