how the world goes
Voting is hard for me. My ethical orientation is best described as a version of the consistent life ethic, or “seamless garment” ethic, articulated most forcefully and cogently by certain Catholic thinkers. But (a) there has never been nor is there ever likely to be a political candidate at a level above dogcatcher who embodies that stance, and (b) I have some serious libertarianish reservations about whether the government — especially in a pluralistic society — is the institution best suited to implementing such an ethic. As I understand my situation, all this means that I, as a Christian who owes allegiance to the church, am necessarily something of a resident alien in any country and in any polity; and I think it also means that almost any vote I make needs to be something of a protest vote — a protest against a society which simply does not support a consistently pro-life ethic.
I don’t understand my fellow Christians who are enthusiastic Republicans; I don’t understand the ones who are enthusiastic Democrats either. When I try to talk to either group about the ways their preferred party upholds — indeed, even celebrates — policies that simply cannot be reconciled with Christian teaching, I get the same shrug. Yes, they are certainly more “realistic” than I am; they may have a better understanding of what it means to live in a fallen and broken world. But they are all too sanguine for me. They aren’t sad enough. There aren’t enough — I recently taught the Aeneid, which brings this line to mind — there aren’t enough lachrimae rerum, tears for how the world goes.
In previous election seasons my distress largely focused on Christians who voted Republican; this time it’s Christians who are voting Democratic — most of the Christians I know, it seems. “I’m voting for Obama — but I’m still pro-life! I still think abortion is a great moral evil!” they tell me, and I just want to ask, “How?” I know that some could give me a good answer, but most can't: for them it’s just a performative utterance — “If I say I’m pro-life, that counts as being pro-life.” But it doesn’t cost you anything, does it? You still get to sit at the table with the other cool kids who voted for Obama.
Now, seriously, I understand the core claim: Obama supports abortion, but he will implement policies X Y and Z that by reducing poverty will reduce the frequency of abortions; plus he will save lives by getting us out of Iraq. Fair enough. But you’re voting for someone who strongly supports eliminating every legal impediment to something that you think is a great moral evil. Doesn’t that make you somewhat uncomfortable? Don’t you feel the paradox of that?
I voted for Bob Barr for President, by the way, something I probably wouldn’t have done if he had any chance to win. A strange way to vote, I’m sure, but it’s the only way I can manage it. Could be cowardly, a way to avoid responsibility — whoever wins, I can say, “hey, not my guy” — I don't know. I’m just sad about the whole situation. Sunt lachrimae rerum indeed.
UPDATE: Russell Arben Fox gets the paradox I was talking about. John Schwenkler agrees.
I’m in agreement with you on the consistent life ethic and the position such people (generally Christians) hold in society. It is very much an “in but not of” thing. All that said, I don’t see the value in voting third party. I would just as soon pass over the presidency (create an undervote) or do a write in of someone who is genuinely consistent life. (Brownback or Chris Smith come to mind).
— Stephen B · Nov 4, 07:11 PM · #
Although I might personally think that my interpretation of Christianity is correct, there is no one Christian teaching. In addition to the zillions of flavors of Christianity out there, you could say there’s pretty much one individual teaching for every single member of inner-directed religious groups like, for example, the Quakers.
And thinking that something is the wrong thing to do is not the same thing as thinking it’s right to legally force this judgment on everyone else.
I might think it’s wrong to get divorced, and also think that it would be a terrible moral wrong to legally force people not to get divorces.
I might think it’s wrong to have an abortion, and also think that it would be a terrible moral wrong to legally force people to carry pregnancies to term.
It’s worth noting too, that some people who believe that abortion is always wrong will vote for candidates who advocate that abortion should be legal in cases of, say, rape or incest. They, too, either believe there are aspects of their own moral code that they don’t think should be legally imposed on other people, or they are voting against their beliefs.
— nascardaughter · Nov 4, 07:50 PM · #
“I have some serious libertarianish reservations about whether the government — especially in a pluralistic society — is the institution best suited to implementing such an ethic.”
This is as succinct a statement of theist libertarianism as I’ve heard — why isn’t it fully convincing to you?
(Nascardaughter – thanks, you phrased that more completely, and with less frustration, that I would have.)
— LP · Nov 4, 07:59 PM · #
Oh, I feel the paradox. In fact, the harping from my Christians brothers and sisters over Obama’s support for the Freedom of Choice Act almost got me to pull the lever for McCain. Ultimately, though the weight of things that I disagree with McCain about (which is to say almost everything except this one issue) overwhelmed that single issue.
