This Presidents’ Day, I finally sat down and had a good think
about where the current crop of candidates fits in the long run of
America’s chief executives. Any way you look at it, it’s kind of
depressing.
It’s a downer for a number of reasons, and not just because of
how the races have shaken out. Conservatives by and large despise
John McCain, but, seriously, Mitt Romney would have been much
better?
My guess is that if he managed to get the nomination, Romney’d
have rolled up his sleeves and gone after those dreaded moderate
voters with gusto. A year from now, we’d be fighting over
Romneycare instead of Hillarycare.
To be fair, almost anybody would have been a disappointment.
What the activist base of the GOP really wanted was Ronald Reagan,
and he’s been term-limited. The Democrats have gone nostalgic, too.
They either want a second Clinton administration — this time,
minus the sex scandals — or JFK redivivus.
The party faithful pine for larger-than-life leaders, and that
probably isn’t so far from the average American’s expectation. The
candidates do their best to promise the moon and the stars, right
after they’ve depleted the earth. The Arizona senator will vanquish
America’s enemies by land, sea, and air; the Democrats will
vanquish the common cold with their government run healthcare.
What options does that leave for us voters who don’t want a
terribly activist government or a world-historic leader? What if,
instead of a Reagan or a JFK, what we really long for is another
Chester Alan Arthur?
WE WILL SOON be warned against “throwing your vote away” on some
crank third party candidate in the general election. Instead, we
should figure out which of the two major party candidates will do
the least damage, fasten that clothespin, and do our Christian
duty.
Or not. Granted, most votes for non-Big Two candidates really do
seem like wasted votes. We cast those ballots to send a message but
nobody listens. Politicians and pundits and our fellow citizens
simply ignore results that don’t affect the larger contest of R’s
and D’s. But sometimes those statements are still worth it, because
they are important to we the only nominally enfranchised
voters.
That’s why I’m voting for my dad in this year’s presidential
election. I’m not saying any reader should follow my example but
you could do worse, and likely will. Bob Lott is not and has never
been a candidate for any office. If elected, he will not even think
about serving. I doubt he’d give interviews to curious journalists.
In fact, he might not speak to this one for a few weeks after so
public an endorsement.
I’m voting for Bob Lott for two reasons. The first is that he’s
my dad; a vote for your dad simply cannot be a wasted vote, no
matter what the outcome of the election.
The second reason is that he’s on old school conservative. He’s
not political, but what he thinks of as “common sense” is like
screeching nails on a chalkboard to most liberals. As he explains
it, “I’m not very PC.”
Dad thinks the federal government spends way too much money: on
pork; on entitlements; on things that should be the business of
states, if at all; and on too many wars. He spends quite a bit of
time every year helping to raise money for the local crisis
pregnancy center in Bellingham, Washington.
He’s also a Baptist minister, but unlike Mike Huckabee Bob Lott
is a Baptist minister who would never, ever vote to raise your
taxes. He’s the only Rev. I know with a degree in economics (for
the wages of sin is, wait, first carry the decimal).
This is supposedly a “change” year in American politics. Well, I
hear that and I think, here is a man whose whole career has been
devoted to encouraging real change in people’s lives. Government
had almost nothing to do with it. So he gets my respect, and my
vote.
