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.”
