To Vote or Not to Vote (by Brian McLaren)
Some folks I've talked to are not going to vote in the 2008 elections. Some are disillusioned. Some don't like either candidate enough to vote. For some, not voting is an act of protest against the whole system, which they believe is hopelessly corrupt. Some believe that their citizenship in God's kingdom means they shouldn't become involved in "earthly" citizenship.
While I respect my friends who aren't going to vote -- especially those who have prayerfully thought the decision through from multiple vantage points -- I will vote in this election for several reasons.
1. True, there are plenty of reasons to be disillusioned with U.S. politics (corptocracy and plutocracy being major ones). But in my travels in other countries it has become clear to me that even though our system has a lot of problems (and that was a gentle understatement), many other nations are far more corrupt, far less transparent, etc. If we in the U.S. don't try to make our system work, we're setting a pretty poor example. Besides, in every other area of my life -- church, family, business, etc. -- I don't let disappointment or disillusionment or setbacks make me withdraw into inaction. Rather, I become more committed to make things work.
2. I don't expect any candidate to be perfect. In fact, my theological beliefs tell me that I will always be choosing between the lesser of two evils -- or more positively put, the better of two less-than-perfects. The fact that candidates are willing to endure the hard work, the media scrutiny, the pressure, the responsibility -- of both the election and the office -- can be seen as a sign of something good. After all, if all a candidate cared about was personal peace, personal comfort, or personal wealth, there are a lot better ways to get ahead. So rather than say, "I don't think either candidate is good enough for my vote," I'm more prone to say, "Thank God people are willing to run at all, and thank God we have two candidates as good as the ones we have." We could be choosing between Mugabe and Mugabe.
3. I believe there is much to protest in our current system. But noninvolvement, it seems to me, generally empowers those who are in control. So non-voting becomes a kind of passive vote for the people in power.
4. I believe that a commitment to Christian discipleship should make me a better neighbor, employee, spouse, child, or parent, too. Similarly, I believe that "citizenship in God's kingdom" should make me the best kind of citizen possible, not the worst. Of course, because of my commitment to God's kingdom, I have a broader range of concerns than I would without that commitment. (More on this in the next post.) But I believe that those concerns would in the big scheme of things make me an even more valuable citizen. My civic responsibility would certainly not end with voting, but I can't see why it would stop short of voting either.
One final thought. For those of us who do vote, it is a mistake to think that electing the better of two candidates necessarily guarantees things will get better. (Electing the worst of two candidates, however, can definitely make things worse!) I've lived in the D.C. area most of my life, and it's clear to me from where I live that there are powerful forces that resist the leadership of every new president -- political and economic lobbies, bureaucratic and institutional inertia, plus the frightening ever-present momentum of the military-industrial complex. I agree 100 percent with my friend Jim Wallis who says that what changes society is not just elections, but the wise and ongoing pressure of social movements on elected officials. Politicians are always checking the wind, Jim says -- and our job, through social movements, is to change the wind. And I also agree 100 percent with my friends Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, who remind us as followers of Jesus that we don't elect our ultimate commander-in-chief. Rather, we discover that he has elected us to join him in his mission. In that light, I believe our vote must ultimately seek to express our fidelity to his good news -- which is (according to Luke) good news for all people, and especially good news for the poor.
Brian McLaren is an author and speaker and serves as Sojourners' board chair. You can learn about his books, music, and other resources at brianmclaren.net.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I respect your perspective Brian. But I'm one of those no-voters. I wrote a piece on Jesus Manifesto in January outlining 10 reasons why I'm not voting:
http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2008/01/08/ten-reasons-why-i-wont-be-voting-for-the-president/
Whether or not folks agree with the no-voting stance, I believe that this is a conversation that is worth having.
Posted by: Mark Van Steenwyk | July 16, 2008 4:06 PM
Brian,
Interesting commentary. After the large numbers of Right-Wing Evangelicals who helped put Bush/Cheney in office in 2000 and 2004, I can't imagine many good and honest excuses for them not to vote this time around.
Perhaps a small number of christian anarchists might have legitimate reasons for avoiding the voting booths. As for me, I don't worship at the temple of Bush/Cheney and their THREE TRILLION dollar War of Choice against Iraq, so I'll be voting for a candidate who seeks new directions, one who doesn't play on people's fears, and one who will work against the atrocity of endless war against their neighbors.
Posted by: Quetzal | July 16, 2008 4:47 PM
do I detect some Calvinist overtones in your piece, Brian?
and two candidates, what about Nader?
Posted by: canucklehead | July 16, 2008 4:59 PM
I believe it is a Christian's civic responsibility to vote .
