Why Dale Ahlquist is Wrong about Mitt Romney

Dale Ahlquist is dead wrong and we have a duty to support Mitt Romney and the Republican Party in the upcoming general election. Here at A Sensible Life we cannot shy away from pointing out error, even when expressed by one whom we otherwise hold in high regard.

I was saddened to see Dale Ahlquist’s editorial in the May/June issue of Gilbert Magazine. As his thesis Mr. Ahlquist asserted that he would not vote for Mitt Romney in the upcoming presidential election. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Ahlquist. Unfortunately, I found his reasoning in this case very weak and his conclusion to be both dangerous and unsound.

Mr. Ahlquist spent much of his editorial describing how George Bush became the Republican Party nominee for president in 2000 and dedicated additional space listing the deficiencies of the Bush presidency, ignoring the pro-life, pro-freedom successes of that same presidency. He admits his cynicism toward the Republican Party. Perhaps his uncurbed cynicism has blinds him to the real differences between the only two parties in this country who have any possibility of winning a presidential election. His uncurbed cynicism leads also to his unsupported assertion that the nomination of Mitt Romney is, “all about money.”

Mr. Ahlquist justly draws a parallel between the big business tendencies of the Republican Party and the big government tendencies of the Democrat Party. He also points out, correctly, that the Republican Party has contributed to the expansion of government rather than succeeding in reducing its scope. However, in the interest of making his case, Mr. Ahlquist overstates the role of Republican Party in growing government. He also ignores the support from the Republican Party for small business and fails to recognize that it is always the Democrat Party that pushes hardest for government expansion and that the Republican Party when in power generally slows or stops the growth, though rarely succeeding in actually reducing government reach. He also ignores the profound differences between the parties with regard to political philosophy; differences to be seen in the Republican view of the Constitution as an enshrinement of individuals’ rights and a curb to government power. This view of the Constitution is most evident in Republicans’ appointments to the courts, which for the most part have been excellent in the last thirty years. There have been some disappointments in this area but no Democrat would ever have appointed Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito or Antonin Scalia.

All of this said, the most glaring and disappointing deficiency in Mr. Ahlquist’s editorial is his failure to recognize the importance of the upcoming general election in the context of the ongoing battle for the soul of our country. He fails altogether to draw any distinction between the two viable parties in our country with regard to issues such as the secularization of the political philosophy of our national government, defense of life, protection of marriage, human freedom, freedom of conscience, regulatory and tax burdens on small business, etc. Is Mitt Romney perfect on these issues? No rational and informed individual would claim that he is. However, there are members of Congress who understand what needs to be done in these areas and stand ready to do so. Mitt Romney may not be the boldest leader on all the issues that lie before us but mark this well, without a Republican in the White House (and Romney is our only option at this point) there is absolutely no chance that the good men and women whom we have elected to Congress will make any progress on the road to fixing the ills of our country.

It is an impoverished view of our civic responsibility to suggest that because we do not wholly agree with the results of the nomination process we will refuse to vote in the general election (or we will vote for some unelectable third party candidate).

I cannot state this too strongly, a vote for President Obama is a vote for the current steep downward trajectory of our country; a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for a presidency that will at worst decrease this trajectory and a presidency that has the potential (even if that potential be slim) to turn the trajectory upward. Make no mistake about it, to fail to vote for Mitt Romney in November is to cast half a vote for President Obama. This truth remains, no matter how loudly you claim non- support of the current administration.

Mr. Ahlquist to many stands as the arbiter of Chestertonian thought in the United States. It saddens me that he would publicly take this position and by doing so potentially draw many votes away from a much-needed victory in the battle for the American soul. Don’t forget, Mr. Ahlquist, God can write straight even with bent instruments like Mitt Romney and you and me. I will close with a remark of Chesterton’s from What’s Wrong with the World, “Men have never wearied of political justice; they have wearied of waiting for it.” Please do not weary of waiting for political justice here in the United States. And please do not express weariness, despair and cynicism by failing to do all necessary to replace the current secular administration with one that holds a brighter potential.

Comments

3 responses to “Why Dale Ahlquist is Wrong about Mitt Romney”

  1. Steve IJH Avatar
    Steve IJH

    I couldn’t agree more, Mr. Anderson. We can hope for a more perfect Conservative leader in the next election, but for now Mitt Romney is the one we have. Whatever failings Romney may have, I’m confident we’ll see better Supreme Court nominations and other appointees under Romney than under Obama.

    Just getting rid of the Holder Justice Department is reason enough to justify supporting a Republican who might not be the ideal candidate. I can name a dozen other areas where just stopping the negative direction in which the current administration is leading us would be an important enough goal, even if all the right solutions aren’t immediately adopted.

    You said it well: reelecting Obama means continuing the downward and alarming trajectory of our country on so many fronts. This election is crucial.

    I’m not sure whether Romney can overcome Obama’s advantages in the math of the electoral map and the effects of pandering to unions and other special interest groups that is now a hallmark of Democratic strategy. But I don’t think we can afford to lose the votes of people who oppose Obama’s policies but who find Romney somewhat short of the ideal candidate.

  2. Padre Antonio Avatar
    Padre Antonio

    According to Catholic moral theology of the orthodox, commonsensical variety, Catholics will have to choose the lesser of two evils when they go to vote in 2012. This is no time for melancholia, Mr. Ahlquist.

    The ideal is sometimes the enemy of the good. We Christians and men of common sense will not have the opportunity to do the ideal in November, but as we step into the voting booth, we are still bound to do the good.

    1. Joe Anderson Avatar
      Joe Anderson

      Thanks for visiting the site and thanks for the comments Padre!

      I was thinking just this morning that I might go back and add to this little essay, pointing out that very truth of the good versus the ideal. Now I don’t have to…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *