Is Scott Brown just a sugarcoated Obamanation?

Tomorrow registered voters in Massachusetts have the opportunity to go to the polls to vote in the special election being held to decide who should replaced recently deceased Senator Edward Kennedy in the United States Senate.  Some polls indicate that Scott Brown, the Republican nominee now has a slight edge over the Democrat Martha Coakley.   I know that people who visit this blog on a regular basis are likely to be deeply concerned about the surrender of liberty that is now far advanced in the U.S.  Some will surely be tempted to join the Hallelujah chorus GOP choir director Michael Steele will surely orchestrate should Brown win the vote.  Before they do, I hope they will consider the following information posted on Brown's campaign site regarding his stand on issues that are critical to the restoration of America's liberty in principle and in fact:

• Abortion
  While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
• Education
  I am passionate about improving the quality of our public schools. Accountability and high standards are paramount. I support choice through charter schools, as well as the MCAS exam as a graduation requirement. I have worked to ensure that all children have access to a quality education. I am a strong advocate for the METCO program, which provides lower income students with broader educational opportunities.
• Marriage
  I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people's will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.

This information supports the conclusion that Scott Brown is not pro-life.  Though he pays lip service to choice in education, he gives priority to "accountability and high standards", buzzwords for an approach that leaves control of education in the hands of government, rather than where it belongs, in the hands of those who exercise parental responsibility.  His professed beliefs about marriage ring hollow against the backdrop of actual events in Massachusetts, where he has said "the issue is settled... and he respects the decision to allow gay marriages."

The imposition of gay marriage in Massachusetts was not based on "the people's will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their representatives."  It was the result of a judicial opinion thereafter imposed by the fiat order of then Massachusetts Governor Romney.  In doing so Romney ignored the fact, clearly noted in the opinion itself, that it had no force of law unless and until the legislature chose to enact it.

On his site Brown also says that he is "opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in the Congress and will vote against it."  Yet in almost the same breath he says that "in Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law."  Now the 2006 legislation signed into law by then Governor Romney included a provision that required all Massachusetts residents to purchase health issuance, and provided for government funding of abortions (state funded $50 co-pay abortions for those who qualified.)  In both respects, therefore, Scott Brown supports in substance two aspects of Obama's health care proposal that have been most troubling to conservatives.  One casts aside the principle that limits government's power to dictate the economic decisions of the individual.  The other uses government power to implicate all individuals in a practice that for many violates a paramount rule of conscience while overturning the doctrine of unalienable rights that is the basis for republican government (i.e., limited government based upon the consent of the governed.)

As far as I can tell from his campaign site, I agree with Scott Brown on a majority of other issues of major concern to the country.  If I subscribed to Michael Steele's absurd "80-20" approach to voting, I would heartily encourage Massachusetts voters to support him.  Readers of this blog know that I do not agree with Steele.  It makes no sense to trust one's health to a doctor who rightly prescribes remedies 90% of the time, when the remaining 10% includes inevitably fatal drugs or procedures.  Brown errs on key issues that involve just such fatally flawed positions.  Of course the victims of his errors include not just individuals, but the soul and liberty of the nation.

Scott Brown's candidacy typifies the fatal flaw the Republican Party label now represents.  Though in fact opposed to Obama on the details of some policies, on issues essential to the survival of liberty he actually embraces the fatally flawed departure from moral and political principle that clears the way for those who wish to destroy the moral and institutional foundations of constitutional government.  The label promises remedies, but the bottle contains a few sugarcoated poison pills in key areas.

Some people have suggested to me that Joseph Lewis Kennedy (not part of the Kennedy clan, a libertarian running as an independent) offers a better alternative.  Because of his name he may be siphon support from the Democrat among ignorant voters who think they're supporting one of their clan idols.  But this Kennedy appears to embrace the brand of libertarianism that, by failing to defend the moral foundations of liberty, promotes self-destructive licentiousness instead.

I have pondered and written extensively on the "lesser of evils" arguments that supposedly justify supporting candidates like Scott Brown.   I invite readers to consider my response.  Start with the essay In Good Conscience that I wrote in the context of the 2008 election.  The essays I have written about Michael Steele's flawed approach further develop and apply my thinking.  To find them, just use the search box in the upper left hand corner at the very top of this page to run a search on 'Michael Steele'.

If there were a real conservative in the race in Massachusetts people in the "lesser of evil' crowd would say he or she had no chance of winning.  Of course, as long as we allow their arguments to prevent moral conservatives from uniting beyond what they truly believe, the spoiler effect of the Republican Party means that we will never know.  The "lesser evil" drives out the greater good, leaving us with no choice but evil in some guise.  I suspect that the conservative plurality would win in really contested three way races, even in a State like Massachusetts.

I know many voters who profess Christian faith who would rejoice to see that outcome.  They would thank God for the miracle.  The sad fact though is that their own lack of courage and conviction prevents it from happening.  Faith can move mountains, but only after those who profess faith allow it to move their own hearts.  I pray that the Massachusetts situation isn't a harbinger of the 2010 elections, for that would mean a strong showing by the GOP that left us with a bunch of national legislators who don't disagree with Obama about the immoral, liberty killing, socialist cliff we're driving over.  They just think we ought to use a different vehicle and drive toward the deadly drop at a slower speed.  Unfortunately, in what now is the ever shorter run, that leaves constitutional liberty just as dead and gone.

Update:  (1/18/2010, 11:04 PM)- Scott Brown's stated intentions seem to justify my position.  Consider what he says in this article in the Boston Herald.  It's worth reading all the way through.  Quite an eye opener.  The GOP sure needs another Senator who'll vote for judges like Sotomayor.  That's alright, since Brown says he'd  vote for a pro-life nominee, (whom Obama is sure to propose someday.)  How admirably even handed of him! Of course he may have spoken as he did just to curry favor with Democrat voters.  If so, who's he lying to- them or the conservatives so anxious to get him elected?  But why worry? There's a chance he'll betray the other guys rather than be true to his own stated convictions.
Sure, and the name Arlen Specter rings no bells.