I am voting for John McCain , but I have heard people say voting for Nader is actually like voting for Mccain . Nader perhaps is above political games , which I believe is what drives him , his sincerity .
I can live with Obama though , but I believe whoever wins will have an economic crisis to deal with in their first year , and dealing with that crisis will have more to do with foreign powers and oil then anything good or bad they do .
Posted by: Matt | July 16, 2008 5:27 PM
Brian,
"...my theological beliefs tell me that I will always be choosing between the lesser of two evils - or more positively put, the better of two less-than-perfects. "
i like the positive wording of the choices. i will be adopting your phraseology in regards to the candidates and might even apply it to other areas. because this is a broken world and we are broken creatures, there is never a perfect anything (except a perfect savior and God) but we should not always label things that are imperfect as "evil."
now, there is evil in this world. i like your wording because i think when we are truly confronted with evil... even multiple types of evil... God always gives us a "non-evil" choice as well. "Deliver us from evil [or evil one]"
Posted by: dave | July 16, 2008 6:16 PM
Matt:
"I believe it is a Christian's civic responsibility to vote ."
first, thank you for saying "I believe" in your statement rather than just simply asserting that Christians have a civic responsibility to vote and leaving it at that.
second, i would argue that Christians have zero "civic" responsibility. we are tasked with moral and spiritual responsibilities. i believe (lol) one of those spiritual responsibilities is to seize any and every opportunity to enact positive change (in positive ways of course... the ends do not justify the means). voting is one of those opportunities we are given here in the USA to foster change and to shape policies that can benefit society... especially the poor and marginalized.
so, while i do vote (in every election... even the dinky little ones), i disagree that Christians have any sort of "civic" responsibility.
have a great day.
p.s. is anyone else as excited for the new Batman movie as i am?? i live in Jacksonville, FL which is close to St. Augustine. right in between the two is a place called World Golf Village (the home of the Gold Hall of Fame). the IMAX theater there boasts the world's largest movie screen (this sucker is 8 stories high!!) and that is where i will be watching Christian Bale battle The Joker (what a loss of a terrific young actor). aren't you all jealous??
Posted by: dave | July 16, 2008 6:24 PM
Dave ,
Let us know how batman was . I figure I will wait for the DVD , don't go to the movies too much anymore .
Dave we both understand All authority belongs to God, but He has put human beings on the earth as caretakers. According to Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20, we are to go out and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey God in every area of life. This includes politics. We must disciple people to make godly decisions about government, and promote the efforts of those who are already doing so.
We need to stand against evil. St. Augustine said those who are citizens of God's kingdom are best equipped to be citizens of the kingdom of man.
Christian values contribute positively to society. It is Christian involvement in government through the ages that gave us hospitals, civil liberties, abolition of slavery, modern science, the elevation of women, regard for human life, great works of art and literature, a workable system of justice, education for common people, the free-enterprise system, and much, much more.When we see the good that results from applying God's principles,Obedience to authority demands good citizenship. The Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 13 clearly states that we must obey governmental leaders because all authority comes from God. Here's the catch: in America, the people are the leaders! Here, at least, we express our obedience to God by exercising our rights and privileges as citizens. That means voting.
Thats what I "believe " anyway . I am like you , I vote all the time . I would feel guilty if I did not .
Posted by: Matt | July 16, 2008 7:47 PM
Of course I'll vote. I always do. This election probably won't be the most painful choice I've made. 2000 was. I thought we were choosing between two seriously lightweight candidates, and I didn't feel very comfortable with either. (I had been hoping for McCain vs. Bradley, but of course that was not to be.) I knew I would regret it if the candidate I voted for won; yes, I voted for Bush, and yes I certainly have regretted it. (I'm now thinking that I might have regretted a vote for Gore less, but nevertheless still would have regretted such a vote if he had won.)
2008 offers a somewhat better choice, though I have no illusions that any president can solve our nation's problems, which are primarily spiritual IMO. I think the quality of leadership the nation is being offered has been seriously declining of late. My estimation of McCain has cooled over the last eight years--though I still hold high regard for his overall integrity. While I like a lot of things about Obama, I don't think his offer of "change" is anything to get really excited about. After all, we've heard that before.
I first want to see who the VP choices are, especially in McCain's case. Considering his age and health (a bout with melanoma is a serious concern--a relapse of that particular form of cancer is almost always deadly), were McCain to choose a hard-line right-winger to run with him, he would almost certainly lose any chance for receiving my vote. On the other hand, his choice of a moderate, if there be such among the Republicans that he could choose, might allow me to consider him despite his hard-line rhetoric re. Iran and his continue the Bush strategy in Iraq. But I'm also ambivalent about Obama's possible choice of Hillary as a running mate; I've never been a fan of hers. I really hope he chooses someone else.
