Election Day Advice Archives - Respectful Conversation

How Should We Vote?

October 13, 2012/0 Comments/in Election Day Advice/by Admin

First of all, we should vote. I join others in saying that to vote is actually part of our Christian calling. Given the responsibility of the state to pursue justice, the chief goal of democracy is not to give citizens the right to determine the state’s purpose, as secular justifications for democracy might suggest. Rather, when citizens vote, they share with their fellow citizens the duty to discern and pursue together justice and the common good. This is a responsibility we may not ignore. It’s a remarkable privilege—and a daunting one.

Second, we should vote biblically. I’ve been impressed over the past nine months with how my partners in this conversation have worked to consider how biblical givens can be brought to bear on some of the most controversial issues we face in American society. This is really hard work, particularly when people I respect come to conclusions with which I disagree (Mr. Teetsel comes to mind!), but who are evidently seeking the same goals as I am. Clearly, this is a matter that requires yet more conversation and yet more prayer.

Third, we should vote politically. In these conversations, I have also been reminded that political morality is only one dimension of morality. Not all moral questions properly belong to the political—not all moral questions require a legislated response. This means, among other things, that we should resist the temptation to see our principal task to be one of judging the personal morality of candidates. Personal morality can shed some light on questions of character, but it pales in significance compared to the task of determining candidates’ political morality. We need to consider programs, policy positions, and political principles as a way to gauge how candidates see the state to be implicated in the various questions we face as a nation. This too is a lot of work. No one said that citizenship is easy!

Fourth, we should vote to pursue public justice. This means, for one thing, that our vote cannot be determined by calculations of self-interest (lower taxes for me, lower fuel prices for me, preserving my favorite tax credit). So, for example, if we believe that justice requires that all members of society have an opportunity to participate in our common life, this will imply that in our efforts to confront our coming fiscal crisis, the burden should not be borne by the most vulnerable members of our society. I believe that we need a more progressive tax system than we have currently, but regardless, a commitment to shield the most vulnerable may mean that I have to pay more taxes in the not-too-distant future. I don’t relish paying taxes, but I must love my neighbor in that way, if that is what justice requires.

Finally, we should vote in hope. Like many of my correspondents, I am not enthused about the options before voters in November. Over the long run, I’d love to consider how structural changes to our electoral system might provide better choices. Yet I know in politics what I also know to be true in the rest of life: that Christ is risen. A politics of the resurrection means that the long, slow work of pursuing justice is not a work in vain, and that even a choice between two less-than-sterling candidates is still a choice that has kingdom significance. Politics is messy, and American politics is particularly so, but the kingdom hope that is found in the resurrection can carry Christians through the messiness of campaigns, into the voting booth, and on into the rest of their political lives.

A Judgment Call

October 10, 2012/0 Comments/in Election Day Advice/by Admin

(This piece originally appeared in slightly altered form at the Manhattan Project blog.)

With the election only weeks away, I’ve been asked to offer advice for undecided Christian voters. As readers of the APC blog know, I am not an undecided voter. Nor am I an Independent. I have known I was going to vote for the Republican in 2012 since president-elect Obama stood astride the Big Silver Bean drinking in the adoration of thousands gathered in Chicago’s Millennium Park. I’m a conservative. It was clear at the time that Obama’s convictions on the most important issues did not line up with my own. It was inevitable that his political naiveté and delusional sense of self-importance would not work. But, for those who are not like me, we have four years of evidence to consider.

We find that President Obama has failed to revive the economy, failed to reduce the deficit, failed to make major entitlement program sustainable, and failed to protect American interests abroad. (Yes, I would trade a live Ambassador for a dead terrorist.) According to Forbes, in August of this year more Americans went on food stamps than found jobs. The most recent jobs report found the rate of unemployment down to 7.8 percent, the lowest in four years. This is an accomplishment?

On issues of permanent importance to Christians for whom the Bible is the touchstone for value judgments, the president has failed. He advanced anti-life and anti-conscience policies like the HHS mandate while publicly endorsing so-called gay marriage. President Obama is derelict in his duty to enforce the nation’s laws; his Justice Department does not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. Supreme Court justices Ginsburg, Scalia, and Kennedy will all reach age 80 by 2016. Ginsburg and Kennedy both voted for abortion in the most important decision on life in the last twenty years. Some believe either Romney or Obama will have the opportunity to name replacements for all three, cementing the ideological slant of the Court one way or the other for a generation.

The Manhattan Declaration is a non-profit organization that does not endorse a particular candidate. Therefore, as Executive Director, I do not endorse a candidate. But as a private citizen; as a Christ follower; as an advocate of life, marriage, and religious freedom; as one who wants to actually help the poor in this country and abroad; as an American exceptionalist who thinks the world would benefit from more of what we have; as a husband and, someday, a father, I will be voting for Mitt Romney. And I hope you will too.

