EDITORIAL- Bill Collier – If Mitt Romney becomes the next President, what will America look like in 2013 and, for those who support him, or at least his promises, will that mean that “all is well” with the republic?
Romney’s key promise, at least for his supporters, is that he will repeal Obamcare: but he also promises to replace the Affordable Healthcare Act with a new law which, he says, will include a provision to mandate against denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions and that will mandate allowing adults under age 26 to stay on their parent’s insurance.
In other words, Romneycare will replace Obamacare and, while it might be an improvement in terms of regulations and taxes, it will still be “more government” involvement in healthcare than was the case before Obamacare was passed. For proponents of government control over healthcare, as a means to “help” people, Romneycare might be a step back from Obamacare, but it looks like it might not be as dramatic a step back as strict Constitutionalists might hope for.
Romney is not going to take away anyone’s pensions or social security, or Medicaid or Medicare. Those who claim he will are literally telling bold-faced lies in order to scare people into voting for Romney. But for those, such as myself, who don’t think government has ANY business in these area (although I advocate a gradual, phased pull-back from this sector of society by Washington insiders) Romney is not likely to reverse the trend towards Big Government control over everything in our society, including not only the purely civic matters but also the sacred, the social, and the market.
One area where I have been critical of the Republicans in general is their utter lack of concern for the blighted communities, particularly the inner cities, in our nation. While the GOP are fond of saying that their policies of a free market and less government will magically help these communities, this ignores three key factors-
- these communities have been run by one-party regimes that have adopted the very destructive policies and ideas of progressive secular socialism coupled with a virtual hedonism that have made them internally corrupt and decadent
- many of the citizens of these communities face outright, but often cloaked, racism which, coupled with a lack of education and a local culture that is increasingly missing morality, discipline, and accountability, eliminates many opportunities
- the core economic factors that could help these communities, including infrastructure, rule of law, low crime, education, and a culture of personal responsibility and equal opportunity are almost totally missing
The people in these communities did not create these problems, in fact it can, and I think it should, be argued that racism is the very foundation of these problems: racism funneled the first residents into these “ghettos”, racism was exploited by local leaders who transformed the people they were claiming they wanted to help into slaves on a virtual plantation, and racism makes it hard for people to get OUT of these communities.
When I was just 8 years old I rode my bike across a bridge out of the ghetto I live in, I went into an all-white town. Because I dressed, and talked, like any other ghetto kid, I was treated like one. The ADULTS told me, in no uncertain terms, to get my “BLANK loving $#%” back across the river!
It seems to me that the GOP has its head stuck in the sand and I don’t say a Romney win changing that. It is argued, and I have heard it from many sources insideWashingtonwith my own ears, that “the Black Community wouldn’t vote for us even IF we invested in helping them.”
That’s the problem with our country today, people don’t do the right thing just because it is right. The people in those communities are NOT being served very well and we MUST do something of substance for them, because they did not create these problems for themselves, we,America, did.
Some are openly critical of Romney’s Mormonism and have refused to vote for him, they fear that he will try to “legitimize” what they see as an “illegitimate”, and heretical, sect that CLAIMS to follow Christ but that promotes “another gospel”.
I don’t see Mitt Romney as President trying to impose or inject his doctrines into the national discourse, I don’t see that he will use the White House as a vehicle for proselytizingAmerica.
The Biblical concept of the State, largely explained in Romans 13 where the role of the “magistrate” is covered, doesn’t speak much to the actual faith or beliefs of the magistrate, it only speaks to their duties, duties that do not include governing over man’s relation to God, a matter left solely with the Body of Christ in the functions of the “ecclesia”.
Mitt Romney is far more likely to violate the Biblical limits of the state’s primarily peacekeeping role by assigning to government duties and functions best left to the social and market authorities of our society than he is to invade the turf of the sacred authorities in our society. His religious beliefs, which Christians deem heretical (and I am among them) are not a factor either in his qualification or his potential behavior as President and I do not see them impacting the way he would govern.
But for some, a Romney win, coupled with a Republican takeover of the House and Senate would “save the republic”: they are as star eyed with hope and change as Obama’s supporters were before the reality of life inWashingtonDCsettled in.
If Romney does win, those who really do believe, as I do, that government should “stick to the knitting” of its primary role as “peacemaker” and protector of the common good as well as the life, liberty, and property of its citizens (by enforcing a godly standard of conduct in public life that is fair, equitable, and just), the work of reigning in government must not stop.
We must STILL be about making our LOCAL elected officials pledge to obey a right and just standard of governance, based on the Biblical model of limited government that acts primarily as peacemaker and defender of the innocent against evil, and we must hold those local officials to account, publicly, for their behavior. If they make and keep such a pledge, they should be publicly applauded and supported, if they fail to either make or keep such a pledge, they should be publicly held accountable and not supported.
Right now, advocates for a godly standard for governance, those who see a Biblical model as superior to all others because it does allow for the most freedom, security, and prosperity for all, are playing a chess game. An Obama win might, as many see it, be almost crippling to the Constitutional basis of the republic but a Romney win, while in my opinion preferable, is not going to substantially improve the status-quo.