2000 was the first year I seriously considered voting for a third-party candidate, although in the end I couldn't do it. I still might consider it this time, but there's a lot of time, and a lot to happen, between now and November.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 16, 2008 9:12 PM
I have 8 reasons why I'm not voting:
1. I don’t like being forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
2. Voting is always exercising power over others. And voting for president is to bestow a power that carries coercive force.
3. Even if I felt like I could vote with a clear conscience, I would still consider not-voting as a prophetic act. As long as I see the Church predominately trusting in Consumer-Capitalism and Liberal Democracy as the primary systems of change in the world, I will opt out of voting as a prophetic challenge to the church. The last time I looked, Jesus commissioned the Church to be his agent in the world, not governments.
4. Voting divides Christians.
5. My candidate isn’t on the ballot. I suppose I could go to the polls and just write-in “Jesus of Nazareth.”
6. Voting reinforces the current party system. In this situation a vote cast is not only a vote for a particular candidate, it is also a vote case for a system that presents us only with unacceptable alternatives. The way to vote against the system is not to vote. Not voting is a vote against the system.
7. Voting can indirectly support the killing of Christians by Christians. When you vote, you are electing a person who, as commander-in-chief, will use his military powers to kill others. In particular, it is likely that s/he will use military powers to send Christian troops to a place where Christian adversaries will be killed.
8. I don’t believe in America or its constitution. Sure, we have a better system than most (if not all) other nations. But I don’t believe in the American Dream or that American makes the world a better place. All candidates will only expand the American Empire.
Posted by: Mark Van Steenwyk | July 16, 2008 10:28 PM
"Voting is always exercising power over others. And voting for president is to bestow a power that carries coercive force."
Your statement above Mark reminds of a scene in the movie Starship Troopers. In that movie, eventually the only persons allowed to vote were those who served in the military because they understood the use of force and voting was considered the ultimate use of force. Following that thought, another part of the movie speaks asks the question; "What would the city leaders of Hiroshima think of the use of force?" The answer given was, "Nothing, they were destroyed."
My point is that by abdicating a personal role in the presence of force around us, by not voting, we may yield greater strength to other voters who may or may not wield the force in directions we agree with.
I believe that God instituted government, even to telling us to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". This at least is an acknowledgment that Jesus accepted the responsibility of civic participation, even if by only paying the tax.
The vote exists. To vote or not to vote does not change the reality that the vote exists. By not exercising the force of the vote, the fight is surrendered more easily.
The thought that voting indirectly supports the killing of Christians by Christians is interesting. I think I agree with that thought and it causes me to pause. Thank you for the comment.
peace....
Posted by: clark clermont | July 16, 2008 11:47 PM
"Sure, we have a better system than most (if not all) other nations." Mark
Say what? May I respectfully suggest you improve it by reducing your current primary season from 3.5 years down to say 3.
Enough already. Precisely what has been accomplished since McCain ousted his last competitor and June 7 when Hillary headed for the showers? It's a media-sponsored, media-regulated gong show. Call for the damn vote and get on with life.
Posted by: canucklehead | July 16, 2008 11:51 PM
If you are so concerned that your vote would cause Christians to die, try voting for the candidate who would uphold your values. The fact is that someone will be elected to speak for you in the international political field, and this is your chance to decide what he will say. WIthout voting, do not be surprised to be displeased. If all the moral people chose not to vote because "jesus of nazareth" wasnt on the ballot, everyone else would be spoken for. And gathering as I may that people discussing the issues over internet comments are not about to engage the federal government in conversation.. this is the one time they sit each person down and ask for their opinion. To disregard it is like laughing on the sidelines of the suffragist movement, telling Martin Luther King Jr. to sit down, and dare I say letting God know that your immobility is going to bring about his kingdom. Voting is a silent protest, immobility is non participation, and we are meant to be a community.
i thought this issue was settled already...
Posted by: evan | July 17, 2008 1:01 AM
"2000 was the first year I seriously considered voting for a third-party candidate, although in the end I couldn't do it. I still might consider it this time, but there's a lot of time, and a lot to happen, between now and November.'
With all respect , you tilt to the left , actually , you bulge to the lrft , vote AbAMA
Posted by: Matt | July 17, 2008 2:18 AM
If man is totally depraved, then so is the political institutions created by man.
Why would we ever put our faith in any human institution to change the world?
God didn't command us to change the world. The world is going to perish in his judgment. God commanded us to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth.
It seems to me that the Sojourners are suffering from a serious case of Tower-of-Babel-syndrome. We can't do anything to save ourselves. This is WHY God came. Notice how Jesus very specifically did not come as a political ruler. In fact, he avoided the earthly throne directly on several occasions in the Bible.
