I’m not Lena Dunham. I’m not going to tell you my first time was amazing, or compare casting a ballot to making love.
But I’m going to tell you to vote for love.
Let me explain – there is a meme that we’re in a cold civil war. So far I agree. I just don’t agree with the definitions of the sides. PJ O’Rourke once defined the sides as people with too many guns against people with too many cats.
This leaves me, as usual, in the middle. I am religious, but not evangelical (note I am not saying I am “spiritual” – I am traditionally religious). I am a first generation immigrant from a country the feds consider “Latin.” I am economically conservative, and I have a rather rigid definition of my OWN morality, but I am a science fiction author, which means I am friends with people in same-sex relationships, in group relationships and in “yes.” I do kitten rescue and volunteer, I am an inveterate mentor, but I would rather have glass shoved into my eyes than work for something like “America corps” or have mandatory volunteerism instituted. I try to eat right, but not what the government thinks I should eat. I dress I think attractively, but I am a writer. I can get a little… “different.” I live in a neighborhood where I can walk a bunch of places, but I drive an SUV. Then there’s the guns and cats. Yes both. There is no law against it.
Over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion our American Cold Civil War hinges on just one thing: Love of the US – as instituted, according to our constitutional principles.
I have friends who are married heterosexuals, in the suburbs, who think America is a villain and should be brought low. I have friends who are gay, or Buddhist, or seventh day vegetarian pagans but who love this country with every breath in their bodies. Many of them are veterans and bled for this country. Many of them realize too that our system is the best protection for odd ball minorities.
That dividing line in the cold civil war runs through love of the constitution, love of this country as the founders intended, not as some communitarian mirage.
Those who want the communitarian mirage hate us as we are and want us brought low.
Unfortunately those are the people in power now. The people who believe if we become poorer the rest of the world gets richer. This is a ridiculous and pernicious fantasy. It never was. It will never be.
If they succeed in their aim, the world will be a horrible, unsafe, poor place.
But they don’t know that, and they will try to apologize abroad, to let terrorists have their way. They will bankrupt us and bring down our standard of living. They think they’re doing what’s best for the world.
Forget the world. Do what is best for us, and the world will follow. I know in Portugal when America was in trouble, we suffered.
So this election – in the next day and a half, if you’re on the side that loves America, I want you to wrest the controls from the people who hate America, from those who are trying to bring us low to benefit the world.
I want you to go vote for Mitt. He has other reasons to recommend him: he knows business, he might be able to turn us round. We know Obama won’t. He’ll just pile on the debt.
But the important thing about Mitt is that he’s on our side. He loves our country.
Go out and vote for him. Do it for me. Do it for you. Do it for our side in the cold civil war.
But most of all, do it for love. For love of our country, our constitution, our founding fathers.
And if you’re in the right Congressional District in Utah you can literally vote for Love Mia Love.
Sarah you give me hope, thank you for all your writing.
I visited Independence Hall in Philadelphia earlier in the year. It was sad to see tourists lined up for a chance to take pictures in front of the Liberty Bell while there was no wait to see the early copies of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I would guess that the majority of the people living in the US don’t quite get the idea of natural rights vs. government rights.
I pray that the turnout of people who love the United States as a constitutional republic turn out to vote in numbers that overwhelm voters who side with the progressives. I’m convinced that our side needs to show up and vote in huge numbers even in the states where there is little doubt about the election outcome. We need to make our vote totals too large for the media elites to ignore. Paint the flyover country deep dark red.
I posted this on my personal FB timeline, last night:
—————————————————–
My friends … I have limited my political posts on my Timeline over the last several weeks, to avoid annoying those tired of the discussion. The vast majority of my political posts have been channeled through the page of my “alter ego”, Ritchie The Riveter.
But I’m going to ask your indulgence tonight … for in my view, the problems we are currently dealing with in our governance, in our economy, and in securing our future, all stem from the fundamental problem described in the link I am posting below.
This is a problem that, if we do not deal with it prudently, will drive this nation into a persistent, if not permanent, decline that will hang over us and our posterity.
There is FAR more than a dime’s worth of difference between opposing candidates, from President on down, when it comes to how they deal with this fundamental problem … for one side of the Left/Right divide sees this problem as a feature, and not a bug.
This is why I will be voting for a Presidential candidate that, even though he is too close to the professional/political complex for my taste, will deal with this issue with far more prudence than his opponent, who doesn’t really see it as a problem.
Many of you have already read this … but for those who have not, please read it, and make it part of your INFORMED decision in the voting booth tomorrow, as I have done.
It is why Mitt Romney has my vote.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/ritchie-the-riveter/outsourcing-is-the-problem-but-not-the-way-you-might-think/416571378389947
Thanks Sarah,
As a Libertarian (by most standards socially liberal, yet conservative on fiscal and governance issues; especially federalism), I appreciate seeing a diveristy of opinion even within ‘our’ coalition.
Best Regards,
THANK YOU!
Sarah, you are correct about “love” for a Constitutional America. Read Thomas Woods’ “Who Killed the Constitution?” (ca. 2008) and you will learn that what you love is dead. Obama’s victory (not known at the time of your writing the article) is the lid on the coffin. Executive orders will be the mode of ruling. If Congress goes along or not is not of importance. I, alas, cannot find joy with your very much appeciated “love” for America. I had it once too. Let me reflect:
You show yourself to be open to the “odd” groups, Liberatrian (?), and socially free. Somehow you find that not to be in opposition to your religious orientation. But, is all that social tolerance (evolutionarily) viable? Consider: Germany has a birthrate of 3.34 children per woman, whereas 2.1 is necessary for survival. What is true of Germany is true of all of Europe. Europe is quite socially liberal if not libertarian, yet it constitutes a culture of death because its cultural values lead to non-survival. In other words, unless those sharing common cultural values reproduce themselves with children and raise them in a family situation (which is not being done well in Germany or elsewhere in most of Europe), such persons are living culturally in a socient destined for death. It is simple math. If the non-reproduction is a function of cultural values, said value are those of death (not of those having kicks now, just of the future “those”). Am I wrong here? I think not and what I have just expressed forms the basis for a question or two directed at you or those in accord with your position.
Are those people with whom you associate purusing a lifestyle that is informed by cultural values that lead the culture to reproduce itself? Will homosexual marriages, for instance, be a source for reproduction. Remember, the birth rate in the US is around 2.1, i.e., for 2010. Will Obama’s birthcontrol and abortion policies contribute to producing a lower rate? Now, does the lifestyle you seem to be advocating enable simple reproduction? If it does, it is viable. If not, it portends cultural death. So, what will be or is the birthrate of your peer group? What will most probably be the birthrate of your lifesyle? If you do not obtain at least 2.1 children per woman, your “love” (and how I appreciate it) is unfruitful and, willy-nilly, a love for cultural death.
Ooops! I made a mistake in typing. Germany had in 2011 a birthrate of 1.34 children per child. Old eyes do not always type corrrectly. Pardon!
This is becoming sickening. Germany had a birthrate of 1.34 children per WOMAN. There I finally got it straight (I hope).
Sarah, I appreciate this post, and the way you understand communitarianism is the same as the way I understand it. Did you not know that the Mormon Church is based in communitarianism? His religion made Romney a communitarian candidate too. The issue of communitarian laws, standards and norms was not brought up in this “contest”… because the last thing Americans will ever get a chance to vote on is their common communitarian future. http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2012/10/early-mormonism-communitarian-values.html