Who you should vote for

Ok, a followup. First off, I'd like to explain myself. I initially promised that I wouldn't get political on this blog. In a way, that's a pretty silly perspective, since this blog links to my other blogs, on which I am perfectly content with being directly political. I'm not a pastor, I'm not a nonprofit of any sort.

My reason for not putting forth a direct political endorsement on this site is in line with how I feel about a lot of faith-related things. I feel that each individual needs to decide for him or her self what to believe in the political sphere just like in the sphere of faith. But while it is not my place to tell you what you should believe, my purpose here is to discuss values that I believe are consistent with the message of Christ. I don't believe the Christ had much to say on partisan politics.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Christ had quite a bit to say that we could interpret into partisan terms. But it breaks my heart to see us do so. It breaks my heart because I don't really feel that Christ was about divisiveness.

So a lot of people have been saying, "Who would Jesus vote for?" and even going so far as to put a lever into his hand. I will not do that, but I may echo the sentiments of quite a few Catholic clergy who have sounded off on this issue lately.

People I know have talked to me quite a bit about taking a political stance on one or two issues that they feel are the most important for a Christian to vote on. I can't think of more than one, though, so I won't specifically name any.

As Christians, I believe that deciding on an election requires an evaluation of not one or two but all of the issues from a Christian perspective. I'm going to write a short list and accompany each with my opinion. My list is pulled directly from one of the candidates' web sites, and for fairness I didn't use my preferred candidate's.

• American Energy: The energy problem in America is closely related to what is commonly referred to in religious circles as Creation Care. When looking at the two candidates for President and their plans, who is more focused on responsibly managing the resources that God gave us, in order to not only provide for the needs of America and the world, but to do so in a manner that demonstrates good stewardship of the earth?
  
  
• Economic Plan: The economic crisis in this country right now was brought about by greed and by irresponsible decision making. In solving this crisis, what Christian principles could we apply? What did Jesus have to say about the rich and the poor? One thing that is loudly thrown around in the debates and commercials is tax policy. It's true, the main difference between taxation and charity is volition. But in America the other difference is magnitude. Studies of charity by income has shown that the wealthy are much less inclined to give of their incomes than the poor. We shouldn't need a study to know that, though, as the Bible illustrated it pretty clearly. In the old testament, the tax rate was set at 10% for those who could afford to give, and a number of economic protections were designed to prevent the poor from accumulating or becoming enslaved by large debts. I've found that few Christians that I've spoken to have actually read much of the financial laws in the Torah. The New Testament shows a different story, a story that is reproduced at the bottom of this page. The Bible presents a message that says that as Christians, we should give all that we can to those who need it more than we do. Which candidate's economic policy is more Biblical in that regard?
  
  
• Iraq: Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Who has a better plan for making peace?
  
  
• Health Care: This really follows the same argument as the Economy discussion, so I won't repeat most of it. When he wasn't working with the poor, Jesus spent much of his time with the sick. Actually, this was one of the many ways in which he didn't discriminate between the rich and the poor. If Jesus felt that everyone, regardless of social standing, was equally worthy of his divine health care, why should we as a nation behave any differently? I urge you to consider which candidate's policy is more similar to Christ's pattern of dealing with the ill.
  
  
• Education: I'm not really sure what to say on this one. As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't talk much about this issue directly. Jesus directly spoke of the importance of imparting wisdom, though, and of caring for the young. I will also suggest relating this back to the overall message of caring for those who can't care for themselves. As a more educated person, my bias is toward whoever is more likely to facilitate higher education for more people, especially as a tool of social mobility. But I'm not sure that my opinion is inherently the most Christlike on that part.
  
  
• Climate Change: See discussion under energy.
  
  
• Homeland Security: This is an issue where I'm not so sure that the Christian perspective is the appropriate one for government, and that may be a great reminder of the importance of the separation of church and state.
  
  
• National Service: The two candidates don't differ much in their rhetoric on this subject, but there is a significant policy difference. One candidate talks about it as a good idea, another candidate talks about using funding to encourage it. Your choice.
  
  
• Border Security: I'm again at a loss for the Christian answer to this question. On the one hand we have the "security" aspect of it, by which we need to worry about trying to reduce access for terrorists and other enemies. There is also the smuggling issue, how it relates to the drug trade etc. Finally, the crux of the issue is labor. Why are laborers risking their lives and breaking our laws to come here for jobs that most Americans don't particularly want to do? Why are employers so willing to hire them? What is the right way to treat these people- are they victims, criminals, both, or neither? What should the Church do about it? This is a very nuanced issue.
  
  
• Human Dignity and Life: This is a favorite of many Christians. I've met a lot of people who seem to feel that abortion is the only issue on which the Church has a say, and I feel that this feeling is, frankly, wrong. Abortion is part of preserving life, but not the whole thing. Depending on which source you check, as many as 36,000 people die of starvation every day. Something like 13 million per year... roughly 13 times the rate of abortion in America, yet I see a lot more political action directed at reducing abortion rather than starvation. If we are truly pro-life, shouldn't we consider all life? Why is an unborn American life worth more than a born African life? I can see no reason. Similarly, I see no reason why American soldiers lives are more valuable than those of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and other places where the reckless imposition of our military force has resulted in needless death.
  
  If life is a priority to you, then please consider which candidate intends to do more to protect not just certain lives but all life.
  
  
• Fighting Crime: This is certainly a worthy cause. But not particularly one that sets candidates apart from one another.
  
  
• Second Amendment: What did Jesus say about swords?
  
