Dennis Durband43

DENNIS DURBAND

Why Mr. Tallman is Wrong about Dr. Dobson

Oct. 23, 2007

KPXQ Radio (1360 AM, Phoenix) talk show host Andrew Tallman used a Townhall.com column today to declare Why Dr. Dobson Is Wrong About Rudy. A followup column is necessary to explain why Mr. Tallman is wrong about Dr. Dobson allegedly being wrong about liberal presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.

Mr. Tallman’s first mistake appears in his opening paragraph, where he claims incorrectly that Dr. James Dobson, founder of the Focus on the Family ministry, declared that he will support a third-party candidate if the Republican nominee for president is pro-choice.

Dr. Dobson has fully explained on radio and television programs that he is not in favor of supporting a third party. Mr. Tallman is misinformed.

In his second paragraph, Tallman explains the common ground that he shares with Dr. Dobson on electoral participation and the use of voting rights to hinder evil and advance virtue. He says the two of them differ in their understanding of politics. This statement raises doubts on two accounts: 1) Tallman has already misquoted Dr. Dobson; and 2) Dr. Dobson has been defending families for more than three decades, and Mr. Tallman comes off as vastly less credible than Dobson in politics and public policy.

Mr. Tallman makes a claim that politics and compromise are inseparable. In fact, he says, “the very essence of politics is compromise …” This statement seems to fly in the face of his next comment – that unless we believe that democracy is contrary to our principles, our goal must be to advance as much of the common good as we realistically can.

One can claim that politics is conflict, and that the best solution to conflict is collaboration on a proper solution. Compromise runs second-best to collaboration.

Tallman claims that we are obligated to vote for the person who is closest to the ideal, even if he is quite far from that ideal as long as we have reason to believe this lesser evil will be more palatable than the greater evil. This is hogwash. We have no such assurances, and we are under no such obligation. Doing this constitutes a violation of our own principles. It is voting for the lesser of two evils dressed up, but still voting for the lesser of two evils. Many conservatives are getting tripped up by this sell-out compromise thinking. Sean Hannity is at the top of the list. Tallman then points straight at the presidential front-runners, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, to make his case. In many ways, there is little or no difference between the two, and what Tallman advocates is merely voting for the one wearing the “R” cape at the expense of the one wearing the “D” mantle.

Tallman then devises his own sanctity of life scale and awards Giuliani a score of 5 on a scale of 1-10. Mrs. Clinton gets a 2 from Tallman. This is highly subjective. The National Right to Life Committee has been following Giuliani’s career and is not as generous. Furthermore, personal convictions loom above another person’s subjective scoring systems.

In trying to build a case for support of Giuliani, Tallman says that the former New York mayor ranks somewhere between a 3 and an 8 in the way he would appoint Supreme Court justices. Giuliani says he would appoint strict constructionists, but talk is cheap and Giuliani’s background is one that Planned Parenthood is quite comfortable with. Tallman admits that the key to keep in mind is how Giuliani “might” compare with Clinton. That’s asking voters to take a big risk.

While Tallman is devising subjective scoring systems, Dr. Dobson has held true to his convictions to vote his conscience. Dr. Dobson realizes that it is not his responsibility to contribute to the success of those carrying the Republican In Name Only (RINO) banner.

Tallman makes another claim that is unsettling: “Although it is frustrating to be given a choice between bad and worse in candidates on the issue of abortion, Christians are obligated to vote for the person who will most “limit this grave evil in society.” Perhaps this is the Tallman Law of Elections. It is not comforting to Christian voters.

Huge political parties set the rules in elections. Christians are not obligated to play by those rules. If neither party offers a worthy candidate, neither party is worthy of the allegiance of Christians. If neither party is serious about offering traditional candidates who respect families and the sanctity of human life, they are free to suffer the consequences during election seasons. If they cannot generate enthusiasm and support from Christians, they would be foolish not to learn a lesson and they would be unwise in continuing to do what is unpopular among Christian voters. In other words, Christian voters are not compelled to play ball with Democrats and Republicans. The two political parties need to pay heed to what Christians find acceptable, if they are to prove worthy of receiving their votes. Dr. Dobson and the pro-family leaders told both parties as much during their recent meeting in Salt Lake City when they expressed displeasure with the potential choices in 2008.

Dr. Dobson has already explained it properly to Christian voters and any other conservatives willing to listen. It’s too bad this wisdom has been lost on Mr. Tallman and his subjective scoring system.

By openly supporting Giuliani and a thin promise that he will play nice with pro-lifers, Tallman is playing the “who has a chance to win” card and putting the lives of millions of children at risk of abortion. Tallman admits that this is “taking a chance.” It is a chance that many Christians are not willing to take. There are good candidates with longstanding and impeccable credentials on the issues that matter most to Christians -- candidates such as congressmen Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, for example. It will take influential people with large soapboxes to aid these worthy candidates in their quest to overtake the “chancy” people ahead of them in the polls. People have been told by the pollsters that their only real Republican choices are Giulian, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and John McCain. It is up to Christians to see through this force-feeding and vote on principle.

Dr. Dobson laid out the problems facing Christian voters, and he also exposed those such as Tallman who do not fully understand what is stake and how important it is to vote with our feet and to condition the political parties on what is and what is not acceptable. Mr. Tallman has dropped the rope that he uses in his tug-of-war analogy, while Dr. Dobson has made a courageous tug on the rope to get the two parties to restore their senses of good taste. It is the parties that must adjust, rather than the Christian voters.

Dennis Durband's Archives: