During the campaigns leading up to an election, candidates spend a lot of time and effort telling voters what they can expect after the election. Right now, John McCain and Barack Obama are busy explaining what they will do if elected. Sometimes they address problems we all agree on and sometimes they try to persuade us that we should recognize a problem they want to solve. At the most basic level, they want us to believe that in any situation they will do the right thing for the country. As voters, this is what most of us want. The trick is to know what the right thing is.

I recently learned two fifty-dollar words for some common-sense ideas. I came across them in an article about ethics.

The first word is teleological. In ethical situations, a teleological thinker will ask, what is the expected outcome of this choice? This person judges whether a decision is right or wrong entirely on the basis of the fallout. To do that requires that the person believe he knows what the fallout will be, which is a different problem. Teleological thinkers usually feel pretty certain that “if A” they can predict “then B.” This is a very common way of approaching ethical choices in political discourse.

The second word is deontological. Given an ethical choice, a deontological thinker will not worry about the outcome, because that person believes that morality is a choice among absolutes. Deontological thinkers believe that murder is wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally wrong. They may dispute the definition of the word murder in order to get around problems with situations such as self-defense and protection of innocent bystanders, but for true deontologists, if the question is the morality of murder, then the answer is that murder is wrong. Political discussions are pretty scornful of the idea of absolutes, especially moral absolutes.

One hot topic in politics that touches many people’s lives is abortion. Teleologists approach the question of abortion by asking whether the outcome of an abortion is good. They will ask if it is right to compel a woman to give birth to a baby when the woman does not want the baby. They wonder if a baby should even be born into a family that cannot or will not take care of it. The moral questions associated with conception do not enter into the discussion, because teleologists only concern themselves with the outcome. They won’t judge the wisdom of a person who carelessly or ignorantly or willfully becomes pregnant without a commitment to protect and care for the baby. A teleologist simply says that the decision to abort or not abort the pregnancy should be based entirely on the morality of the outcome. The proponents of “a woman’s right to choose” believe that a woman has a right to evaluate the impact of a birth and make her choice to continue or end the pregnancy on that basis. The position that there is a natural right to choose abortion is based on a teleological approach to the ethical choices associated with abortion.

There is an opposing viewpoint that asserts that from the moment of conception, a baby has the right to life. This point of view asserts that the absolute right to life trumps any evaluation of the outcome of a birth. A deontological thinker disregards the impact of a birth in a family that does not want the child. From the deontological point of view, a woman who is pregnant does not have a right to ask if she wants the baby; the baby’s life absolutely trumps any consideration of the impact of a baby in her life. In fact, because life has absolute priority, the life of the mother may not even be considered. As with teleological thinkers, some deontological thinkers define their terms in order to consider unique situations, but a strictly deontological viewpoint considers that life is an absolute value that transcends the worth of any other consideration.

Looking at the question of abortion this way may help us to imagine how these two distinct approaches to ethical questions will make it difficult for any candidate to assume that he knows the “right” solution to any of our national problems. Most political solutions to problems are quite obviously teleological. They deal with outcomes. Nothing is absolute. Both sides of an issue may be accommodated to some degree, but in a political solution, nobody gets to be completely whole. It is teleology that allows us to make any progress at all in political solutions.

The reason for that is that while there are many people who think of ethical problems as if there were an absolute right answer, there are usually many different perceptions of the absolute right answer. Using the subject of abortion as a sample of this problem, we can all recall more than one point of view on the side of “right to life” and more than one on the side of “a woman’s right to choose.” Some who believe in preserving “life” at all costs recognize that two lives are at risk in some pregnancies; they acknowledge that it is not always possible to save both the mother and the baby, and in their accommodations of this truth, they temporarily allow themselves to think teleologically. In such a case, even the most fervent absolutists will concede that someone must decide whether the outcome is better if the mother survives or if the baby survives. As for those who advocate freedom of choice, most of them recognize that repeated abortion is detrimental to a woman’s health and will advocate for the woman to make a choice about the desired outcome long before conception takes place. They won’t say that it is absolutely wrong for a woman to refuse to plan, but the whole push for sex education in schools grows out of their recognition that there really is a better outcome when conception is prevented than when it is aborted. In the public forum on the topic of abortion, it would be tough to strictly classify the people in the various camps as teleological or deontological, but understanding those terms helps to understand the way adherents participate in the discussion.

To recap, in a discussion of a national problem which must be resolved by government leaders, people picture solutions largely based on their own perception either that there is an absolute right thing to do or that the right thing to do depends on how we get to the right outcome. This is the reason that everyone can agree that a person sick with leukemia “needs” medical treatment, but there is a huge question and disagreement about whether that person has a “right” to medical treatment. Is healthcare a fundamental human right? Any individual will see the answer to that question within a personal frame of reference that decides right and wrong as either a teleological problem or a deontological problem.

There are other pressing questions in the public forum.

