Tuesday, August 26, 2008

On voting

As a Christian who also happens to be a U.S. citizen, I'm very frustrated by both McCain and Obama. More so, I'm frustrated by Christians who think McCain or Obama will solve all the world's problems. Of course, they'd never put it that way, but the stories they tell about each candidate betray no deviation from the plain old boring party line--whichever party it happens to be.

As an Anabaptist by conviction, I've mentioned to several folks that I've thought about not voting in the fall. I didn't vote in the primaries, why would I vote in the presidentials? Needless to say, the outcry has been overwhelming. Civic duty bla bla bla, abortion bla bla bla, war bla bla bla. Right-o, not only is it my 'civic duty' to vote, it's also obvious which way I should vote. For McCain. For Obama. Of course, of course.

So here are my thoughts as they stand.

I am a Christian. I don't really care about my U.S. citizenship (or my French citizenship for that matter)--though of course in many ways I profit from it. As a Christian, I do not have a 'duty' to vote. I do not believe in the nation-state, whatever that nation-state happens to be--I believe in Christ's Reign. (Or to put it in biblical language: "Take your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one in military service gets entangled in matters of everyday life; otherwise he will not please the one who recruited him."--I Tim. 2:3-4, NET. Voting, I would suggest, may well count as getting 'entangled in civilian affairs'...)

Nevertheless, I don't believe in principled nonvoting either. Paul, for example, though he says "Do not become partners with those who do not believe, for what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship does light have with darkness?" (II Cor. 6:14, NET) is also unafraid to use his Roman citizenship to his advantage, as in Acts 22:25, when, being whipped, he asks: "Is it legal for you to lash a man who is a Roman citizen without a proper trial?" (notice how gentle this question is however--this is hardly the patriotism it is sometimes made out to be).
Christians cannot be 'pure' by opting out. Though we are as good as 'saved', we are not yet 'sanctified', and so we aren't 'pure' in the first place. It would thus be inconsistent to pretend to be more pure than we are. Besides, the kind of purity God has given to those in Christ is not a fragile purity, one that would be easily 'contaminated'. No, rather we are freed from contamination logic to be contagiously pure. Jesus touched corpses, menstruating women, and lepers. He embraced them. Christians, to the extent that they actually are pure, have this kind of purity. It is a purity which transforms the world, not one which shies away from it.

At the same time, the Christian logic of contagious purity cannot be used to baptize party platforms (e.g. Donald Miller's unfortunate prayer at the DNC--cf. here, HT: JT). So where does that leave us? As it stands, I think Christians can allow themselves a form of ad hoc voting, where this is justified by one candidate's being far superior to another. This presupposes two things.
(1) First, it presupposes that there is a legitimate distinction between casting a vote and endorsing. A Christian cannot endorse any kingdom of the world. But I do agree with those who suggest that voting need not signify endorsing. If I could be shown that this distinction is a false one (as Mark of Jesus Manifesto believes), I would be unable to vote.
(2) Second, and perhaps more dramatically, it presupposes that there is a reasonably easy way to tell that one candidate is better than another. And that, my friends, is one very optimistic presupposition.

So let me part with the following. I am neither 'pro-life' nor 'pro-choice', as the parties define these terms, because I am not an essentialist concerning human nature (having a certain genetic code does not unilaterally make us 'special'). And so the abortion issue is not enough for me to tell which of McCain or Obama is better. I am a pacifist. But the war issue is not enough for me to tell which of McCain or Obama is better, because both men want to beef up the military, and even Obama, who is against the Iraq war, wants to continue on in Afghanistan, and in the so-called 'war on terror' in general (sigh). Both men are unwilling to raise critical questions about the U.S.'s 'support' of (read: giving loads of weapons to) the state of Israel.
Energy: both men are roughly on the same page here.
Social policies: I don't have a PhD in economics, so I have no idea what's good for the poor. Nevertheless, as a Christian who believes that the Fall is deep, I'm incredibly wary of the naive idealism required for so-called 'free markets' to work. So I naturally lean to the left here. The trouble, of course, is that governments are made up of people too--so corruption can happen there just as easily as it can in big corporations. Perhaps this is something I need to think more about.

Finally, and here there IS a big difference between McCain and Obama: so far as I can tell, only McCain seems to have an uncritical, quasi-Bushian view of evil (see the Civil Forum transcript here, or specifically this file). And I quote: "Of course evil must be defeated. My friends, we are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century: radical Islamic extremists."
Yes, it's those damned 'Islamic extremists' who are evil. They, them. Over there. Not us. Never.
Right, McCain... right.

Compare with Obama's answer (see this file): "... one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task. But we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it [...] but you know a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil."
For all the rest of Obama's mushy liberal theology, here he reveals himself to have a solidly Christian understanding of evil (which means, in passing, that I would rather attend Obama's church--even given his former pastor, that scary black man Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright--than McCain's church).

This post is dragging on, so I apologize. My main point is this. Things being what they are, I'm considering voting for Obama in the fall. Or rather, I'm considering voting against John McCain in the fall, because he scares me. A man with that kind of power and that kind of worldview can do a whole lot o' damage. God have mercy on my soul--and on the world.

As an aside, I have good friends who are voting Green, for Cynthia McKinney. And while I appreciate their (and her) perspective, given the fact that she won't be elected (just trying to be realistic here), voting for her really does seem to me to embody some kind of trust in (or endorsement of) the system--the kind of trust that sits oddly with Christian commitments in the Anabaptist tradition.

That's all for today folks. I'd love to hear some of my readers' reasons for voting, or not voting, or voting for candidate X, Y or Z.

God's peace.
-Daniel-

7 comments:

Mike L. said...