The paradox and the pain are acutely felt, though.
— JS Bangs · Nov 4, 08:10 PM · #
I agree w/ you. However, if I were to do a write-in candidate today it would be Ron Paul. If men were chosen based on wisdom, he would be the one elected today. He repeatedly warned Congress of the economic crisis, which has now arrived. Here is an excerpt from his Sept 15, 2005 speech:
“Our spending habits, in combination with our flawed monetary system, if not changed will bring us a financial whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a minor storm. Loss of confidence in the dollar and the international financial system is a frightening possibility—
The Federal Reserve must stop inflating the currency merely for the purpose of artificially lowering interest rates to perpetuate a financial bubble. This policy allows government and consumer debt to grow beyond sustainable levels, while undermining incentives to save. This in turn undermines capital investment while exaggerating consumption. If this policy doesn’t change, the dollar must fall and the current account deficit will play havoc until the house of cards collapses.”
And here, from Sept 10, 2003, he warns about Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac:
“After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market……………
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts…….
. I hope today’s hearing sheds light on how special privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers..”
This was the only guy who saw it coming. He selflessly continued to warn and warn, like an unheeded Jeremiah, writing scores of addresses to Congress. He is the only one we should trust. Instead, we may be electing his opposite: a narcissist who has written two tomes…about himself, and who foresaw nothing, and even now, with the aid of hindsight, can’t discern the truth.
Wisdom without ability is useless.
Ability without wisdom is dangerous.
— casusbelli · Nov 4, 08:16 PM · #
I see no difference in tactically voting Republican because you think Republican policies will eventually result in fewer abortions and tactically voting Democratic because you think Democratic policies will eventually result in fewer abortions.
If you really believe abortion is some kind of holocaust, both positions are woefully inadequate. “I voted for the guy who shook his head and said it was bad, while sorta maybe doing something about it, instead of the guy who said it was not so bad, while sorta maybe doing something about it.”
If abortion is so evil that it’s evil to vote for someone who claims it’s not evil, then it’s even more evil to vote for someone who says he knows it’s evil but does very little to stop it once he’s in power.
But once you say, “Well, be patient, the Republicans are doing as much as they can,” you’re in the same moral territory as the person who says, “Be patient, voting for Obama will end up reducing the number of abortions.”
— Michael Straight · Nov 4, 08:50 PM · #
This is the first time I’ve read a Christian bemoaning the fact that other Christians are not sad enough, and it’s a bit… peculiar, in my view. It doesn’t seem to me that God requires us to spend our days moping about how fallen the world is, while refusing to engage in politics to help fix it.
It seems to me that the thing which matters most to Jesus in the Gospels is (to use a bad word) love. Love sounds like a pretty happy thing to me. From love of God follows love for our fellow man, and from love for our fellow man follows an obligation to make the world a better place — to be stewards, as Rick Warren likes to say, which is exactly right. It seems to me that all this should be a labor of love, and so a pretty joyous thing.
Of course the process of politics by its very nature is extremely ugly and so far below God’s expectations that it is shameful but I don’t think it is the most Christian (or the most productive) to bemoan how far we’ve fallen. God doesn’t call on us to mope because we are sinful, He (it seems to me) calls on us to rejoice because we are so sinful yet saved. In that sense politics is a very human process: ugly but redeemed.
(I do agree with you that pro-lifers who vote Obama are kidding themselves, no doubt. Also this was a very difficult comment to write because I hate to sound like I’m lecturing.)
— PEG · Nov 4, 08:51 PM · #
I agree with you almost completely. I voted for McCain today. Not because I like him much, but because I feel like it is my duty to do the best I can to ensure that Obama is not elected president and a vote for McCain is the best way to do that. I don’t think either will make a good president, but McCain will, at the very least, slow America’s decline a bit. An Obama presidency with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (or something very close to it) is a prospect that saddens me immensely.
— Jay · Nov 4, 08:58 PM · #
Michael – I don’t know that your argument entirely works. Even the most staunchly pro-life president would be unable to do much about abortion without a lot of help from Congress and the courts. This is a lot different from Obama, who opposed the Born Alive act because he was afraid it might make getting abortions more difficult, even when people like Nancy Pelosi supported it.
