Thinking through Voting Priorities

Tis the season... for politics.

The Republican primary races are heating up as the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries are next month. Though the entire country and not all Christians are Republican, I still thought it'd be an appropriate time to think through how we should vote.

Years ago, I treated readers to a systematic theology of political issues in their rank of importance. That's similarly related to how I think through political issues, and why I vote on certain politicians over others. You may not agree with this list, but I find having a rubric in place sets my mind at ease, and helps me not get caught up in the ephemeral beauty pageants that tend to be Presidential elections (or high-profile state elections).

1. To me, the most important defining characteristic of whom to vote for over another revolves around a person's view on major life and death issues. Particularly, what is a candidate's stance on just war and abortion? The most fundamental human right (found in the 1st and 9th amendments) is the right to exist and to exist justifiably. Babies in the womb have not done wrong so as to be killed, and neither have innocent civilians in war. Naturally, there are more complexities to the issue than this. But generally, if I agree with a candidate's views here over and against a different candidate, I won't go any farther. I will pull the trigger for the one I agree with.

2. But what if two (or more) candidates generally agree on the above issues? How might I further differentiate on them? Well, in this category, I will call it "quality of life" issues. Does the candidate really believe an unfettered market is an unqualified good? Does the candidate believe in any semblance of local, state, or federal solutions or cooperations with private industry or charity to accomplish ends which alleviate human suffering? Does the candidate believe in a statist proposition that government is the instrument of good? Do they believe the government is an instrument of good at all or can it merely set the right conditions for justice to occur? I'm trying not to give away all of my political opinions on various issues here, other than to say that how you answer these questions will likely determine your vote in a state or primary election.

3. But what if candidates agree, even still, on the issues in the second category? How will I then decide? This is what I call the character category. Does the individual exemplify strong moral character? Are they running unfair attack ads? Does the individual display an effective means of leadership? Are they intelligent or just an ideological puppet? These are important questions. I might agree with a candidate on all important issues, but they might be a horrible leader. Nevertheless, I don't want to stomach compromise on the first two issues just to get a good leader. I will vote for someone if they agree with my opinions on 1 and 2 but have moral character, as opposed to someone who has great moral character but I disagree with their views on 2. That's why these are prioritized in this fashion.

Now, I can never nor have I ever come upon a situation where my vote wasn't determined by these three steps. I can't think of any examples where candidates would have lined up well in all three categories.

You might have a different priority as you think of whom you might vote for? I'm curious as to what those might be. Feel free to comment below.

Tax Policy and The Ethics of Justice

President Obama and Congressional Republicans have seemingly reached a deal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, and now the Senate will take up debate on the specifics of passing the law. It seems the conservatives have thus won this round.

And so the pinnacle of American voting hypocrisy continues. Americans like to vote for candidates who will keep their taxes low but who will also guarantee them as many entitlements as possible provided for by the government. It's an interesting hypocrisy, and it's born of some fundamental opposing views on justice.

The first position acknowledges the fundamental envy at the root of a progressive tax scheme. It's not merely that rich people pay more, it's that they pay more of a percentage. It's not that higher earners pay simply more in total amount, but they pay more of a percentage of that total amount. Scores of different estimates say the burden of the tax scheme is on the top few percentages of income earners, because of such a scheme. Opponents of our tax scheme (and consequently opponents of a tax hike) say that the sin of envy is codified by law. Sin is therefore legal.  This position says that a moral standard is placed on the rich by the poor/middle class, because the rich ought to pay more than their fair share (anytime we use the language of ought or should, we are making a moral claim). It's a justice issue, an indication of a lack of fairness, that some pay more of a percentage than others.

The other position says that evidence of the poor and the elderly without appropriate care point to a society that isn't just. It is incumbent on the society to do something about such injustice. And because government is the biggest entity that can do something about it, weilding massive budgets, it can afford to be the primary agent to care for the poor and elderly. Out of necessity, a tax scheme that can afford such promises to these individuals must be devised. If it is "progressive" (note the double entendre that word can play), then so be it. It is more just to have poor folks fed and sheltered than it is to worry about envy in tax code.