Why then is Sojourners so enamored with "changing the winds?" This world is but a vapor in the vastness of eternity. Do not conform to the patterns of this world.
That's all I got.
Posted by: Brenden | July 17, 2008 2:33 AM
I enjoyed this article, and from a british point of view, I thoroughly agree with your points, 2 points I do pick up on, is the fact that there are not just 2 choices, voting for the independent can be a good choice if enough people are mobilised, people do deserve more. Secondly, not really a point, more of an agreement, without voting, you are denying yourself a voice. Standing up and being counted, involves standing up.
Posted by: john heasley | July 17, 2008 4:58 AM
The quite paradoxical fact is that if one doesn't vote one has indeed voted.
Posted by: Charles Leck | July 17, 2008 8:16 AM
Posted by: canucklehead | July 16, 2008 4:59 PM
"and two candidates, what about Nader?"
Posted by: canucklehead | July 16, 2008 11:51 PM
"It's a media-sponsored, media-regulated gong show. Call for the damn vote and get on with life."
Excellent points, my friend. We are constantly being urged by the two major parties and their media megaphones to avoid "wasting" our vote on a third party candidate in an effort to keep the evil other guy out of office. Although both candidates may be sincere in their desire to make America a better place in which to live and work, both parties are controlled by big money. In this country, money means power; and big money means the power to control the method of fleecing the public while posturing and fostering a resentment of the other side.
Most die-hard Liberals whine about the plight of the underclass while advocating wasteful social programs that do little to alleviate suffering and broaden opportunities for self-sufficiency. By the same token, most blow-hard Conservatives whine about the need for any fairness in taxation ("It's MY money.") while advocating evermore regressive tax schemes that exempt most of their income—thereby placing the financial burden of a deregulated casino-style economic system squarely onto the backs of the middle class and working poor.
Whether you believe that it is your "civic responsibility" to vote or your Christian duty to avoid politics altogether must be a matter of conscience—just as who and what to vote for or against, if you choose to do so. For those that do choose to vote, I urge you to at least consider a third party candidate before pulling the lever for the "better of two less-than-perfects". You just may not have to hold your nose if you find a third choice to be more appealing. And since your candidate is not likely to win, you won't have to lie when you say: "Don't blame me; I never voted for the guy."
Posted by: Hermes | July 17, 2008 8:50 AM
Don't like either candidate enough to vote? We are picking who we want to take to the Dodgers game Saturday night. It is your obligation as a citizen to pick the best candidate you can after a careful review. Not fulfilling your obligation seems sinful to me.
Posted by: Steve | July 17, 2008 10:52 AM
Not picking. NOT picking who we take to the Dodgers game.
This is why we need an edit option!
Posted by: Steve | July 17, 2008 10:54 AM
brenden
"God didn't command us to change the world. "
He said, "Go and make disciples of all nations." I can't imagine that if we did that, the world would not be changed.
Posted by: squeaky | July 17, 2008 10:56 AM
With all respect , you tilt to the left , actually , you bulge to the lrft , vote AbAMA
Thanks for the compliment, Matt.
Or should I say N-th-n (from Brian McClaren's "D#@*$% Environmentalists!" thread of June 27)?
Or should I say M-ck?
Your unique punctuation style is giving you away again, sir. Also giving you away is your propensity for lifting text from another Web site and posting it here without acknowledging the source. The majority of your post of 7:47 post from yesterday evening seems to be coming from here:
http://www(dot)christiananswers(dot)net/q-eden/voting(dot)html
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 17, 2008 11:08 AM
Don
"Your unique punctuation style is giving you away again, sir. "
Yes--I've wondered about that style as well, and it is an obvious giveaway, Mick.
Back to packing I go--I'm moving back to God's Country (Minnesota)!
Posted by: squeaky | July 17, 2008 11:13 AM
Squeaky,
Really? You break the whole of scripture down into "Go and make disciples?" That is pretty sad bro. There is much more to Kingdom expansion and evangelism than the word "go." In fact, the world is coming to us because of our jacked up Western Theology and methodology...maybe we should STAY.
-CB-
http://christopherbennett.blogspot.com
Posted by: chris brooks | July 17, 2008 12:28 PM
Chris:
FYI, Squeaky isn't a "bro." She's a sister.
D
Posted by: Don | July 17, 2008 12:31 PM
I had a discussion with a British friend recently about voting and the problem of the 'less evil'-choice, or, as Brian frames it, the 'less-than-perfect'-choice. I would say that this take on voting is a strategic choice, while actually voting for the candidate one really wants to support, or not voting at all if this candidate does not exist, is an idealistic or maybe better an 'ideal' choice.