On the subject of petroleum:

Why is the price of gasoline rising so fast? Has something evil happened that produced this result or is it the natural consequence of market processes? Should government take some action to prevent gasoline prices from rising so high? Should oil companies be allowed to drill in ANWR? Would drilling in ANWR have a bad outcome for wildlife there? Should the outcomes for wildlife trump the outcomes for people? Is there any absolute right and wrong in the petroleum market?

On the war in Iraq:

Was the US right to invade Iraq? Does it any longer matter whether the US was right to invade Iraq? Was there an absolute moral imperative to invade Iraq? Does the outcome that eliminated Saddam Hussein as a threat to world peace have greater value than the perceptions of some Iraqis that we invaded and occupied their country for no reason? How is Iraq related to worldwide terrorism? Does it matter if Iraq harbored and supported terrorism? Is there a number of military casualties that is one too many? If so, have we passed that number? Does the number of casualties have any bearing on the moral rectitude of our campaign in Iraq? Is our campaign right for Iraq? For the US? For the world?

On the subject of the economy:

Is it true that the US is on the verge of a recession? Already in a recession? Headed for a disastrous depression? What is a recession? A depression? Should the government rescue homeowners who can’t pay their mortgages? Should the government rescue lenders who made loans to people who can’t pay? Is it good for the citizens if the government takes action to stimulate and manage the economy? Is the outcome good? Is there a morally absolute right thing for the government to do here?

All this conversation about the issues is completely disconnected from the Constitutional considerations. When we consider the Constitution as we consider the moral issues, the discussion becomes even more complex.

I have said all of this in order to say one more thing. People need to have sorted out their own thoughts on these subjects before they begin to evaluate the candidates. People need to know how they themselves approach moral, ethical and Constitutional questions before they try to evaluate the candidates. If a voter has no position on an issue, then the candidates run the conversation. That should not happen. When a candidate speaks, voters should already have a foundation on which to determine if the candidate is proposing solutions that are acceptable within moral, ethical and Constitutional boundaries. The voter must think before asking what the candidate thinks.

I have done this homework, and I will be voting for John McCain. I have concluded that even though I don’t agree with him on all the absolutes, his personal history and public life give me some hope that I will agree with his leadership more often than not. There is no other candidate who meets that standard. I consider that Obama has demonstrated profound emptiness of moral standards. He has repeatedly dropped positions and dumped associations as they became unpopular, not as he made reasoned moral choices. He advocates a completely socialist agenda for his actions if he is elected, an agenda in direct conflict with the concept of government written into our Constitution. I reject Obama completely. I will vote for John McCain. I recommend that you do the same.

In Ontario, the government decrees that cigarettes for sale in stores must be kept out of sight of customers. The product is legal, no one will be arrested if the product is sold, but whoever wants it must request it without needing to see it first. Ostensibly, the real target of the rule is children, because the government does not want children to be lured into smoking by seeing the product. Some people point out that the same government which enforces this oppressive rule runs liquor stores where a wide variety of attractive alcohol products are in plain sight, inviting children to observe adult shoppers and be enticed to want the same. Critics also point out that the government has no objection to magazine displays that include pornographic material easily seen by children. One Reuters reporter said that “advocates say the seemingly draconian measure will eventually work, and is too important to get bogged down by morality.”[1]

Morality is a word seldom spoken with respect in contemporary discourse. It is mentioned with scorn and distaste as something inconvenient and oppressive. The subject of abortion used to be a question of morality, but after abortion was reclassified as a fundamental human right, then we could talk about it endlessly without getting bogged down by morality. That change must surely be documented as a huge forward step for civilization.

Socialist governments seldom permit themselves to be bogged down by mere morality. The socialist government of the Soviet Union regularly arrested people who suffered the mental disease of dissent from the government position and sent them to facilities where they could be re-educated and made well from this disease. The fact that this government did not get bogged down in morality permitted it to avoid any feeling of shame for the fact that many of the “patients” died as a result of the therapy intended to return them to happy, obedient citizenship.

The socialist government of China doesn’t get bogged down by morality, either. Every Chinese family is limited to one legal child, and any other children are illegal. I think it is one of the supremely unfunny comedies of the day. Here is a socialist government telling healthy, productive, loving families that they may have only one legal child, while in our country, the socialists (often hiding behind the name of the Democrat Party) advocate that we permit people who have mental and physical disabilities to have as many children as they would like for the rest of us to support. In fact, our resident socialists are the ones who say that busy professionals should have the right to choose abortion rather than be bogged down with a baby, while people who are unable to support themselves because of mental or physical disability, or even because they don’t want to work, are free to bog down the rest of us with as many babies as they please. Socialists appear to prefer that people who want babies due to the notion that passing puberty is like passing the test to be an adult should have lots of children, while people are equally immature, but already pregnant, should abort healthy ones. Talk about bogged down. I don’t know how the socialists sort out all these policies. To me, they seem like an incredible rat’s nest. I yearn for the light of morality to be shined on this sort of thinking.