One thing Bush-hating conservatives (I’m not calling you one) ought to consider is the fact that Bush signed the partial birth abortion ban. Had Kerry won the election he would have vetoed it and Republicans would not have had enough votes to override the veto. In other words, because a Republican—and not a Democrat—won the 2004 presidential election thousands, if not millions, of lives were saved. I think that’s a lot more significant than a couple of bloated welfare programs.
— Jay · Nov 4, 09:05 PM · #
LP, my imperfect and incomplete explanation of why Christian libertarianism doesn’t fully convince me is here.
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 4, 10:54 PM · #
Also, PEG, I hear you, and might to some extent agree — we’d have to parse the word “redeem.” Accepting, with some reluctance, that word, I’d say that politics, like all human institutions, is redeemable without being fully redeemed. And the gap between the two conditions is reason for at least some sadness, I would say.
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 4, 11:51 PM · #
Damn. I was all set to make wonderfully pithy comments, and then nascardaughter posted EXACTLY what I was feeling, and probably with more eloquence, to boot (second posting from top). I do agree with the idea of sadness, however. There is much to love in life and much to bemoan, and I think that we often ignore the difficult to handle or sad bits with some distance in order to protect ourselves and rationalize our positions, when Christ tended to have the opposite reaction.
— Michael · Nov 5, 12:00 AM · #
Saying you’re pro-life is a performative utterance whether you’re voting Republican or Democrat. I think of Shaine Claiborne who wrote something along the lines of: being pro-life means adopting babies, and opening your home to single mothers. Until the Church chooses to transform belief into behavior by cultivating, within our individual lives and our faith communities, a culture of life on a person-to-person level, everything we say (voting included) about it is performative.
A second point: we can only judge our own selves, and our own motives. I know for me that it is not about sitting at the table with “the other cool kids.” There are good Christians who are grieved by the legalization of abortion, but are aligned with Obama’s political philosophies and proposed policies in most other regards. You may think these good Christians wrong, but don’t tacitly accuse them of a choice founded on getting to be part of the in-club. They deserve a little more intellectual respect than that.
— J. · Nov 5, 12:04 AM · #
@PEG –
“…love sounds like a pretty happy thing to me.”
The thing that mattered the most to Jesus was Truth, through Love. Love, like Truth is not necessarily a happy thing. Correcting/disciplining your child isn’t always a happy time, but it imparts truth and love nonetheless. Happiness (temporary) does not necessarily equate to joy (eternal).
“From love of God follows love for our fellow man, and from love for our fellow man follows an obligation to make the world a better place — to be stewards, as Rick Warren likes to say, which is exactly right.”
As I read Jesus’ words, from love for our fellow man follows an obligation to speak and live out the truth (through love) which is, once again, not always a happy thing. The act of telling people the good news of Jesus, in acts of truth and love, and in words, is what makes the world a better place. Now THAT “should be a labor of love, and so a pretty joyous thing.”
So while God does not “require us to spend our days moping about how fallen the world is,” he does require us to act out and speak truth and love (and vote), regardless of whether we are happy or not.
But that’s just my $.02.
— Eddy · Nov 5, 12:27 AM · #
I’m enjoying your POV.
Maybe you’ve covered this before, but do you support the death penalty? I’ve always been curious about this (in general not specifically re: you) and haven’t had a Christian pro-lifer handy to ask about it.
— summer · Nov 5, 12:29 AM · #
Given what you’ve stated here, why not just vote yourself? It’s being even more true to your beliefs, technically, than voting a protest vote. And it will do just about as good a job.
— LnGrrrR · Nov 5, 01:12 AM · #
summer: I do not support the death penalty.
random consonant collection: I would have voted for myself except that I was afraid of starting a last-minute avalanche in my favor, and I don’t want to move to Washington. Too hot in the summer.
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 5, 01:38 AM · #
J – spot on. That fell along w/my sentiments.
Yet further sadness. Again I see a discussion around politics and the ‘pro-life’ rubric and fail to see the oft neglected topics of capital punishment or war. The broader ‘fabric’, if you will is Sanctity of Life which I prefer to ‘pro-life’. With what moral basis do we support the civilian destruction wrought in Iraq ? What pro-life candidate protected Iraqis and our own American soldiers from destruction (and there have been many) ? I suggest that pro-life positions must discuss the unborn AND born (yes, including the murderer death row inmate and non-defensive wars) with equal moral clarity.