I find it interesting that in the past you've warned against people about turning a politician into some kind of perfect savior, but it sounds like that is exactly what you want.

I don't think anyone ever sees any candidate as perfect. 90% of us vote for a candidate with the same kind of guarded suspicion which you express (maybe not so dramatic). Taking the "red button" out of the hands of the advisory staff that have been advising Bush for the last 8 years is a good enough reason to vote for Obama (or against McCain).

So my advice to you is to take your own advice and stop trying to turn politicians into saviors and pick the flawed human that most meets your ideals and priorities. Use a healthy dose of reason. For example, realize that neither candidate is going to abort babies as a president, so including that issue in your logic is unproductive. The next president will, however, influence our budget for education, health care, aid to hurting 3rd world nations, and heavily influence our direction in the current war and recognize which candidate will reach first for bombs or negotiations.

Daniel D. Farmer said...

The point is of course that no politician could ever BE a savior (just like no human being could ever 'wipe out' evil). Hence my guardedness. I don't expect there to be a savior--though many people I know talk as if they do have just that expectation.

I generally agree with you about abortion, but of course Republicans will point out that the next president will appoint several Supreme Court justices. And of course the Supreme Court does have a lot of power on this issue. I know where you stand on abortion more generally, so you can spare me the Democratic reply, but the point is that there are a variety of issues to weigh with no obvious 'right' answer.

And it's at least in principle possible that the two main party candidates could each represent something you find essential and something you find repugnant (my parents, for instance, weren't particularly thrilled at the prospect of a Clinton/McCain race). In such cases, I think Christians are perfectly justified in abstaining from voting.

So then the key question is: is this one of those times?

Pastor Mark said...

I'm feeling feisty! Here goes...

1. Long post. How about more numbers to guide your devoted, but weary readers?

2. Lots of PhD's in econ also struggle with how to help the poor. Which means we're all qualified to gather info from many fields of knowledge and try to figure it out as best we can.

3. As Christians we are citizens of heaven, but we can still care about and be very grateful for the blessing of earthly citizenship in a country (or two) which offers us a significant degree of freedom and justice compare to what much of the world knows and has known.

4. It seems to me that the overall wisdom, understanding, character, values, and global philosophy of a candidate trump his positions on particular issues with which I disagree.

5. My main point: It would help to remember both the "not yet" of the gospel, and that in order to redeem the fallen creation from its bondage to evil, Christ fully incarnated himself in it yet without being of it. The Essenes withdrew from society to be pure, and accomplished little. Paul, as you point out, jumped in with both feet.

Thanks for the dialogue!

Daniel D. Farmer said...

Thanks for the comment Dad.

1. You're right, numbered paragraphs might have been more helpful.

2. I agree!

3. I agree here as well.

4. Character is important, but I wonder if you're overlooking the inertia of systems. They say power corrupts, and I'm inclined to think that even a 'good person' (e.g. Obama) will end up being either (1) ineffective or (2) corrupted. The machinery of the U.S. presidency comes with a lot of problematic preconditions over which the president has little to no control. These are what worry me.

5. I entirely agree. But the primary mode of God's action in the world is the Church. Or to be more precise, the Church is called to be the vehicle of God's rule in the world--I have no doubt that the Spirit blows where it wills, regardless of how faithful the Church is being.

Cheers,
-Daniel-

Mike L. said...

Daniel,

What do you mean by...

"The point is of course that no politician could ever BE a savior..."

Anyone can be a savior. It simply depends on what you need to be saved from. My wife has been my savior more than once. Doctors save lives all the time. My Parents, my business partner, my friends, even a few web logs have saved me at times.

I think you have a flair for the dramatic (which isn't a bad thing and is something I like about you). Every bit of saving doesn't have to be a grand slam. Let's hit a few singles now and then. Savior has many meanings and if you're a mother or father of a soldier in a Iraq and Obama could get that child home one day sooner and save their life, then I'm sure they would call Obama a savior. I think they would be correct to do so. If your vote helped make that happen, then you're a bit of a savior too.

Nora Beerline said...

Hello, Daniel. In the course of this election, I started out for Huckabee, switched to Obama, swung to neutral ground, and now after last night's speech I think I am back in his corner. I am not happy with his VP, because (and this may be an erroneous impression) Biden has always struck me as arrogant and not trustworthy, a little too smooth if you will. But I will freely admit I have no concrete evidence to base those impressions on, so I could be completely wrong.

But if Obama meant what he said last night (and I'd like to believe that he did), he wants to help the poor and middle class without suggesting that government assistance is the only answer. I particularly liked the section of his speech where he stated that America "was better than the last 8 years" had demonstrated.

Apparently McCain will be choosing his VP shortly from my neck of the woods (Ohio). It will be interesting to see who he chooses.

Daniel D. Farmer said...

Hi Mike--of course you're right, saving comes in degrees. :-)
Perhaps I should have used the language of 'perfect savior' like you did in your first post.
I don't doubt that one presidential candidate could be better than another, and in that sense be a 'savior' to some people.
I'm more skeptical of presidential powers in general than you are, I think. And I'm quite wary of having a self-proclaimed Christian at the head of the world's most powerful military. Not that Obama wouldn't be 'better' there than McCain (on some criteria of betterness)--but I'm wary nonetheless.

Nora, thanks for your feedback. I watched Obama's speech last night too and found it very compelling at points. Other points were, I think, more problematic. But it'll be interesting to see how this develops.
I just have to keep reminding myself that the hope of the world is not Obama (or McCain)--but Jesus, followed faithfully in the Church. Sometimes I forget that in the media frenzy...

Peace,
-Daniel-