Coming from a proportionalist democratic system (Germany) where there are always more than two candidates and the 'small' ones always have a chance to get a say in the government coalition, I have so far never voted strategically. In the last general elections, I have for the first time in my life put an invalid vote in the ballot box. Fortunately, the invalid votes are counted in Germany and increase the election participation - so I have clearly signalled that I WANTED to vote but that there was no one I wanted to vote for. So, in some way I've done my 'civic duty' without losing my integrity.
The problem of the 'strategic choice' is that it will never lead to real transformation in society. In a system where the choice is only between two people, these two people have to move so far to the centre in their positions that they are never electable for me - because it won't lead to drastic change. Obama is a vivid example for that. I have supported him enthusiastically as a foreign er in the last half year, but my enthusiasm vanished in the last months since he is the official candidate for the Democrats. His pro-Israel and -Zionism-position, his attitude on the death penalty and, lastly, on the possession of weapons are just unendurable. And it will probably get worse. Well, the poor man has no other choice, I guess, if he wants to be elected.
So, America has the 'best system' in the world? I much prefer a proportionalist system for the abovementioned reasons. And there are a million other reasons why America is far from having the best system in the world, one being for example how much money matters in getting elected and the way most American politicians are attached to big business.
Posted by: Doerthe | July 17, 2008 12:42 PM
Doerthe the money aspect bothers many Americans also . The system is not the problem, it is how the system is being used in my opinion .
Posted by: Matt | July 17, 2008 1:15 PM
chris
"Really? You break the whole of scripture down into "Go and make disciples?" That is pretty sad bro."
Where did I say this sums up all of Scripture? I never said nor implied such. I was pointing out to Brenden that God did, in fact, command us to change the world, which we would, in fact, do, if we obeyed His command to make disciples of all nations.
"There is much more to Kingdom expansion and evangelism than the word "go." "
True, which is why Jesus also said "make." There is much to "going" and even much more to "making" disciples. And to do it as Christ commanded, such that we are HIS disciples, means that we must have an understanding of Who He is, what is His mission, and what His Kingdom is all about. There is a LOT to becoming a disciple of Christ. It isn't just repeating some formulaic prayer. So that tiny little command He gave carries much more behind it than you apparently are assuming it does.
"In fact, the world is coming to us because of our jacked up Western Theology and methodology...maybe we should STAY."
What do you mean by this? I can't tell if you are being sarcastic...
Posted by: squeaky | July 17, 2008 1:47 PM
I take GREAT exception at Brian McLaren equating nonvoting with noninvolvement. I say this as one who intends to vote. There are plenty of ways to be civicly involved. Almost all of them are better than voting. Maybe you don't believe in voting, but you can still engage in protests, join your local neighborhood association, etc. I would say that even simply leading a life radically different than those around you is a form of involvement.
Posted by: josh | July 17, 2008 4:02 PM
As Ralph Nader said back in 2000, "if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil". There are alternatives.
I would suggest a protest vote for Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party. The Greens are the only party supporting a minimum living wage, research and conversion to nonpolluting energy sources, ending the invasion of Iraq and avoiding the same in Iran, voter verified ballots, abolishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" which gives corporations more rights than real people, restoration of Constitutional rights, full care for disabled veterans and stop disabling more, single-payer national health insurance like civilized countries have, full ballot access (reasonable deposit, get 5% of the vote get the deposit refunded), etc. (in no particular order of priority).
If you are in a state like Texas, which has a racist law to keep parties off the ballot (successfully designed to destroy the Chicano-majority Parti La Raza Unita), write them in. Granted, except for local offices, they probably won't be elected, but at least you have made a statement against the current trend toward one party with two names.
Paul Cardwell
Posted by: Paul Cardwell | July 17, 2008 4:10 PM
Why is principled non-participation considered "inaction?"
Why is it linked with being "the worst (kind of citizen possible)?"
Non-involvement helps those in power? So, umm ... Bush will win?
The truth is, INVOLVEMENT helps "those in power" far more, and being a citizen sheep doesn't change anything. "Choosing" from phony "choices" foisted on you is not choice. Choosing not to choose, is.
On myriad issues we're urged to opt-out — eating meat, say, or going to war. The rightness of these choices is based on 1) it being right and 2) it being clear that if enough people did it, change might actually come.
Now suddenly that equation doesn't work?
We NEVER must choose between two evils. There is always a good choice.
This time the best choice for many is not voting.
Posted by: Paul | July 17, 2008 4:20 PM
I'm sorry for following up my own post but...
I should say that these reasons are not all bad. But of the four, I see reason 2 as the only legitimate one. Reasons 1 and 4 are essentially the same and are only reasons to vote if you see voting as civic involvement.
