An absolutely brutal day, week, and year for President Obama. As a side note, I renew my objection to First Things, a Christian magazine, embedding a partisan blog within without explanation. Interacting with politics is important for Christians. But what we ought to do is set up the framework--whether biblical, philosophical, moral, etc.--by which Christians consider how they participate and vote. We ought to be wise enough not to simply slap a Scripture verse on our pet cause or causes, arrogantly note how one party or another fails to address our supposedly more enlightened understanding, and then cheerlead for one side. Politics is 1000 times more acrimonious when people "sanctify" their political participation with a rugged certitude only matched by their ignorance. There's too little a discussion of theory behind policy choices, and quite a rush to define particular policies and people as the more "Christian" of the two choices. (And we assume there are only two.) We Christians throw ill-considered brickbats at each other with the same ferocity that we throw them at our non-Christian neighbors. If that weren't bad enough, it doesn't seem like much in the way of learning or new information changes hands.
For every person who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP and a Christian, there's another who, having seen that, decides to vote opposite to be contrarian, or because they accept the caricature of them by their opponents. Why can't we say, "I give these issues these relative weights, and I weigh collective good/national purpose vs. individual liberty thus, so I vote for candidate X." If you can't imagine how someone could vote for candidate Y, if you think it's easy to decide what to do, (and whether to vote at all) you probably haven't thought about it enough. [Aren't you just congratulating yourself for overanalyzing and pretending to be above the fray, Jason?--ed.] Maybe. But all I know is, I wrote endorsements for both major party candidates at different times, flirted with a write-in, and with not voting for president. And I'm an ideologue! We lament "the lesser of two evils"; some deplore the quality of choices, believing that "the system" is producing a "race to the bottom," but the truth is, our choices reflect the quality of our discourse, the quality of our thoughtful reflection. As we grow in understanding of issues and theory, I think our struggle will only get worse. We're not going to get beyond the lesser of two evils, because our process requires compromise. Let me say that again: Our system runs on compromise. What we each must decide is which issues are non-negotiable, and why?
[The Complicating Factor: The Christian and Life Issues] Abortion and the related have long been a single-issue deal-breaker for Christians, and in some sense, rightly so. There is no more fundamental consideration than the dignity of human beings created in God's image. Abortion is a part, but so is war, euthanasia, capital punishment, torture/interrogation, and a whole host of other things. If you find someone running for president with a chance to win who speaks coherently and consistently on these issues, you let me know. And we haven't even considered the means to tackle these issues, and that relation to our liberty yet! Catholic social teaching offers a great deal of considered reflection on a whole host of issues, but I think pious Catholicism ("conservative Catholicism" offers little more than soft theonomy on some things (like homosexuality) and is in serious danger of political co-option on its strongest issue. Note to the bishops: John McCain is pro-death. George W. Bush probably was, too. You could not have credibly told me that McCain was a better choice based on what he and Obama stated, and if you made it a mortal sin to vote Obama, I would tell you to your face to stuff it. Not because I don't think the Catholic Church or any church has no right to speak on these issues; quite the contrary. But because I think it ends up a wash with either guy. Now, Obama deserves to lose for misrepresenting his actual thoughts on the matter, and the degree to which he has considered the opposite position (not at all, in its best form). But I was not troubled in the least to vote Obama even with his views. Noone has the stones to actually appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court--beyond the ones already there--(and barely to the lower courts) and Obama's actions do not in any way change what I will believe, or what I would do if I or my loved ones had to make a choice. Roe could be on the books a thousand years, and it doesn't alter the fact that a person must make a choice. Are we more coarse in our very souls because of it? Yes. Most likely. Did Obama's election make one whit of a difference in this? No. Even if he is a thin-skinned intellectual lightweight with a talent for nonsensical bloviation, he was STILL the better choice.
For every person who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP and a Christian, there's another who, having seen that, decides to vote opposite to be contrarian, or because they accept the caricature of them by their opponents. Why can't we say, "I give these issues these relative weights, and I weigh collective good/national purpose vs. individual liberty thus, so I vote for candidate X." If you can't imagine how someone could vote for candidate Y, if you think it's easy to decide what to do, (and whether to vote at all) you probably haven't thought about it enough. [Aren't you just congratulating yourself for overanalyzing and pretending to be above the fray, Jason?--ed.] Maybe. But all I know is, I wrote endorsements for both major party candidates at different times, flirted with a write-in, and with not voting for president. And I'm an ideologue! We lament "the lesser of two evils"; some deplore the quality of choices, believing that "the system" is producing a "race to the bottom," but the truth is, our choices reflect the quality of our discourse, the quality of our thoughtful reflection. As we grow in understanding of issues and theory, I think our struggle will only get worse. We're not going to get beyond the lesser of two evils, because our process requires compromise. Let me say that again: Our system runs on compromise. What we each must decide is which issues are non-negotiable, and why?
[The Complicating Factor: The Christian and Life Issues] Abortion and the related have long been a single-issue deal-breaker for Christians, and in some sense, rightly so. There is no more fundamental consideration than the dignity of human beings created in God's image. Abortion is a part, but so is war, euthanasia, capital punishment, torture/interrogation, and a whole host of other things. If you find someone running for president with a chance to win who speaks coherently and consistently on these issues, you let me know. And we haven't even considered the means to tackle these issues, and that relation to our liberty yet! Catholic social teaching offers a great deal of considered reflection on a whole host of issues, but I think pious Catholicism ("conservative Catholicism" offers little more than soft theonomy on some things (like homosexuality) and is in serious danger of political co-option on its strongest issue. Note to the bishops: John McCain is pro-death. George W. Bush probably was, too. You could not have credibly told me that McCain was a better choice based on what he and Obama stated, and if you made it a mortal sin to vote Obama, I would tell you to your face to stuff it. Not because I don't think the Catholic Church or any church has no right to speak on these issues; quite the contrary. But because I think it ends up a wash with either guy. Now, Obama deserves to lose for misrepresenting his actual thoughts on the matter, and the degree to which he has considered the opposite position (not at all, in its best form). But I was not troubled in the least to vote Obama even with his views. Noone has the stones to actually appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court--beyond the ones already there--(and barely to the lower courts) and Obama's actions do not in any way change what I will believe, or what I would do if I or my loved ones had to make a choice. Roe could be on the books a thousand years, and it doesn't alter the fact that a person must make a choice. Are we more coarse in our very souls because of it? Yes. Most likely. Did Obama's election make one whit of a difference in this? No. Even if he is a thin-skinned intellectual lightweight with a talent for nonsensical bloviation, he was STILL the better choice.
Comments