And so those are the two positions. It's easy to see how well-meaning Christians can end up on either side of the debate. But I lean towards the first with admitted sympathy for the second. Here's why:

• I do believe a tax code that assures envy actually perpetuates poverty. There's reasonable empirical evidence for this as well (see Marvin Olasky's "The Tragedy of American Compassion")
• Relying on the government to do the works of justice is a capitulation of the duty of the Christian, which is a job the church and non-profits should principally play.
• Government can only be an instrument of coercion. The progressive tax policy might be born of a sense of justice and fairness, but taxes are something the government forces of its people. Something ceases to be compassionate where coercion is involved.
• And yet, given the situation America is in with growing entitlements, I do believe it'd be unjust to immediately roll back social security and medicare and medicaid. These entities need reform, sure. But it must come slowly and with great care. There are many elderly people who rely on social security alone, and so I'm not immune to the human face of things in politics. For instance, we ought to raise the retirement age in increments, because it better reflects American demographics and life expectancy than in the 1930s, but we must do so with great care over time.

Where do you lie on such a spectrum?

The START Treaty and Yearning for Peace

In this lame duck session of Congress, President Obama has spent a lot of time trying to convince Congress to pass the START- strategic arms reduction- treaty. It's a treaty with Russia to guarantee that both the United States and Russia will reduce their nuclear arsenals. The logic goes: both countries have thousands of nuclear weapons, maybe it'd be better to reduce both stockpiles to only a thousand or so. Here's the facts:

• To this point, only 7-9 countries in the whole world possess nuclear weapons (North Korea's working bomb is debatable and Israel is debated. The others are the US, Russia, Great Britain, France, China, India, and Pakistan). 
• International treaties require a 2/3 vote (67) in the Senate. Debate remains on whether or not the Senate will pass the treaty or not. At this point, it doesn't appear likely.

I can't help but think it's a noble goal to reduce the world of the most horrible weapon ever devised. But I also can't help but think there's some countries that shouldn't have the capability, and thus the US needs to keep them just as a deterrent to these other nations. These thoughts are nothing new to anyone used to this discussion. But here's what I've really been ruminating on.

This advent season, I've been reading through major Messianic passages of Isaiah: chapters 9, 11, and 40. I keep reading of a perfect world.  A world where justice and righteousness are perfectly maintained. A world where old hostilities cease- even in the animal kingdom- and peace is brought to all nations and peoples. I keep reading about a world where everything is finally set right again. It's a perfect world because it centers around it's leader, the Messiah. Jesus will one day reign over the scope of this entire world and set all of our systems at peace.

And then I think again about nuclear weapons. What would be the most noble thing? The thing that most resembles the Messiah's form of leadership? You see, because the Messiah will wage war against all the evil the world has ever known. His wrath will be like nothing we've ever seen, not even in nuclear weapons. But once he wins, his peace will be a peace with no end, a peace that ushers a wholeness this world has never known.

Is it more noble to have nuclear weapons in a world where evil does exist? Or is it more noble to reduce that amount as much as possible? 

I believe it's that tension and ambiguity that is supposed to make us yearn for the coming of Jesus even more. I can think of nothing better to dwell on this Advent season.

TSA and the Human Heart

In the last week, the TSA's new procedures have become the topic of hot national debate. I've read three articles in opposition to these new policies. Charles Krauthammer's column got a lot of attention because of the column's title (Don't Touch My Junk). George Will's column is more measured, but equally vitriolic (The T. S. of A). And lastly, on a popular Christian researcher's website, Ed Stetzer wrote Four Reasons Why You Should Resist the New Procedures.

In a representative democracy, the age old tension goes between the level of freedom and the level of security. The more security, the less freedom (think 1984). The more freedom, the less security (think Tale of Two Cities or any other book about the French Revolution). Somewhere in powerful democracies, the tension must be managed. 

The interesting aspect about this is that none of us are ever really guaranteed security and freedom. Despite the most just laws this planet has ever known, the US federal government cannot completely guarantee our safety (though it can make sure that itself won't be the cause of preventing freedom-- that's why I'm a conservative). The federal government cannot stop anyone from putting a bomb in a major urban area in a backpack and killing a few people. Israel is the most secure country on the planet and yet it endures small bombings like this regularly.