Reason 3, however, is particularly problematic:
3. I believe there is much to protest in our current system. But noninvolvement, it seems to me, generally empowers those who are in control. So non-voting becomes a kind of passive vote for the people in power.
The problem here is that voting, it seems to me, generally empowers those who are in control. So voting is an active vote for people in power. Barack Obama: in power. John McCain: in power. I'm sorry... are any of the truly powerless in our society on the ballot.
Again, I believe in voting. But can we have some real discussion about this issue?
Posted by: josh | July 17, 2008 4:56 PM
Not voting is abdicating your responsibility as a member of society. You are implictedly supporting the status quo if you don't vote. Being politically disengaged is saying "I want more of the same."
You don't like any of the choices? Fine write one in. That's an act of protest. Or better yet work to find candidates who reflect your values and support him or her. Or run yourself. For school board or city council if the immediate and local appeals to you. We don't just vote for president, we elect many people to many offices. Staying home is an endorsement of the current system. It's not just about Obama vs. McCain. It's about what kids are going to learn or not learn in school. It's about how development and zoning in your community are handled.
As a resident of the District of Columbia, I have no voting representation in Congress. It is very frustrating to lack one of the most basic tools that an American citizen has which is to as your elected representative to represent you and your values.
I disagree with the idea that Nader is above political games. Nader is all about political games. No vote is ever wasted, but Nader isn't making a serious effort to actually get elected. He makes a media splash and allows some people to cast a protest vote. He's not a good candidate to actually govern because that involves the art of compromise and the ability to make decisions in the real world not the world as you want it to be.
I'll believe Nader is a serious candidate when he starts working to build the infrastructure and momentum needed to build a third (or fourth or fifth)party that manages to be on the ballot in enough places that it would be mathematically possible to win the presidency.
Posted by: Kate | July 17, 2008 5:17 PM
First of all, the statement about the US having the best system was an attempt at being tongue in cheek...it didn't really work at that level here because I cut and paste it from elsewhere. My bad. I don't think the US is better than other places.
Secondly, I want to echo Josh's suggestion that nonvoting doesn't mean nonparticipation. Voting is a very particular sort of political act...one that I think communicates the wrong message (since it is, using Shane's words, an act of endorsement rather than advice). And it isn't even a particularly effective act. Yet for all of its general ineffectiveness, polarizing, etc., it totally captures the American political imagination, and therefore the political imagination of the church. That is a HUGE problem. I'm not advocating a withdrawal. But I refuse to engage in the American political system in the well-worn way that has been laid out for me. We, the church, must find a different way to speak prophetically from within the stomach of the Empire.
Posted by: Mark Van Steenwyk | July 17, 2008 5:41 PM
Neither option appeals to me.
I am feeling ornery this time 'round.
I intend to go vote *against* someone.
Posted by: OF | July 17, 2008 6:29 PM
Kate: "I'll believe Nader is a serious candidate when he starts working to build the infrastructure and momentum needed to build a third (or fourth or fifth)party that manages to be on the ballot in enough places that it would be mathematically possible to win the presidency."
In 2000, when Nader was running as a Green, his name appeared on 44 of 50 state ballots. That same year Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, was on 50 state ballots, Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party was on the ballots in 41 states, and John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party was on the ballot in 38 states.
One of the reasons that it is so difficult to get on all 50 state ballots is that the two major parties control ballot access through the legislatures of each state. It is to their advantage to keep third party candidates off the ballot.
For example, in Alabama over 40,000 signatures are needed for a third party candidate to get on the ballot. In North Dakota 1000 signatures are needed. Yet in Tennessee only 25 signatures are required.
Of course, once these signatures are submitted the two major parties move heaven and earth to get the signatures disqualified, and are rather successful in their efforts.
Yet in spite of all those hurdles, Kate, Nader's name was on the ballot in 44 states in 2000, enough to have a mathematical chance to win the electoral college ballot.
You establish a catch 22 Kate. If the candidate would only mount a serious effort you might support him/her. Yet without support in mounting that effort, he/she will never reach your criteria.
Posted by: RJohnson | July 17, 2008 8:56 PM
Kate:
Nader HAS been working to rebuild the system. You don't understand the sheer density of the opposition he has had in doing so. Don't know where you're from, but here in Oregon he was kept off the '04 ballot by the Democrat power elite that has a stranglehold in the petition process.
You really ought to check into his videos and go hear him speak before you make that assessment.
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | July 17, 2008 9:05 PM
As a spiritual person, I wonder how God would vote? Of course, it would depend on which "God" we are talking about. I see the God of fear rampant in the Old Testament from writers who feared God’s wrath, creating laws and rules to control human behavior through punishment. The God of Love emanates from the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament who gave humanity a way out of fear and a path to salvation. Jesus advised us to choose acceptance, compassion and forgiveness. To choose the path of love.
