I’ve been told this. As we approach the 2010 elections, I’m hearing this from some who say they’re on the side of freedom: “If my favorite candidate doesn’t make it on the ballot in November, then I’m not voting.” Or worse, they’ve even said they will vote for the liberal candidate.
Their arguments seem to be either: (1) based on personal moral issue-based conviction, or (2) about allowing their party to fail, so they can send a clear message to “shape up.” I honestly try to understand all points of view, but at this time in our history it is a stretch that I just can’t and won’t reach.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Unless Jesus is on the ballot, we are always voting for the lesser of two evils. Being human, there is no perfect candidate… anyone we elect will eventually fail us. Even our favorites. Which is why we stay actively engaged and keep them all accountable after election day.
Freedom is hanging in the balance, and it’s tipping to the side of defeat… it won’t take much to topple it all the way over to a crushing demise. From where it hangs now, it will take a HUGE continued effort and sacrifice to bring it back to the side of victory and keep it there.
So I ask: If freedom is purposely allowed to fall into defeat, how realistic is it that we will get it back? Does history support this “strategy?” If our founding fathers “stayed home” during the battle against tyranny… would freedom have had victory?
As for me: I’m voting.