_____________________

Find me on Twitter @EricTeetsel

Honoring God on Election Day and Beyond

October 10, 2012/0 Comments/in Election Day Advice/by Admin

I can still recall my excitement as I drove to the polling place to vote for the very first time. My heart sank, however, when I entered the voting booth and saw the extensive ballot. I recognized a few names, so those votes were easy. But I was befuddled by the long list of names and elected offices I did not know. In the end, I left many of the boxes blank and exited the voting booth feeling like a failure.

The United States has more elected officials than any other nation (about half a million of them!), so it is no wonder that voting can seem overwhelming. As I will discuss in this essay, however, many resources are available to help us learn about the candidates and make an informed decision. As Election Day draws near, I’d like to offer some advice on preparing to vote and share some concluding observations from my participation in the Alternative Political Conversation.

Preparing to Vote

What can you do to prepare for Election Day? Before choosing between candidates, determine which political issues matter the most to you, learn more about the different offices up for election this year in your area, and research candidates for each office.

Given the diversity of issues raised in a political campaign and the even wider range of topics elected officials are likely to consider over the course of a term in office, it seems impossible to find any candidate with whom you will agree completely. How do we determine which issues should be most important when making our vote choices?

Some people select the one issue they believe is most important and evaluate all candidates based on it. If you are so passionate about a particular issue that you believe it always outweighs all of the other policies an elected official is likely to address while in office, single issue voting can make sense.

In practice, however, single issue voting rarely works well. Sometimes political opponents agree, so you cannot choose between them. In other cases, the role and duties of office may have little or nothing to do with the identified issue. If your single issue is broadening access to health care, for example, you will likely have a clear choice between candidates for Congress, but the issue will be of little use when voting for Sheriff.

I think it is wise to evaluate candidates on the basis of several issues at the same time. To do this, search Scripture, read political writings from respected Christians, and pray for guidance. In the end, construct a list of those issues you believe are most important. You may decide that some issues are non-negotiable; that is, certain policy positions are so important that a candidate must share your views on them to earn your vote. In such cases, skip voting in those races where neither candidate shares your views. Also create a list of priority issues, those issues most important for each elected office, and select the candidate who shares your views on the largest number of them. I hope that the essays we have presented in the Alternative Political Conversation and the comments they have generated will be a useful resource for applying your faith to a range of political issues and ranking which concerns should have highest priority.

Other resources can also help you prepare to vote. A useful first step is finding out what races are on the ballot in your precinct. Websites like http://www.vote411.org/ offer links to voting information for most states. Web searches with the name of your county and “elections commission” will usually direct you to searchable site to view a copy of your exact ballot.

Once you find a sample ballot, research the various candidates. I recommend visiting the candidates’ official websites to learn about their background, experience, and issue positions. Such sites of course show only one side of the story, but they present information clearly and are can be quite useful for comparing candidates side-by-side.

Ultimately, candidates are flawed, just like all of us. Deciding whom to support often requires you to balance competing priorities and sometimes requires choosing between two unsatisfactory choices. I have found an occasional voting decision so difficult or have been so uncomfortable with my choices that I have intentionally chosen none of the above. If you have significant misgivings about all of the candidates running for a particular office, I recommend skipping that race and voting in the other races on the ballot.

Concluding Observations as Election Day Approaches

My work on this project has helped me see the complexity of public policy in new ways. I know that issues that appear simple are really complex and that every issue has far more than two sides. But the experience of researching topics and trying to distill my comments into 1,000 words or less has been far more challenging than I ever imagined.

If we listen only to candidates and campaign ads, solutions seem clear, and policy paths always lead on a straight path. But simple slogans and quick fixes mask the complexity of seeking solutions in a broken world with broken people and institutions. In my earlier postings, I have tried to highlight some key tensions related to each policy topic, briefly discuss some possible options for public policy, and point readers to ways that we as the church can be meeting needs and making a difference. As you continue the conversation this election season and beyond, seek opportunities for charitable discussion and debate about ways that government and the church can help address entrenched problems and promote biblical values.

Finally, model Christian charity in your political engagement. Before speaking about political opponents or characterizing their positions, apply the Golden Rule: Would you want someone speaking of you and your policy positions in the same way that you speak of them? Stand firm against mean-spirited, false, and misleading political talk. Gently rebuke friends and family who use hateful or divisive speech. Most importantly, seek to model Christian virtues in the ways that you talk about and approach politics. In politics, as in every other sphere of life, we should honor and love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Election Musings

October 10, 2012/0 Comments/in Election Day Advice/by Admin

I grew up in the Washington DC suburbs in a better era of American politics. My father, a talented MIT-trained chemical engineer, was attracted to environmental policy analysis and spent most of his career helping Congress think well about energy and ecology through his work at the Congressional Research Service. Dad was on hand during the writing of the first great round of environmental policy related to clean air, water, and soil. He was very proud of his contribution to that intelligent legislation.

It almost seems like a dream now when I remember what he told me about the policymaking process in Washington. He said that legislators and their staff all had to consider the relevant facts, values, and interests. Facts are those data points that exist in reality that must be taken seriously by everyone when making policy. Data points are such things as the level of toxins in our drinking water, the mix of fuel sources that we consume in our country, the level of CO2 in the air, that kind of thing. A key role of the CRS was to provide state of the art rendering of such facts to congressional staffers and Members.

Values are the moral principles that drive the direction of policymaking. These principles could include such things as environmental sustainability, energy independence, or special attention to the needs of the poor. Dad emphasized that everyone brings values into the policymaking process, and that it is best to be transparent about what those values are during democratic deliberations.

Interests relate to the economic or other self-interest of the relevant affected parties in a policy issue. So Dad told me that you could count on oil companies to act in their economic self-interest, but you could also count on environmental groups to do the same. He said that when assessing the factual and values claims of participants in policy disputes, one must always look to their interests to see how that might be affecting their claims. This did not mean that a policy analyst did not read reports from the Sierra Club or Exxon, but that one began reading them with full awareness of their likely biases.

I remember being somewhat dazzled by the life of a Member of Congress, whom I imagined reading these learned CRS reports put together by my father and others, assessing the facts, reflecting on values, and attempting to put the interests of the public and the nation ahead of more narrow interests. And I remember being impressed by my father telling me about the rigorous process of debate and compromise, in which Members fought hard for their views, on one issue aligning with a certain set of colleagues and on another opposing them vigorously.

Ok, I was 10, and now I’m 50. I’m not supposed to be dazzled by Washington anymore.

But I think there is reason for very great concern. And that concern will not end on Election Day.

1. I am deeply concerned about the near disappearance of shared facts. The first presidential debate, and undoubtedly all the future debates, were/will be filled with disputes over supposed facts. I fear that the lack of a shared reality in our public life is increasing cynicism about our political process. I am a pretty well-schooled policy wonk, but it took me days to sift through blow-by-blow fact checking after the first presidential debate.

2. I am deeply concerned that we often cannot get straight talk from the candidates about what they value. Mainly we hear attacks from opponents projecting such values onto their adversaries. Thus Barack Obama tells us that Mitt Romney values the wealthy and wants to protect their privileges. Romney in turn tells us that Obama values big government and wants to protect its excessive power. While I believe these discussions are perhaps a bit more illuminating than our interminable fact-throwing, greater honesty from each candidate about what they truly value would be helpful.

3. I am deeply concerned that we have been trained to reduce citizenship to the advance of self-interest or corporate interests. I participated in an election forum recently in which the speaker essentially counseled a vote for Obama because his health care plan meant more jobs for people of the speaker’s particular health profession. Meanwhile the Romney/Ryan campaign has reprised the Reagan question of whether we are better off than four years ago. And the Citizens United decision unleashes corporate self-interest on an even more massive scale into the American political process.

4. And of course, the policymaking process involving shifting coalitions of lawmakers pragmatically acting on a case by case basis to advance the national interest seems like a scene from an old black-and-white movie. Ideological polarization has made “law-making” very rare indeed, and coalitions stay frozen in amber across left-right lines, with occasional rare exceptions.

I hope that our Alternative Political Conversation has offered hope of better possibilities for our public life: fact claims that stand up to objective tests, clear statements of values rooted in well-argued Christian worldviews, and a vision of the national (and global, and even divine) interest that extends beyond tawdry bottom-line thinking. I certainly sense in every setting that I am involved in a deep, groaning impatience with politics as it is, and a hunger for something better–something more like this “alternative political conversation.”

I will not advise how to vote. I imagine most of our readers long ago decided what they would do. I do know that when I look at the policy positions of each candidate, and party, I cannot find anything that looks like a coherent Christian public vision. That is not the kind of world we live in, or the kind of country we are. On November 6, each of us will be forced to make a “least bad” choice and move ahead afterwards, trying to be the best Christian citizens we can be. It is good to know that God is still sovereign, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church, and that one day Christ will return.

How Shall We Then Vote

October 9, 2012/0 Comments/in Election Day Advice/by Admin

I, of course, do not know who is going to win the election on November 6. But one thing I do know: No matter who wins I am going to be depressed. Neither candidate reflects what I see as an approach to today’s crucial public policy issues that is consistently in keeping with the principles we commentators in this series are agreed upon, including justice for all, the common good as a goal, and civil society as a part of God’s ordering of society.