I’ll bet the God of the twenty-first century wants us to step out of our own fear and ego mentality and into love and heart centered guidance. Listening deeply to the loving spirit of God rather than the deception of fear will create far better public policy. For leaders who genuinely listen to love’s guidance do not judge others and always seek the highest good for all.
This God of Love would rally for the candidate with a healthy grasp of compassion and the desire to bring people together. The kind of person that seeks to find balance through collaboration and relationship building. Someone who attempts to understand what people need rather than judge them through punitive policies will better serve society. Our world needs those willing to build up, not destroy.
I think if God were President, we would not even have debates filled with judgmental attacks on people’s viewpoints. We would be invited to listen to one another, go beyond our left and right philosophical minds and seek real solutions beyond our imaginations. As the great poet Rumi once said; “Out beyond ideas of rightdoing and wrongdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” I think I’ll vote for God.
Posted by: Lisa Venable | July 17, 2008 9:24 PM
Lisa,
I love master Rumi and yet I can't help but feel you ignored the God of love in the Old Testament. Read Hosea and tell me that God is only a God of judgement and wrath, read master Ezekiel, master Isaiah, master Jeremiah (even though he was the most depressed person in scripture) he still saw the love God manifest in everything even the exile. Read master Jonah and tell me God doesn't love.
Prophet Elijah saved an invading army when he had a chance to destroy them. My point is that God cannot be placed in a box. He is not a tame lion and is beyond human understanding but he is not beyond human experience. He judged nations, and individuals and showed mercy to his enemies in both. The God of Love I see is the same in both the New and the Old testaments.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 17, 2008 9:50 PM
Equating non-voting with withdrawal is a serious distortion of those of us who do not vote. In fact, voting is at best the weakest from of civic action. Most people who do not vote for conscientious reasons, are very involved in many aspects of public life and discourse.
I suggest that Brian McClaren read the following book:
Electing Not to Vote: Christian Reflections on Not Voting, edited by Ted Lewis. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2008.
Here are the endorsements of the book:
People often forget that voting can be a coercive practice, just to the extent it justifies a majority's silencing of minorities. We should therefore be grateful that these essays raise an issue that too often goes undiscussed.
—Stanley Hauerwas, Duke Divinity School, Duke University
If the definition of a good book is that it challenges long-held and cherished opinions while inspiring readers to think new thoughts and imagine new possibilities, then this is a great book—and one that all American Christians (in particular) need to read! This diverse collection of excellent essays serves as a prophetic call for American Christians to wake up from our political slumber and realize how we've been seduced by the idols of nationalism and political power.
—Greg Boyd, author of The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church (2006)
Half the electorate typically stays home on election day, and not an eyebrow is raised. But if one suggests that people shouldn't vote for religious reasons, be prepared to run for cover—you're guaranteed a firestorm of outrage and indignation. The "sacred right to vote" still generates powerful emotions, even among those who don't make it to the shrine on a regular basis. And that's why the Christian community owes a debt to Ted Lewis and his contributors for raising the uncomfortable question of whether voting may be incompatible with the practice of Christian discipleship. Electing Not to Vote is a provocative but respectful collection that deserves serious attention from Christians of all sorts."
—Michael L. Budde, Department of Political Science, DePaul University
Posted by: Andy Alexis-Baker | July 18, 2008 12:58 AM
RE: "Not voting is abdicating your responsibility as a member of society. You are implictedly supporting the status quo if you don't vote."
I think you are _explicitly_ supporting the status quo if you say one _must_ vote.
RE: "Being politically disengaged is saying 'I want more of the same.'"
Not voting is not the same as being politically disengaged.
RE: "You don't like any of the choices? Fine write one in. That's an act of protest."
Writing someone on the ballot is protest, but choosing "none" is not?
RE: "Or better yet work to find candidates who reflect your values and support him or her. Or run yourself. For school board or city council if the immediate and local appeals to you. We don't just vote for president, we elect many people to many offices. Staying home is an endorsement of the current system. It's not just about Obama vs. McCain. It's about what kids are going to learn or not learn in school. It's about how development and zoning in your community are handled."
Of course. That's why I plan to vote on many of those matters. But not for either of the terrible candidates from the major parties.
Posted by: Paul | July 18, 2008 1:19 AM
Thanks for sharing the recommendation, Andy. Sounds like one worth buying. I'll see you at the Jesus Radicals conference in August.
