Political Myopathy: Gen. Colin Powell endorses Obama

As the presidential race heats up in anticipation of November 4th, the presidential race continues to become more and more troubling. While I cannot whole heartedly approve of either candidate, as both have flawed views on major issues, McCain at least shows more promise on his grasp of foundational or first principles. Roe vs. Wade has been and continues to be one of the central issues of American politics, whether or not it is explicitly invoked. Why should Americans be concerned about one single issue? Shouldn't the candidate's whole platform be an object of consideration?

In a way yes, and in a way no. International relations are important, as is the American economy, energy independence, and the environment, but none of these matter in the end if we decide that we can murder those who are inconvenient to us. Legalizing and supporting abortion signals a fundamental change in our approach to life. Children are now looked upon as a problem if they don't come at a convenient time, so we eliminate the mother's burden. But what substantial difference is there in the child a few moments before he is born and a few moments after he is born? Where does the slippery slope end. Additionally, why not use the same approach at the end of life, or anytime in between? A just war doctrine would no longer have any bearing, as these principles are extended to their logical conclusions. Wars can be fought for any reason, or none at all. As my wife is fond of saying, "Only the niceties of circumstance keep the pro-abortion mentality from being against any inconvenient life."

While everyone ostensibly agrees on the first principle that murder is wrong, the primary disagreement is about one of the proximate conclusions from this principle: abortion is murder. The child does not become a person at birth, or at the age of reason, but at the beginning of life. As far as it goes, I think that for the pro-abortion camp, it is much more logical to say that a child becomes a person at the age of reason than at birth, since birth is necessary in a certain sense, but in another it is rather accidental to the whatness of the individual. The further actuality of our specific difference is much more intrinsic to what we are than birth seems to be. Anyway, I would be interested in your comments on the matter. Also check out this link.

So...let's follow the lead given to us by the title of this post and take a quick look at some of Colin Powell's explanations for his endorsement.

Powell said a major part of his decision to turn his back on his own party was his conclusion that Obama was the better option to repair frayed U.S. relations with allies overseas.

Again, while good foreign relations are both beneficial and useful, it is not the central issue.

"I think he is a transformational figure," Powell said. "He is a new generation coming ... onto the world stage and on the American stage. And for that reason, I'll be voting for Sen. Barack Obama."

New generation, sure. Inexperienced, yes. Racially motivated endorsement, perhaps. I have a hard time not doubting General Powell's motives in endorsing Obama.

As a key reason, Powell said: "I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration."

In other words...good bye strict constructionists, hello legislating from the bench. The current trends will continue as we have seen in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut. No more natural law. Law becomes arbitrary, and the country moves another step toward the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. I don't think that it is "Change that You Can Believe In," but it is change that you can count on.