One politician who managed to closely suggest this Sanctity of Life equation while in office in recent memory was the former, now deceased Gov of PA Bob Casey. A Catholic, Casey publicly opposed abortion AND refused to sign death warrants. Of course, Gov Tom Ridge, also a Catholic, came after Casey on a pro-life platform, and promised to ‘get out the pen’ and sign all the death warrants Casey left on the docket like there was no tomorrow in a bluster of wild-west toughness he felt Casey lacked. Look what job he landed in the Bush administration after 9/11 (excuse my cynicism).
Institutionalized Destruction of Life: we’ll never ‘turn it off’ (or vote it out of existence) like switching off a light bulb. We are we where are now (Roe, morally corrupt wars, death penalty). We peacefully educate, debate, evolve morally, socially and politically or perish.
— J. #2 · Nov 5, 01:59 AM · #
Oh, and J1: I probably didn’t express myself very clearly, but I don’t mean to impugn anyone’s motives. As I said, “I understand the core claim” of pro-lifers who are voting for Obama, and to their arguments I say “fair enough.” They are reasonable, defensible arguments. It’s those who refuse to see any compromises or trade-offs, or to express any discomfort with the tough decisions our political options present, who bother me. But that doesn’t have anything to do with motives.
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 5, 02:33 AM · #
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing themselves.” — Leo Tolstoy
“A Christian anarchist does not depend upon bullets or ballots to achieve his ideal; he achieves that ideal daily by the One-Man Revolution with which he faces a decadent, confused, and dying world” — Ammon Hennacy
— brian · Nov 5, 03:13 AM · #
I voted, but not for President. I wanted to vote for Obama, for the sake of some people I care for very much, but couldn’t, because of his stance on abortion. I like him, and it is time to put race behind us—but I couldn’t vote for him.
— Julana · Nov 5, 03:15 AM · #
“A Christian anarchist does not depend upon bullets or ballots to achieve his ideal; he achieves that ideal daily by the One-Man Revolution with which he faces a decadent, confused, and dying world”
There have been too many revolutions in recent history.None of which have been bloodless.Revolutionaries seem to view the world as decadent,morally corrupt and dying.Religion heads this list and tries to impose their morals upon everybody else while failing to uphold them themselves.People oppose others personal decisions on the basis of their faith.ie :Abortion,Liberalism,Atheism.etc. Time for religion to retreat back into the middle ages where it belongs.Its a new day.
— Phil · Nov 5, 06:20 AM · #
“Many weep with the weeping of Babylon, because they rejoice also with the joy of Babylon. When men rejoice at gains and weep at losses, both are of Babylon. You ought to weep, but in the remembrance of Sion. If you weep in the remembrance of Sion, you ought to weep even when it is well with you in Babylon.” – Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 137
— tickletext · Nov 5, 07:41 AM · #
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Get used to it.
— Richard Cravens · Nov 5, 07:55 AM · #
@ayjay Your point about redeemed vs. redeemable is well taken.
What I was trying to say, and I think only now can express in proper words (?) is that (in my view) God calls on us to be optimists. You say that the gap between redeemable and redeemed is cause for some sadness, and of course it is, but in my view it is also a cause for opportunity. To me it’s no coincidence that those Servants of God who were closest to what is ugliest on Earth were also the most joyous people you could encounter — people like Mother Theresa or Sister Emmanuelle, or Saint Vincent of Paul.
I spend a lot of my time these days studying finance and so there’s a part of my mind that’s always looking for arbitrage opportunities (if that makes sense in this context, and I think it does to people who are as deluded as I am). I’m sure it has more to do with my young age than with my faith, which is extremely flawed, but when I see a gap between how things are and how they should be, it screams “OPPORTUNITY!” to me. Of course not to realize that some things are bad is self-delusion but I think it’s wrong to make it the main takeaway.
It comes down to a glass half-full/half-empty thing and I firmly believe Jesus is a glass half-full kind of guy. I guess that’s all I’m trying to say.
— PEG · Nov 5, 10:56 AM · #
Well said, PEG. And tickletext, that’s an awesomely appropriate quotation.
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 5, 02:39 PM · #
“Tears for how the world goes” is a beautiful phrase, one that I’m sure I will use frequently. I do think that a lack of this should be startling and concerning in Christian voters or—indeed—any Christians living in this world.