The only way we really have a safe society is by having safe citizens. The Bill of Rights protects me from no one except the government, in actuality. The Bill of Rights does not make sure that my roadway is safe from a suicide bomber tomorrow. The only real guarantee of safety I have is that if just law is embedded in people's hearts. If the first amendment is so ingrained into the American people, we'll demand a fair hearing no matter where we go. Law must be in the heart, for us to know real peace and freedom. 

And embedded deeply in the American heart is the Bill of Rights. Our citizens live it and breathe it. We have a free press, the most (though not always) fair trials in all the world, and the right to resist illegal searches and seizures. We have the right to not be punished cruelly and unusually. Take note of these laws: they are basically on the American heart.

And then go read Shari'a law. It is in direct opposition to our Bill of Rights. Cruel and unusual punishment is commanded. Free speech isn't guaranteed. There is no guarantee of freedom or security in a society that is ruled by Shari'a law- law that would be in the hearts of most. Law must be on the heart for real freedom and security to exist.

In other words, TSA could take naked pictures of us and it won't make much of a difference.

Chesterton Vs. Jon Stewart

I remarked, at the beginning of this year, that I had been reading a lot of G.K. Chesterton and that I'd try to read a set amount of his books by the end of the year. Well, last night I just finished reading The Ball and the Cross and therefore accomplished that goal I had set in January. Immediately after finishing that book last night, I read this article, about today's Rally to Restore Sanity in Washington, led by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

The two ideas, from either reading source, converged on me last night, and it was amusing to me. Let me set the stage. First, The Rally to Restore Sanity is an attempt to recover civil discourse in America. To Stewart and Colbert, there's too much misinformation, too much emotional appeal, and too little logic in political discussions. They are appealing to the moderate majority, so to speak, to reach out to the people who are not inflamed by either side of the political divide. The irony, of course, is that both individuals are big-time liberals, so the rally has more of the feel of a counter-balance to Glenn Beck style Tea Partying. The rally possesses the likely misunderstanding of equating sensibility with liberal politics. 

Standing opposite the elitist and pretentious show of sensibility, there's the Ball and the Cross. In this novel, a rabid atheist is offended by a rabid Catholic and they agree to duel based on their differing views of the virgin Mary. The atheist seems to be the only person in the world really convinced of his atheistic views. The Catholic seems to be the only true Christian in the world. The rest of England, however, gets wrapped up in the publicity of their duel. The public is in horror over the fighting, finding it a wicked way to resolve a dispute. All along the way, the two duelists are trying to escape the police and other individuals who would try to stop them from fighting. As the book wears on, the two become close friends, despite the fact that neither gives up their beliefs. By the end of the book, both men, and any who were sympathetic to them, get imprisoned in a lunatic asylum. The irony of the book is that these two men were really the only sane men in a world of madmen. They believed so strongly in their convictions that they knew that those convictions were the only thing that mattered.

My problem with the Rally to Restore Sanity is exemplified by this book. The Rally has the honorable goal of trying to institute rational discourse into our politics, but am I really to believe that two comedians are the ones to do this? The Rally presumes it isn't right to have strong convictions, and even to be emotionally provoked by them. Indeed, I would hope that we are emotionally provoked by our convictions. Ideas are powerful; why would we pretend they aren't?

You see, it's always been my goal to have political discussions from the core of our convictions. I don't care about moderation or sensibility or foolish talk of manners. I wrote this about a year ago:

I say we have that debate from the core of our convictions. Let's have that debate between the utilitarian views of liberalism and the life and individual liberty ethic of conservatism. Let's have that debate between free-market capitalism and socialism. Maybe then we'll be able to answer, from a philosophical standpoint, the role of the government in commerce. Maybe then we'll see the virtue in some political positions and the evil in others.

The gentlemen in The Ball and the Cross exemplified a nuance rarely seen, and highly misunderstood, in America. They believed so much in their convictions that they'd die or kill for it, but they remained so civil that they still loved and respected and admired the other. Let's do that. And not the silly Rally.