In terms of the former, a couple of personal issues include his stance on abortion as a fellow Catholic. Now let me point out that although I'm pro-life, I have cast votes for President or other candidates for public office who have been pro-choice/abort. Let's be clear here: I opposed abortion before I ever knew the Church's position on the issue. It's not religious from a standpoint of dogma; Christ Himself never discussed the topic: it was not an accepted practice in Israel during His lifetime. The Church confronted the issue as it expanded in the Roman Empire, including Rome itself, where abortion and infanticide were embraced in the culture. As I've pointed out before, one of the earliest writings by the early Church Fathers is the Didache, which unambiguously condemns said Roman practices. What particularly annoys me is how "Catholic" Dems, including the Kennedy clan, the Cuomo clan, Pelosi, Biden and others have attempted to rationalize their politically obligatory pro-choice viewpoint. They have misrepresented the Church's explicit moral teaching; without going into details, suffice it to say Aristotelian science influenced some Church intellectuals, and Aristotle described a stage development cycle where the pre-born baby became human around the time of viability (perceived movement by the baby) which coincided with ensoulment; the soul, of course, is a key construct in Christianity. So, for some Church intellectuals, abortion became more egregious after ensoulment; Pelosi in particular has used this old controversy to rationalize her departure from the Church's moral position. I'll simply note here that even the old intellectuals realized early abortion frustrated God's plan and gift of new human life, so it's always been considered a grave sin. Arguing that they personally opposed abortion but would not impose their "religious beliefs" on others was disingenuous rubbish. For one thing, abortion was not just opposed by early Jews and Christians; it has been rejected by other religions, cultures and/or societies, e.g., part of the original Hippocratic Oath. In fact, I subscribe to a Secular Pro-Life Facebook group, consisting mostly of agnostics and atheists.
So Biden has earned my contempt by selling out Church teachings for personal political ambition. There is a history of Dem politicians who flipped initial pro-life stances to a more politically convenient pro-choice position (Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton immediately come to mind). Now I've often voted for non-Catholics, even pro-choice Democrats in the past, but if you pose as a faithful Catholic and then seek to rationalize your politically convenient position, you have an integrity issue with me. When I argue against homicide, perjury, or theft, I don't accept the idea that I'm imposing my "religion" on other people. If you are willing to look the other way on abortion, where do you draw the line elsewhere in selling your soul for political ambition? Is it unfair to hold Catholic politicians to a higher standard? Perhaps not, but it's part of my judgment using my own knowledge and experience.
But abortion has only been one factor in my political decisions, two-thirds of libertarians are pro-choice, including last LP nominee Gary Johnson and current nominee Jo Jorgensen. Why have I not been a one-issue voter? For one thing, abortion is not a federal issue, except for certain nuanced policies, like taxpayer funding of abortions. Traditionally abortion and healthcare have been regulated by the states.
There are at least another couple of personal issues. First, there was the Kinnock plagiarism charge during his 1988 campaign. To me, that was a huge integrity issue. In part, at the time I was still an academic who had discovered and enforced incidents of academic dishonesty, and I took political hits from senior faculty and administration officials for doing so. In my own published academic work, you'll find dozens, if not hundreds of cited references. In many of my political essays, you'll find numerous hyperlinks to source materials.
A second concern has to do with the Hunter Biden involvement with an oligarch's natural gas company. As I've recently tweeted, even though I defended the Bidens during Trump's extortion of the Ukraine government which was the focus of the Trump impeachment, I was troubled by the issue (not to mention other Obama Administration personnel at the time). The oligarch was being investigated by the US and EU/British for charges of money laundering and other criminal behavior. Now Hunter Biden's involvement, from a professional ethics standpoint, would be considered a conflict of interest for Joe Biden, because his executive involvement in Ukraine matters.
In part, this reflects my background. I have a PhD minor in accounting, including a traditional auditing course. There are rigorous standards for an audit firm to certify independent appraisal of financial statements. It's probably best seen from my work for management consulting companies affiliated with audit firms, e.g., Coopers and Lybrand, now part of PwC. Typically I had to list, say, shares owned of client companies, not to mention by relatives, any family connections to clients (e.g., employment, etc.), not just reflecting conflicts of interest in fact but in perception.
There is no doubt in my mind given Joe Biden's role in Ukraine matters that he should have instructed Hunter not to get involved with Burisma. He could not afford the appearance that his family was financially vested in the oligarch's operations which could compromise ongoing criminal investigations. Joe Biden's failure to advise Hunter Biden was intrinsically unethical and corrupt, an unconscionable lapse of judgment. Note that I'm not exonerating Trump's attempt to extort Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The termination of Shokin, former prosecutor general, had nothing to do with Hunter Biden. The Burisma investigation had to do with certain permits granted to Burisma and other matters in a period predating Biden's joining the board. There were allegations that Shokin was trying to use prosecution of Zlochevsky as a bargaining chip in bribing the oligarch. In fact, Shokin's office issued a letter exonerating the oligarch of British money laundering charges leading to a freeze of assets. Biden's pressure on Ukraine to fire Shokin was precisely because of Shokin's slow-walking corruption investigations, not only accurately reflecting US policy but there was also pressure from the EU, IMF, and local Ukraine anti-corruption forces. In fact, Shokin targeted local anti-corruption groups.
Even disregarding politics, I have long preferred executive experience, especially in the public sector. Personally I don't regard VP experience as relevant in this regard. Two of the last 3 Democrat Presidents have been Southern Democrats. From Carter through Clinton, only Mondale wasn't a former/current governor. Yet since Gore, all Democratic candidates were primarily US Senators (two former VP's). In the same period, except for McCain, my votes went to former governors: Bush, Romney and Johnson. One of the reasons I had made an exception for McCain was his Gang of 8 (bipartisan) leadership in the Senate. Yes, I'm aware that Jill Jorgensen, the LP nominee and likely the person I'll support this fall, doesn't fit that criterion, but to be honest, I'm not impressed by the experience of either Trump or Biden either. Yes, Trump has been a Presidential apprentice but it seems everyday he is not staying inside the lines of his Constitutional role of enumerated powers.
From a policy perspective, why isn't Biden acceptable? Let me make a short list, which isn't restricted to, but includes the following:
- Joe Biden has been a criminal justice hawk, including the dubious War on Drugs. I think I clipped the below relevant video in a prior daily post, but current push for criminal justice reform in the wake of the Floyd murder particularly puts Biden in an awkward position.
- Joe Biden has been a military interventionist hawk, particularly since the 2003 Iraq War and as an Obama adviser. See this post for more detail.
- Joe Biden proposes economic growth killing tax increases.
- Joe Biden is a Big Government tax and spend liberal, proposing, among other things, a massive expansion of ObamaCare, climate change legislation and education spending, gun control, meddling in rural economies, etc.
