Dobson is Wrong – Maybe
Soon after my article “Dobson is Right” was published, I became aware that the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family is, “as an individual,” breaking ranks with a resolution he is involved with as a leader. There can be no mistake that “more than 50 pro-family leaders” met in Salt Lake City and almost unanimously agreed that they “will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate” if “neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life.” You can read the report in Dr. Dobson’s own words by clicking here. My previous article (click here) applauds the group’s decision to choose loyalty to their values over loyalty to a political party; a fundamental idea that lies at the very heart of democracy.
His new statements are somewhat difficult to resolve. Speaking with Laura Ingraham (click here for audio) he was adamant in opposition to a third-party approach, pointing out that “I stood before about 50 of my colleagues in Salt Lake – and I spoke against the idea of starting a third party.” “I have never, ever said in my life that I wanted to start a third party or that I would support a third party. They don’t work.” Then leaning back toward reasons to support the “minor-party” resolution, he said “I could not and would not vote for anyone who’s pro-abortion and I also couldn’t vote for anyone who didn’t favor constitutional protection of marriage.” Before proceeding to comment about President Bush and individual candidates, he adds; “By the way, I need to say that I’m speaking for myself and not Focus on the Family because we’re into political issues here and Focus on the Family is not a political organization.”
I need to give Dr. Dobson the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of how little room for doubt there seems to be that there is some “flip-flopping” in his statements, I may have found some. Working to get the quotes right, I listened to what he said again and again. First off, he has not moved from the general position: values are more important than politics. Secondly, the rumor that the group might start their own political party is inconsistent with what the Salt Lake resolution actually says. Thirdly, the resolution is about the possibility of joining “others in voting for a minor-party candidate,” not about campaigning or “supporting” a third party. How Dr. Dobson casts his vote is a personal matter and we have no right to an answer, but he has made it clear on what grounds he will not vote for someone; consistent to an extent with the resolution.
Sticky questions remain however, and it may take another round of interviews or articles to fully understand his stance as a leader rather than an individual. The Salt Lake resolution got “almost unanimous” support. I am not sure whether even in that vote that the public has a right to know whether Dr. Dobson supported the resolution or not, but the result has been released to the public. Why do that if it wasn’t meant for public discussion? In fact, why engage in political activities at all, as leader of an organization, if the organization is not political?
He has said that he will not vote for anyone who does not support his values. What then if candidates from neither of the two major parties support his values? Will he not vote? We do not have the right to know the answer of course, but we can ask; why throw your vote away? Why not vote in support your values rather than simply not voting against them? Why not vote for someone with your values, regardless of the political party they belong to? The resolution addresses the question and provides an answer. Family advocates will still vote even if neither major party supports their values. They will join others in the only alternative, by voting for someone in a “minor party.”
Possibly related posts...
| More from Roger F. Gay
Stumble It!
Well, James Dobson isn’t running for public office. The problem is however, that putting too much faith in beating Hillary avoids the problem that electing Republicans produces the same actual results. Once we strip through the packaging, one side doing it “for the children” and the other side spending huge amounts and creating enormous intrusive arbitrary bureaucracies to save us money and keep the government off our backs; in the end, the only substantive arguments between them are over who gets the credit.
Dr. Dobson as much as admitted on a recent television appearance with Sean Hannity that he’d rather see Hillary win the presidency than Rudy Giuliani because having her in office would anger social conservatives. In other words, a Hillary administration would be good for business… help inspire the “social conservative” crusaders to fight the good fight to stop gay marriage and abortion (no doubt by financially supporting ministries like “Focus on the Family”). These may be the only two issues that matter to Dr. Dobson, who has built his ministry empire on such issues, but many of us are also VERY concerned about creeping socialism in this country and the devasting effects of having another Clinton running this country. I suppose such concerns as higher taxes and socialized medicine don’t matter to a guy like Dobson, but for the rest of us average citizens, there are more important issues affecting our day-to-day lives than whether or not gay couples can get married!
ping for Lloyd
Wish I’d written it down quickly – in relativism: the only moral imperative is to conform. That’s deep.
Star Parker is now testifying about how the left attaches itself to conflict and political movement to instill its own values. Her subject is the Civil Rights Movement, but the model can be recognized as the same one that’s been used again and again, most famously perhaps in preparing for the Bolshevik Revolution.
Alan Sears is a good speaker too. Wouldn’t it be great if more left-leaning people were watching C-SPAN instead of re-runs of That 70s Show. I’m sure there are some that lean left just because they don’t know any better.
Hey Jim. I hadn’t seen your comment earlier after this topic fell off the front page. As coincidence would have it, I was just going to post a comment about Ron Paul. I just finished listening to him give a speech at an FRC event shown on C-SPAN. His speaking engagements should not be limited to the campaign stump. You don’t ordinarily hear a Republican admitting the erosion of national soveriegnty and individual rights – especially declaring that conservatives have been tolerant for too long and it’s time to turn things around.
The future of America depends on Ron Paul’s election and his subsequent protection. Change your voter registration to Republican to help nominate Ron Paul, and tell your friends and family to do the same.
There is no other candidate that:
* Defends the Constitution with his words and his deeds.
* Has the guts to lambaste Bernanke and the Federal Reserve for destroying our economy.
* Is committed to getting our service men out of Iraq now.
* Wants illegal immigration to stop and illegal immigrants to go.
* Wants to eliminate the IRS and taxes on wages.
* Wants to put a stop to the National ID and SPP.
*Commands the votes of so many college students who are desperate to restore our government.
Federal Reserve: http://www.voteronpaul.com/videos/ron_paul_092207_demands_moral_justification.html
Monetary Policy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-W-ef7GmT4
IRS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCgHRoB6xUw
Healthcare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjuEdJ0DAGc
Entitlement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9JIwxhRfug
Civil Liberties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6se9_wCZ2z0
Second Amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdxTg9×3Mbg
James D Untershine
Control Systems Designer
Long Beach, CA 90804
gzs@gndzerosrv.com
http://www.gndzerosrv.com
I heard they had something like that. It was one of those unavoidable topics of conversation with Swede I went to Denmark with. In Swedish, it would be called Etiska Råd, and there are a bunch of those related to different areas. In Sweden however, they can be within private structures such as “the advertising branch” or an “ansvarsnämd” to monitor how businesses treat people.
I looked up ombudsman on Wikipedia (since I’ve never actually been involved with them). There are different ombudsman offices in Sweden, depending on the area of government to be addressed. It’s purpose is to investigate and negotiate problems individuals have with government agencies and bureacrats.
Roger, a bit unrelated to this particular discussion perhaps – but one of my old colleagues from my Danish days wrote back about a point in our earlier discussion on another board.
He referred to that Danish entity that I could recall the name of as the “Etisk Raad” or “Ethical Council” directly translated.
This Etisk Raad discusses, intervenes and adjudicates in national moral, social, and legal issues.
This institution is the one that I described as “the mother of all court of appeals” for Danish society.
Interestingly, my friend mentioned that this Etisk Raad was the largest organization of that type in Denmark. Apparently there are smaller organizations fulfilling similar roles, perhaps in more specialized areas.
Thomas Paine and other great leaders “gave us freedom in the form of a 2 party system”????
Where did you hear that? It isn’t right.
“Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing.”—Thomas Paine
Paine and other great leaders gave us freedom in the form of a 2 party system of government. Just as, we have 2 and only 2 parents; one mother and one father. It pains me to read that religious zealots and other self-righteous so-called leaders continuously fail to grasp reality. We need leaders with high moral character. Romney is one of those leaders. There are others, and they are free to lead. Dobson, unfortunately, is no leader. He promotes fear, he’s stupid and he does not seek freedom or liberty for all. We are free to make a choice; and the best advice is “choose wisely”.
Ron Paul seems to be gaining in grass roots support.
Is this due to Americas eternal love affair with the underdog,
the minority, the dark horse candidate?
I think not. Well, at least not entirely.
Other no-nonsense, business model folk from his idealogical
neck of the woods seem to have been spot-on concerning the
inherent evils of NAFTA and it’s champions, which are leaving
all sorts of intertwined piles of messy poop tracked all over the
living room carpet.
I’m guessing that we’d be seeing more of him in the Main Stream Media
if it wasn’t the MSM conducting the “polls” deciding who’s important
enough to get face time.
“He will shrink government, reduce taxes, and stimulate strong fair foreign trade.”
Romney? From Mass.? Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You might want to check in with the freakin’ tsunami of ex-Mass. refugees moving to NH, and especially Vt. on that!
I think you should chat with some fathers’ advocates in Massachusetts before deciding about Romney. The state has a very bad record on family issues and it’s definitely not all the fault of the courts there.
Me? I don’t like anyone at this point. I’m just a grumpy old man. If nothing good comes along within the two-party system, I’ll practice what I preach. Stephen Baskerville endorsed the Libertarian Party in a past election. I’ll take a look at that and watch to see if he gives his endorsement to anyone this time.
Gov. of Mass, but grew up in Michigan and moved to Utah. Mass came from running Baine Capital. He bleeds red, not blue. Also, has proven leadership talent.
Roger, who do you like?
Oh come on — the Gov. of Mass???? You are joking, aren’t you?
I really think Romney is the best candidate for men. Why, because he has several sons, and will keep them in mind when passing legislation (clit-ton and hairy bush have none). He has strong fiscal discipline attitudes, and will work to balance the budget. He wants a strong economy, military, and family values (fathers included). He will shrink government, reduce taxes, and stimulate strong fair foreign trade. He is bright and articulate and can win in New England and Michigan (blue areas of the country). If he can win the other traditional ‘red states’ it is a done deal. Also, he is pro-life.