By Matthew Pilling, Guest Author

SALT LAKE CITY, UT | 15 July 2008| Obamacons vs. Hillraisers.  No, it’s not the title of another Transformers movie.  It’s a new set of camps that have come up out of the carnage that is this year’s election.   And, neither group is quite what you would expect when you consider typical party politics.

Reaching across party lines has taken on a new meaning.  In a world where opposition to everything held dear by the “other party” is almost a supreme mandate, one wouldn’t expect to see ‘donkeys in elephant’s clothing’ or to play ‘pin the tail on the elephant’, but such is the case this year.  As both major political parties draw closer to their national conventions, there are rising factions within each party that are so disgruntled with their presumptive candidates that they are willing to jump ship.  And, jumping ship doesn’t just mean staying home and not voting for the candidate you don’t like.  It actually means throwing your support behind the other party’s candidate.

Republicans that are considering voting for Obama have come to be known as Obamacons.  Obamacons tend to fear that McCain would bring another 4 years of Bush-like policies.  This group is made up mostly of libertarian-minded members of the Republican Party who oppose the Iraq war.  But, the group also includes such unlikely members as conservative writers and supply-siders1 (people who believe in lowering taxes as a means to stimulate the economy). 

Democrats who raised at least $100,000 for the Clinton campaign have come to be known as Hillraisers.  While many have pledged their support to Obama and the Democratic Party, a large number of Hillraisers are saying that the buck stops here and are now holding talks with key McCain fundraisers. 2

Obamacons have justified their change-over to the campaign of change by saying such things as “Obama is saying the wrong things on taxes but…it (is only) electioneering” 1 and “…As a man, I find Mr. Obama to be prudent, thoughtful, and courageous. His life story embodies the conservative values that go to the core of my beliefs.”1 But, do his proposed policies embody those values?  Can you really believe that he will turn from his “electioneering” tax proposals, and suddenly embrace conservative values if elected? 

Hillraisers are generally women who saw things through Hillary’s eyes and are upset by what they perceive as sexist treatment by the media. “What really hurt women the most was to look back and see all this gender bias,” said founder of the Esprit clothing store chain Susie Tompkins Buell.3  Whether you believe there was unfair treatment by the media or not, it hardly seems rational to jump party lines over such an upset.  If Laura Bush or Condoleezza Rice (or any other female conservative) had been the woman only woman in the race, would these same women complain of unfair, sexist media bias?  Hasn’t there been just as much unfair treatment of McCain by the media?

Key Points

• Our right to exercise agency in selecting our leaders comes with a major stewardship.  It involves so much more than showing up in the final election rounds to select ‘box a” or “box b.”  Obamacons and Hillraisers are getting involved before the final rounds, but they are doing so without regard for principles or stewardship. 
• People believe that supporting (or blocking) a new tribal head is the solution to the problem.  It is not.  The real solution to the problem lies in “we the people” coming to understand and live by principle.  Principles do govern.  Failure to make principles the guiding standard when making major decisions (in politics or otherwise) will never truly solve anything and will always lead to unwanted consequences.  Like the bitter old woman who has burned through numerous husbands wondering why there aren’t any good men in the world, these two groups must come to the realization that no hero figure (or magic policy) can ever make them happy.  Until they discover that the need for change lies within them, they will always be unhappy—even if their first choice for candidate had won.
• Both Obamacons and disgruntled Hillraisers apparently have so little connection to principles that they are tossed about by their own emotional whims, without concern for the true ramifications of their actions and choices.  They’ll end up with a candidate that they don’t truly support and will wonder why their vindictive actions somehow didn’t relieve their dismay.

Conclusion

Even with principles as your guide, it can be incredibly difficult to cut through the campaign year speeches and see what a candidate really stands for.  That is especially true when candidates’ firm viewpoints seem to depend solely on the audience they are speaking to.  But, when your decision to change horses (or elephants or donkeys, for that matter) mid-stream solely because of emotional frustrations, you can be sure that your decision won’t get you where you want to go.  It shows an immaturity and inability to place higher value on principles than on childish whims and tantrums.  Our agency to choose the leaders of this country and influence policies is a huge responsibility that should never be wielded in spiteful vengeance.  If our love of country comes second to our desire to punish the cruel world, then we are the ones that ought to be punished.

Action Items

1. Consider how you decide who to vote for.  Is your decision based on principle or on issues and their accompanying emotions?
2. Spend time studying the 13 Principles of Prosperity.
3. Listen to the both candidates’ solutions to major election year issues (health care, war in Iraq, energy crisis and fuel shortage, etc).  Determine where their solutions follow principle and where they violate principle. 
4. Choose a candidate to vote for based on their ability to follow principles rather than on sound-bytes and hype. 

MRFC Principles:  (1, 2, 3, 4)

Sources

1—Mr. Right?, The New Republic, June 25, 2008

2—“Hillraisers” To Meet With Avid John McCain Supporter, Carly Fiorina, DigitalJournal.com, July 7, 2008

3—Clinton diehards throw support behind McCain, The Independent, July 8, 2008

(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)