That said, I think American Christians are—if not uniquely—rather unreflectively solipsistic about their politics. They seem to think that there is an easily imaginable world in which there is always a Good and Moral choice, a politician who will make our laws Just and our land pleasing to God. Why, they ask, should they deign to participate in politics at all if they are not allowed to vote for a Christian paradise? Why should they dirty their fingers with the complex, muddy, frustrating, time-consuming, tremendously difficult task of governing a conglomeration of the interests of 250 million Americans in order to maintain roads, try to maintain some fairness in business and life, and make it safe for people to do the things they can all agree they want to let each other do?
Of course the major parties each reflect things that we find morally appalling; Americans do not agree about these things! Yet Christians, for whatever reason, don’t say to themselves: well! Time to go out and make the case for what we believe. They say: Oh, politics are so terrible! I won’t taint my personal holiness with any of the compromises of really living together as a polus.
I believe that we are called as Christians to bring about the kingdom of God. That involves trying to actually do things, not just running around sobbing about how things just don’t look like the blueprint. This does and should (here I get back to where we believe I agree) cause a tremendous amount of grief for the countless ways that we see our world still ripped from the wholeness that comes from communion with the divine. But this grief should be recognized, experienced, and then used to brace us for reentry to the work at hand.
— Nate · Nov 5, 09:50 PM · #
Thank you Alan. And second that on the quotation.
— PEG · Nov 5, 09:51 PM · #
Yet Christians, for whatever reason, don’t say to themselves: well! Time to go out and make the case for what we believe. They say: Oh, politics are so terrible! I won’t taint my personal holiness with any of the compromises of really living together as a polus.
Nate, my sense of things is that as a generalization this is exactly backwards. Many millions of evangelical Christians in particular have for many years now enthusiastically leaped into the arms of the Republican Party without thinking that they were compromising anything at all; and now I see a good deal of similarly uncritical leaping into the Obamaworld. I want Christian involvement, but with more of an awareness that compromise of one’s values really is compromise of one’s values. In other words, don’t fail to accept compromises, but name them for what they are, and don’t be too happy about making them, lest you lose your principles altogether.
— Alan Jacobs · Nov 5, 11:49 PM · #
Lachrimae rerum, indeed. I’m of the impression that too many people have elevated their politics to the place of their religion, which is why too few Christians are troubled by both parties and their representatives. When one decides that Jesus Christ would have voted with one particular party, the stakes are raised and the emotions follow suit.
Like a previous commenter, I went to the voting booth but withheld my vote for president. The Republicans have forfeited their right to lead and the Democrats are hoping no-one will notice they have too; a one-party govt. should speed that along. In the meantime, despite the beautiful image of an African-American accepting this office, we are a nation that turned from God long ago. Neither candidate (or party) shows any inclination of turning the tide.
— Ellen · Nov 6, 12:02 AM · #
nascardaughter’s post baffles me, even though I have heard many people make the same argument before. Do you really not understand that prolife folks think abortion is murder? There are indeed things that I believe are wrong, but which I do not think should be a subject for legislation. But the deliberate taking of human life is not one of them. If as a society we don’t have rules to protect human life, what’s the point of having a society at all? And of course the fact that people disagree about whether abortion is murder is not a reason for those of us who think it is to shut up. People disagreed about whether slavery was wrong too.
— Edwin · Nov 6, 04:17 PM · #
I believe we need to vote the lesser of 2 evils. If the lesser evil wins, our society would still be better than if the more evil one wins. Voting for a candidate that cannot win will assure that the more evil one will win.
When it’s not voting time, I believe we should support a third party candidate who stands for what we believe in and get the word out. If we do not support them in between election times, there is no way they can rise to prominence just before elections.
— Katy · Nov 6, 06:31 PM · #
Great post.
@nascardaughter:
“And thinking that something is the wrong thing to do is not the same thing as thinking it’s right to legally force this judgment on everyone else.
I might think it’s wrong to get divorced, and also think that it would be a terrible moral wrong to legally force people not to get divorces.
I might think it’s wrong to have an abortion, and also think that it would be a terrible moral wrong to legally force people to carry pregnancies to term.”
This argument drives me crazy. What about theft? Is stealing wrong? If so, is it a “terrible moral wrong” to legally force people to not steal from other people? What about murder? Do you think that’s wrong? If so, is it a “terrible moral wrong” to legally force people to not murder other people?
If you’re consistent in your logic, then you’d advocate that we get rid of those laws as well.
— LukeD · Nov 12, 06:50 PM · #