  
• Veterans: I don't really think that our faith gives us a particular reason to distinguish this group from others. Even so, I think that respecting and caring for those who made sacrifices for their country and in the defense of others is an admirable goal. If you go to www.veteranreportcard.org, you will see how one veterans' organization, the IAVA, graded legislators objectively based solely on their voting on veterans issues.
  
  
• Judicial Philosophy: As in, what kind of judges will a future president appoint? This is a very difficult issue to address from a Christian perspective, because we need to consider what may or may not constitute sound judicial practice. Unfortunately, many judicial appointees are chosen based on whether they have a "conservative" or "liberal" value set, neither of which is, in my opinion, appropriate. We should seek judges who are wise. Were this a theocracy, it would be clear that we should seek judges of sound Christian character. Unfortunately, one of the values that we have chosen for this country, and annunciated in the first amendment, is a clear separation between the state and the church. To me, I would like to see a president appoint judges in a completely nonpartisan matter, seeking judges who practice fairness above all, and have a good knowledge of the constitution, as well as a healthy respect for it. I don't see this as a point on which the major candidates differ, and I dare say that both are probably wrong.
  
  
• Technology: From a Christian perspective, I would see this as a non-issue.
  
  
• Government Reform: As a Christian, I'm going to choose the candidate who shows the best record of integrity and who I feel will place the good of the country and its citizens over the good of an elite few.
  
  
• National Security: Covered above.

I hope that my quick rundown of the issues has been helpful. To me, in my evaluation of the candidates based on this list, the decision is very clear. I hope that I have helped to clarify it for someone out there, or at least helped someone who disagrees with me to understand my perspective.

Oh, in case it wasn't perfectly obvious, I used John McCain's list. Barack Obama has a more exhaustive list of issues on his site, and I'd recommend reading it as well as McCain's to help make a more informed decision.

Why You Must Vote

It's almost Wednesday of the second week of October. In most states, deadlines for voter registration have passed. I hope, therefore, that for a lot of you I'm not too late in writing this post.

In 2004, voter turnout was the largest that it ever was. Considering only those who were eligible to vote (by population), slightly over 60% actually turned out to vote. George W. Bush won with an over 2 million person majority, but many would argue that the election was decided in Ohio, where about 50,000 voters would have changed the outcome by voting differently, or 100,000 would have changed it by getting out to vote at all.

But for appropriate comparisons, certainly 2000 would be a more similar year. Without an incumbent, it was a very different fight. It was also a historical election, only the second time the electoral and popular votes disagreed. In that year, voter turnout was a mere 54%. President Bush was elected without a popular majority, and the state many agree decided the election, Florida, was won with just over a 500 vote lead.

In that election, neither candidate got much more than 50,000,000 votes. There are over 300,000,000 people in this country. Its not hard math to see that only one in six people actually voted for the guy who won. In 2004, that ratio was up to one in 5.

I could, but won't, include an exhaustive list of close elections. My point is, in this election, just like in any other, every vote counts.

In this election, most people are going to cast a ballot for Barack Obama or for John McCain, but if history repeats itself, and it usually does, and even greater number of people will vote for nobody at all. In what many would call history's greatest republic, that breaks my heart.

I'm going to float a hypothetical, one which I regret not having put more work and writing into. But I must point out to you that if everyone who chose not to vote for a major candidate had, by some strange coincidence, voted for one third party candidate instead of abstaining, we would no longer have a "major party" president.

I'll put this more clearly. In 2004, about 62 million individuals voted for George W. Bush. That same year, about 69 million voted for absolutely nobody. I don't call it even possible, but if those 69 million had gotten up to go to the ballot, they together could have elected absolutely anyone. They could have elected James Dobson. They could have elected Ralph Nader. They could have elected Ron Paul, or Bob Barr, or Mickey Mouse (though I'm not sure who would actually serve that presidency).

I'm certainly not going to tell you who to vote for, at least not on this blog. But I implore you, vote. If you find yourself closely aligned with a major party candidate, vote for him! But if you don't, there are literally dozens of third party candidates throughout the country. Contact your local election board for a copy of the ballot list, and research the statements of every one of those candidates.

You may say to me, "I don't want to throw my vote away on a third party." First off, if you don't vote, you certainly throw your vote away. Heck, if you vote for a candidate in a non-battleground state where he has no chance of winning those electoral votes, you may be throwing away your vote. But if you and others get out an vote for third parties, you do a few great things for this country.

First, by voting for third parties, you are helping to raise awareness of the inadequacies of the two-party system. You are making a public political statement. Even if your candidate doesn't win right now (though, especially if your voting for a lower office, there's a real possibility that he or she might because of your vote) people will notice, and they themselves will be encouraged by the show of support.

Secondly, your vote is a kind of petition. The constitution and the law in general provides no special status to the two predominant parties. Rather, the party system is supported by some fairly generic conditions. When a third party reaches a certain percentage of votes, it becomes eligible for the same rights and priveleges that the major parties enjoy, such as federal financing and the laws that regulate campaigning.

Personally, I happen to have found a major party candidate in this election whom I support, and who I hope will win. But I won't be voting for him. Instead, I've joined with a supporter of the opposite candidate, and we will together vote for third party candidates. Our choice won't impact the outcome of the election, since we're equally subtracting from both major parties, but we will benefit the third party and the country itself.

I apologize for the length of this post. I hope I've made it clear that everyone should vote. I could go on about this for quite some time, so I'm going to try and take a break from it for a few minutes.