Posted by: Mark Van Steenwyk | July 18, 2008 10:59 AM
I vote to honor the blood of my ancestors. They died so that I could, to not honor them in that sacrifice is to dishonor their sacrifice, their blood, sweat, tears and the legacy they gave me. I don't vote because I always think it will make a permanent difference. I vote because I wish to honor the dead and because it empowers me to work within the system to help promote the change i want to see.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 18, 2008 11:22 AM
Hey--is that Mark Van Steenwyk from the Minneapolis area? This is Lea--from about 10 years ago when I was a grad student at U of M...
Posted by: squeaky | July 18, 2008 11:36 AM
I wanted to add:
Equating non-voting with "withdrawal" is a serious distortion of the positions most people hold who conscientiously abstain from voting. Most of us are very involved in many ways. In fact, voting is the least powerful act of civic action one could possibly do. His position distorts those who do not vote, characterizes us.
Accusing people of "passive" support for the worst regime is a dumb thing to say. First, why is not a passive support of the "better" regime...whatever that might be?
Second, nobody can predict what these candidates will do. Nixon promised to end the Vietnam war, instead he bombed Cambodia and escalated the war. Woodrow Wilson, a major pacifist activist before becoming president, promised to keep the U.S. out of wars. But once elected he quickly led the U.S. into WWI, as a "war to end all wars." Candidates routinely lie and pander; both candidates have been caught doing so in this election cycle. No one can passively support what they do not know will happen.
Third, to accuse pacifists of "passively" supporting atrocities for being unwilling to go to war, or conscientious non-voters for passively supporting the worst regimes, is on the same order as saying that God stood by and watched Jesus die, therefore God is as guilty of Jesus' death as human beings are. I tis to say the God is guilty of the genocides, the tortures that happen in this world, because God could cast his over-riding "vote" and stop any regime God wanted to. But the doctrine of hell has always stood as a reminder of God's justice. Not to mention the perversity of blaming the innocent for the actions of the guilty.
Fourth, refusal to vote does not leave the world to the worst elements. In the first place it has too low a view of other people, and too high of a view of ourselves. It makes us superior to others, only we can make the "right" decision. Second, it does not leave it is the devil's hands, but in God's hands, where it properly belongs.
Fifth, related to the last sentence, accusing conscientious non-voters of passive support reflects a low view of prayer. Not surprising since most of us are closet atheists anyhow. But it does reflect a view that praying could possibly be a more powerful form of civic action than any other kind. (Not to mention it devalues activist work in the first place and puts too much on the state).
Posted by: Andy Alexis-Baker | July 18, 2008 2:04 PM
Back to packing I go--I'm moving back to God's Country (Minnesota)!
Posted by: squeaky
I heard their mosquitos are as big as bats ?
Hope all is well .
Posted by: Matt | July 18, 2008 2:05 PM
Hey Lea! It is indeed one and the same Mark Van Steenwyk. How are things going? Send me an email (mark at missio-dei.com)...I'd like to find out how things are going.
Posted by: Mark Van Steenwyk | July 18, 2008 5:01 PM
Thanks Moderatelad! I'll let you know when I'll be in the Cities!
Blessings
Posted by: squeaky | July 18, 2008 6:10 PM
yes, Matt--the mosquitos are indeed legendary. That's what we get for having 10,000 mosquito farms, err, lakes.
Posted by: squeaky | July 18, 2008 6:16 PM
Squeaky: "Back to packing I go--I'm moving back to God's Country (Minnesota)!"
Me: Yay! Welcome home in advance! What brings you back here?
Matt: "I heard their mosquitos are as big as bats?"
Me: Nope, they're little. Little and mean. Down in Florida you get the big ones, but up here in the tundra, where everything dies every winter, only the strong survive.
Moderatelad: "Let me know when you get here and settled. If you are in the Metro area - would like to have coffee with you or maybe an adult bev."
Me: Me, too!
Posted by: JEM | July 21, 2008 2:31 PM
Squeaky,
I think that the world changing as a result of making disciples of all nations is an obvious observation. How could the world not experience change as a result?
However, this organization does not seem to be interested in "making disciples of all nations." It's motivations are purely political and are aimed at Christians who more liberal in their political leanings. I am afraid that any kind of organization who's only purpose is to further a political agenda, here we have socialism, is going to take Christians down another dead end road.
Humanity can't save itself. Period. We need to humble ourselves before God and continue to do His will not the will of Jim Wallis.
Posted by: brenden | July 23, 2008 5:09 AM
Interesting commentary. After the large numbers of Right-Wing Evangelicals who helped put Bush/Cheney in office in 2000 and 2004, I can't imagine many good and honest excuses.I respect your perspective Brian.Accusing people of "passive" support for the worst regime is a dumb thing to say.Humanity can't save itself.We need to humble ourselves before God and continue to do His will not the will of Jim Wallis.
Posted by: Lotus Notes Workflow | August 14, 2008 3:49 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?