Back in January, Dr. James Dobson, a leading conservative Christian activist, said he "could not in good conscience vote for John McCain." He went on say that he "would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances." That's because, among other things, McCain had voted in favor of human embryonic stem cell research and failed to support a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
What a difference six months make! Now, claiming to be "more comfortable with McCain," Dobson is not only considering voting for him, but he is actually thinking about endorsing the Arizona senator. What has changed? Dobson now sees McCain as not such a bad choice compared to the much more liberal Barack Obama. However, by going back on his word, Dobson is risking hurting himself in two ways.
First, it will damage his reputation. It will make him look no different from the politicians he often criticizes. It will expose him as a man who is motivated by political power rather than one who is bound by his conscience. Since he is supposed to be moral leader, he will be perceived as a hypocrite who asks people to do as he says, not as he does. He would no longer be trusted to keep his promises. He will be seen as a pragmatic person who is willing to do or say whatever it takes to help bring about an outcome that he desires.
Second, he is putting himself in jeopardy of being marginalized and losing the very political influence that he seems to be trying to protect. If he ultimately supports McCain after saying that he wouldn't, no one will pay any attention to him the next time he threatens to withhold support from a less-than-conservative candidate seeking the Republican presidential nomination. The party would feel free to nominate such a candidate with the assumption that Dobson would fall in line in time for the general election campaign. Dobson would be a like the boy who cried wolf. He would be like a parent who threatens to punish a child if he does such-and-such, but then doesn't back up his words with actions after the child goes ahead and does it. That parent would lose his power over that child from then on. Likewise, Dobson would lose what remaining influence he has with Republican voters.
Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, amateur political analyst, and blogger from Virginia, USA. He posts a least one article a day to his blog - http://commenterry.blogs.com - on subjects such as current events, politics, technology, society and culture, religion, health and well-being, self improvement, personal finance, trivia, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media. His articles here on SearchWarp represent only a small portion of his work. All of it can be found on his blog. If you like his articles, you'll love his blog.
Terry, good article. This is one of the problems with moral leaders making early personal/political pronouncements, never thinking a tough choice will come along.
Meanwhile, science is showing other ways than embyronic stem cells...thankful for that. Glad to read your article.
» left by Dane Tyner from Tulsa, OK (130 days 4 hours ago.)
Terry, I seriously doubt Dr. Dobson is very concerned about the matters you raise in this article. I remember hearing his adamant comment regarding McCain and immediately wished he hadn’t said that. Too much is at stake to abstain from the political process this time. You are probably right that he came to reconsider his position, based on the probability that his influence on many conservatives to vote “none of the above” would give the election to Obama. Perhaps many people will “perceive him as a hypocrite”, but I will not be among them. It is not hypocrisy to change one’s mind because you have considered other facts. Finally, I am sure James Dobson is quite familiar with attempts to “marginalize” his influence and does not make decision based on whether or not it may get him more marginalized. He is a great man of integrity and could have very easily avoided involvement in the controversial issues of our day. But many of these controversial issues impact the family. In fact, it would have been hypocritical for him to express passion for people and the families in which they live and be silent about such things as pornography, abortion, the usurpation of parental authority by the state, and the attempt to redefine marriage.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