This is why I am very disturbed with my choices in this year’s presidential election. Someone told me last week that he could comfortably vote for either candidate, because they are so much alike. I fear that I cannot comfortably voter for either candidate, precisely because they are so much alike.

The cigarette situation in Ontario is a microcosm of socialist government we would all do well to study. The Constitution of the USA includes a Bill of Rights in which it is clearly stated that all powers not specifically ceded to the federal government in the Constitution remain with the states and the people. That concept is implicit in the original document, but many people felt that unless it was spelled out, power-hungry politicians would use the federal government as an excuse to oppress and rob the citizens. They thought that this amendment would mean that the federal government could not act outside the powers granted in the Constitution without another amendment that defined and limited that power.

Those who wisely foresaw the necessity of this amendment would be appalled to see how much power the citizens and the states have now ceded to the federal government without benefit of any Constitutional amendment. I’ll share just one example of this problem.

Every car is now manufactured with seat belts. Every state today has a law requiring that at least the driver must wear a seat belt. This is not a federal law; it is a state law. The federal government has no right to pass laws regulating traffic. Only states can do that. How is it that every state now has such a law?

It all started with the idea that it wasn’t fair for some states to receive less money from the government than others. It just wasn’t fair. Revenue had to be shared. A ground-breaking law was passed that pulled money from every state according to a formula that reflected its ability to pay, and all states received “equal” benefits back. It meant that states which could not afford their share of the costs for a federal highway could have that highway anyhow. All the states would contribute to a big pot of money. States with more money than they “needed” would receive less of it back, and states with less would get more of it so they could have their “fair share” of federal highways and other things. I am starting to hate the word “fair,” because every time I hear it, I know that somebody is figuring out a way to take what I have and give it to someone else.

After revenue-sharing was invented and deployed nationwide, it seemed good to some socialists in Congress to worry about the safety of drivers on the highways. They knew that they didn’t have the right to worry about state highways, city streets and back roads with no identity, but that didn’t stop them. They concluded that if everyone wore seat belts, then highway accident fatalities would be vastly reduced. Many states felt that personal safety was a personal matter, and many states felt that citizens had a right to decide for themselves if they wanted to use seat belts. The socialists in Congress resented this individual freedom to take a risk. They wanted every state to require every car to have seat belts and to require every person to use them. They did not believe that anyone had a right to accept this kind of personal risk. They remembered that every federal highway was paid for by funds in the revenue-sharing program. The federal government was paying for those highways, and they saw a way to enforce the behavior they desired by manipulating those funds which were supposed to be shared in a “fair” manner.

Only a confirmed conservative would believe that the strategy they came up with was unfair. After all, weren’t these seat belt advocates completely devoted to protecting all citizens, even if the citizens didn’t ask them to? The strategy was that Congress passed a bill that prohibited the distribution of highway funds to states without seat belt laws. In other words, they were going to go ahead and take money from all the states, but they were not going to give money back to states without a seat belt law. It is no surprise to anyone that the states lined up, saluted and passed seat belt laws.

This same strategy has been used over and over again. Money which never should have left the states is vacuumed up and dumped in the wastebin of Congress. There, the representatives and senators mull over all the ways they can exert power over states and citizens without any amendment to the Constitution, and without getting bogged down in morality, too, I might add. They exert the power by withholding money until they get what they want.

This strategy would not work if people had rejected the concept of revenue-sharing in the first place. That idea was sold as an act of “fairness.” It’s not fair that some states are rich and some are poor. We hear the same thing in the education arena. It’s not fair that some school districts are rich and some are poor. In the name of “fairness” the states and the citizens have been robbed time and time again. In the name of “fairness” our country is burdened with taxes on taxes, and our citizens are defrauded of their rights to liberty and personal freedom.

The two candidates for president in the election of 2008 are much too alike for me to be able to choose between them on the basis of their positions on the Constitution. They both speak the socialist Robin Hood mantra – steal from the rich to care for the poor. Both of them pose a danger to our country in my opinion. I must choose on some other basis.

Therefore, I will choose to vote for McCain. I want him to change, and I hope that wise leaders in the Republican Party will help him do that. I respect his personal history as a POW. Surviving that experience with a will to continue serving his country tells me a lot about the man. Not his politics, just the man. Since I can’t vote for the candidate who is consistent with my politics, I will vote for the candidate I respect. I'm actually looking for someone who has personal experience in the bog of morality. In that regard, I don’t know what to think of Obama. He hasn’t done anything yet. I can’t even guess if he has any character or personal strength. I do know that he disdains the Constitution.

I will vote for McCain. I hope that enough of us do that to elect him. Then I hope that McCain will see that his constituents want him to preserve and protect the Constitution. I don’t know anything else to hope for.