The Political Post

Here it comes. The obligatory political post.

My prediction: McCain's going to win. I may have to eat my words, but I think that people are going to vote the way they always have, and that the Democrats are just louder than they have been in the past. The same people are going to show up to vote.

But I could be wrong. Either way, I think it's interesting how the Democrats are constructing their rhetoric in case McCain wins by labeling his prospects for victory as nigh impossible. Right now everyone (in that camp) is talking about Obama just has to win, citing his popular appeal - interestingly, at one point the article cites an academic who "correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners", a popular dead horse to beat among Democrats. The point is that when (if) McCain wins, the Democrats are going to cry foul (like they always do) and claim that there was no way it should have happened, likening the government and conservatives to everything from outdated, backwards backwoodsmen to the Gestapo.

You know, ultimately, I guess I'm a single issue voter, which is anathema to the average collegiate. The problem is that I read an article in the Bagpipe a while ago by Jared Mollenkof entitled "America's Elms", and the imagery has stuck with me. He used a story in which a German clergyman during World War II crusaded for the preservation of an endangered species of elm in a part of rural Germany, while Jews were being murdered in a concentration camp just outside town. My point is that the economy, the war, the environment, etc. are all important concerns, but as long as I live in a country that supports the systematic elimination of those without power or voice, I can't really think about anything else. They are all just elms in the face of a national crime. On top of that, I am a conservative, so while John McCain isn't exactly conservative, he is pro-life, and he is more conservative than Obama, which makes him at least a somewhat desirable candidate.

On a slightly different note, if I were to talk to someone about the abortion/pro-life debate, the tack I would take is a philosophical one. A common issue up for discussion in Philosophy classes is the defining of "person". No-one can claim to know for certain that the organism inside the womb is NOT a person. Scientific study cannot define something that is essentially spiritual. It's not a clincher, but I think that everyone has to come to the realization that any claims about the personhood of whatever is inside the womb are based on personal feelings and not facts. The truth is that the facts are hazy - you could make a pretty compelling argument that there is a negligible difference in the "personhood" of a baby just born and one in the third trimester, and you could (and I do) claim that the God of the Bible has something to say about babies in the womb, but the first argument is only going to go so far while the second will only appeal to certain people. However, it would be very possible, while discussing the issue with someone, to bring them to the point where they realized that all their assumptions about the unborn are based on social, economic and personal experience instead of what they know to be true about the being in question, which ultimately is the only thing that matters. Then they have to look at two options: if it isn't a person, then there is no problem with "terminating" it. If it is, then it is murder. If we don't know (which we can't, philosophically), then logically, it is the equivalent of (at the very least) voluntary manslaughter. On a national level.

That's why I'm voting for McCain, hoping that he can take us in the direction where it is indeed a crime to murder babies. Even if it's in small steps.