If President Obama is reelected our nation faces the prospect of four more years of a White House that favors abortion-on-demand and government-recognized same-sex marriages and largely ignores religiously-based educational, health and social service organizations that have religious objections to providing certain services. On so-called social issues it is hard to see any daylight between President Obama and the more extreme gay-rights and prochoice groups. His judicial appointments are likely to reflect this perspective.

If President Obama wins November 6 my depression will be deepened by his offering few new, creative ideas on how to deal with a stagnating economy or closing the nation’s gigantic deficits. His campaign has barely mentioned how we can and should do better in helping the poor emerge from the poverty in which they are trapped. He has shown little skill or inclination to engage in the flattery, cajoling, and negotiation needed to move initiatives through Congress or the federal bureaucracy. He is no Lyndon Johnson!

But if Mitt Romney wins I will be equally depressed. Then we as a nation will be faced with the prospect of a president who has promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), an act that for the first time has the promise of providing health care insurance for nearly all, and at least begins the process of controlling health care costs. Romney has promised to replace it by creating more competition in the health insurance field, an approach that has not worked in the past.

I will be further depressed by a newly elected President Romney because of his commitment to a tax plan whose figures simply do not add up. He has promised to cut income tax rates by 20 percent and to make up the different by closing unspecified deductions and loopholes. Will contributions to churches, faith-based organizations, and other civil society organizations be on the chopping block? Will deductions for interest paid on home mortgages, which helps families to own their own homes, be eliminated? He will increase spending on defense, even though the US already comes close to spending as much on defense as all the other countries of the world combined (41 percent versus 59 percent).

On social issues Romney is now taking a prolife position on abortion, although earlier in his career he took a prochoice position. He has not clearly defended a consistent position on protecting the religious freedom rights of faith-based organizations. Which Mitt Romney will emerge in the Oval Office when it comes to appointing federal judges? There will be strong pressures on him to appoint the-less-regulation-of-business-the-better judges without regard to their thinking on social issues. Does he possess the internalized values that will insist his appointees hold to traditional values regarding marriage and life in all its stages?

But maybe I’m being too pessimistic and my election-night depression may be lifted by subsequent events. President Obama has been willing to defy the liberal establishment by protecting the rights of faith-based organizations to take religion into account in their hiring decisions. He has made some efforts to protect faith-based organizations from having to provide services their faith condemns. He will work to protect his signature accomplishment of his first term: Obamacare. If he succeeds in closing the deficit in federal spending by some cuts in spending (especially in the Medicare and Medicaid areas) and by some tax increases, the common good will be advanced. In foreign policy his balance between forceful action and measured responses, as seen in the Middle East and its threats and eruptions, would be a good omen for a second Obama term.

And if Mitt Romney becomes President Romney, perhaps the Mitt Romney of the first presidential debate will win out over the Romney of the primary season. The Romney of the first presidential debate promised not to cut the taxes of the wealthy, to recognize the importance of government regulation in a complex, interdependent economy, and to bring to the Oval Office a sense of compassion for the poor and dispossessed of our society. These give me hope.

So which presidential candidate more closely reflects the basic Christian principles to which we as commentators in this series have agreed? And which one more closely reflects the positions I personally have taken in my essays? For whom am I going to vote? I cannot say for I do not know.

I keep hoping that before I leave this earth for a better world, I will be able to vote in a presidential election for a candidate who upholds traditional values of family and marriage, sees faith-based service organizations as being genuinely religious in nature and cares about protecting their religious liberties even when they partner with government in providing public services, values human life in all of its stages, and advocates public policies in support of these values; and, at the same time, cares passionately about protecting God’s creation with appropriate regulation, seeks through government regulation to control the excesses of an unbridled free enterprise system, and cares deeply about assuring all—rich and poor alike—have access to decent health care and opportunities for the training and work opportunities needed for them to be all that God intends them to be.

Unfortunately, 2012 is not the election year when I will have an opportunity to vote for such a candidate.

MODERATOR NOTE: A few years ago, I used a 2008 book written by Steve Monsma in an Adult Discipleship class at my home church, and it was very well received. Titled Healing for a Broken World: Christian Perspectives on Public Policy, this book is Steve’s attempt to answer some of the extreme positions and angry rhetoric of the religious left and especially the religious right. It seeks to broaden the common ground on which all Christian can agree. It is written for a general audience of nonexperts who wish to cut through the fog of political debate and learn how to think in a biblical, Christian manner about today’s public policy issues and debates.

For those many of you who have appreciated Steve’s very thoughtful and insightful APC postings, I am pleased to inform you that his book is now available as an iBook. It can be downloaded and read on iPads. It is available for $9.95, can be found at the Apple iStore, and can be accessed at the following site: http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/healing-for-broken-world-expanded/id562129796?mt=11&uo=4.

This book is a marvelous companion to our Alternative Political Conversation. Therefore, I strongly encourage those of you who have been following our APC to consider purchasing this new iBook.

Harold Heie