Up until this week, I wasn’t sure who had my presidential vote in 2004. I still don’t, but I now know for who I’m not voting — George W. Bush.
I’ve hemmed and hawed, weighed and measured, and contrasted and compared political views among the candidates. Could I compromise my stance against national healthcare to vote for a candidate that would rid our nation of the cumbersome Patriot Act? Could I vote for a candidate that would introduce inefficiencies in the U.S. economy for the sake of a higher minimum wage and funneled monies to various economic sectors? Could I get behind a candidate that brings the U.S. into wars with seemingly weak reasoning?
Economics is very close to my heart. Honestly, economic thought generally guides my vote. I can’t stand for inefficiencies in the economy that only serve to lower productivity, destroy incentives, and contribute to lesser wealth. In general, if a candidate of any level is against free trade, I won’t vote for him or her. I will leave that part of the ballot empty if necessary. A strong economic policy is completely of paramount importance to me. But, yesterday, I came across this, and I suddenly had clarity. Economics is close to my heart, but even closer to my heart and even my soul, are the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I have grown up believing in these written works — works declaring “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” open to everyone regardless of sex, religion, race, or, I believe, sexual orientation. How can anyone propose a Constitutional amendment that would discriminate against an entire group of people? This angers, frustrates, and saddens me.
And crosses a candidate off my list.