Author: art rogers
Voting One’s Convictions
Monday, July 7th, 2008 @ 12:01 am
I’ve heard it argued that to vote one’s Christian convictions, especially this year, the vote must not be cast for either of the two major party candidates that appear to have finally sewn up their party’s nomination. We think.
The argument, as recently posted by my friend Micah Fries, goes that to pick the lesser of two evils, which McCain and Obama are supposed to be, then you have to choose “evil.” Therefore, vote your convictions and let the chips fall where they may.
I would like to humbly challenge this thought process.
The conclusion above assumes that avoiding the election of someone that would lead us away from my overall convictions is a choice that leads to me not voting my true convictions. In fact, to avoid leadership that would, in my opinion, shipwreck our nation is a very firm conviction of mine.
In America’s not too distant history, we have precisely two perfect examples of people voting for third party candidates in order to “vote their convictions” - one to the Republicans and one to the Democrats.
In 1992, H. Ross Perot ran as a candidate for President against George H. W. Bush, the incumbent, and William Jefferson Clinton. While both parties hemorrhaged disenchanted voters to Perot, the Republicans were the greatest loser. As a result, though Bill Clinton did not even receive a majority of the popular vote, the electoral college swung his way and the Republicans endured the Democrats’ most beloved leader since JFK, the “Teflon Don” of Presidential politics, Bill Clinton, who was re-elected and served for 8 years.
In 2000, Ralph Nader eschewed calls from the Democrats to step aside. Rather, much like Perot, and like the “lesser of two evils” argument, Nader declared that both candidates, George W. Bush and Al Gore were so similar that the difference was negligible. This was a Green Party slap in the face to Al Gore, who claimed to represent the Environmental interests. It turns out, that Nader was probably right. At least in evaluating Bush’s and Gore’s personal commitment to the environment, it is well documented that Bush’s ranch in Texas is a model of “earth friendly” efficiency, while Gore’s is an energy hog and burns natural gas at a rate of 12 times that of his neighbors, while only having a house 4 times as large - documented on Snopes.
What is my point with all of that? Apparently, the environmentalists, at least enough of them, agreed with Nader and voted for him. George W. Bush, though losing the popular vote, won the boondogle court case in Florida and the Supreme Court of the United States and the electoral college that goes with it.
What are the results of these two turns?
Many, but most tangible are the appointments to the Supreme Court. Bill Clinton: Ginsburg and Dreyer. George W. Bush: Chief Justice Roberts and Alito.
And here we are again.
A report from the Boston Globe documents the speculation that at least one if not three justices are on the verge of retiring. It also documents that the court is very definitely split between two groups of 4 right leaning and 4 left leaning justices, with Justice Kennedy often now the swing vote.
There are justices in both “camps” that are possible retirees.
All of this is to say, whoever wins the election will most likely control the court and it will swing one way or the other.
Oh, and the Globe also reports that Obama is promising to appoint justices with a “broader social outlook” and McCain is promising to appoint justices more int he model of new Chief Justice John Roberts.
This is not to mention the vast number of vacancies on lesser Federal Benches that the left leaning Congress has declined fill, delaying the nominees of President Bush in hopes of replacing him with a more liberal President that will nominate men and women to fill the gaps in a way that will suit them better. The lower courts are backed up to the point of violating the Constitutional right to a speedy trial and the Congress can’t hold out another four to eight years. Allow the election of the wrong President, and they won’t have to wait.
I humbly submit to you that I will be voting for a major party candidate this year and will not hesitate to “vote my convictions” - even if he is not the one I would have chosen a year ago. My convictions are that we return the our courts to their conservative roots and not have justices that legislate from the bench. Presidents and Congressmen come and go, but the courts last for decades.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
July 7th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I don’t know (nor care)whom you’re going to vote for, but I couldn’t agree more with this post.
Well done.
Bob Clevelands last blog post..Proverbs 3:5-6, Live Version
July 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I take voting very seriously, and this is the first election in memory that I have not wanted to vote for either. I believe strongly with you that voting our convictions is the correct way to vote, and if more would do this, it does send a loud, clear message.
Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..Battles Among Christians Part 2
July 7th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Deb, thanks
Bob, I tried to write impartially, but I’m afraid the concluding paragraphs failed. Still, thanks for the encouragement.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Ford gave America the liberal John Paul Stevens. Reagan gave America the moderate Sandra Day O’Connor. Reagan also gave America the swing-voter Anthony Kennedy. George Herbert Walker Bush gave America the usually liberal David Souter.
All four Justices were nominated by conservative Republican Presidents. All four Justices have voted on multiple occasions to uphold Roe v. Wade and voted in favor of gay rights. All four have played key roles in drafting decisions like Casey that gave the right to have an abortion a more or less permanent place in American society.
You seem to have a great amount of confidence that McCain the Maverick, the guy who lead the Gang of 14, will nominate a Justice in the mold of John Roberts who will restore what is often called conservative values.
Reagan and Bush I made those same promises. Look what they gave America.
In regards to the claim of “legislating from the bench”
I’ve reached the conclusion that the accusation of “legislating from the bench” says less about the Justice’s judicial philosophy and more about accusers disagreement with the decision being handed down. Liberals and conservatives both make claims that Justices legislate from the bench. “Legislating from the bench” is not a disease that has infected only liberals. Just over a week ago I read an article by E.J. Dionne who was lamenting that the conservative justices were “legislating from the bench” in the recent DC Gun ruling. Constitutional lawyers, journalists, and analysts will always make these arguments regardless of the Court’s makeup.
I do think that all Christians should vote their convictions and be active participants in the democratic process and in the public square. I also think that Christians can express their faith-informed convictions by voting third-party as well. My Nader friends always annoyed me but I had respect for them and their sincerely held belief that the two-party system is broken.
On election day, I hope to see more of my fellow evangelicals cast their vote with me for Obama!
July 7th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Aaron,
I noted in reading background for this post that those justices came from “conservative” Presidents.
I did a poor job of not “siding” with a candidate, but since you have openly called for Obama votes and since I did such a bad job of hiding my under girding predispositions, let me say that my confidence is not in McCain. The whole point of this article is that I have NO CONFIDENCE in Obama, and will, therefore, happily vote for McCain and I believe that such is voting my conscience.
But, let’s please leave it there. I have no desire to turn this into a candidate specific tet-a-tet.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Art,
In the spirit of the last paragraph of your comment number 5, let me say that I completely agree with your post and my vote this year will NOT be in favor of any candidate; it will be in complete opposition to a certain candidate. In that manner, I am voting my convictions as well.
I think we are on the same page.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I’m with Debbie, I don’t see anything good about this election. For me it is just a scary thing to think of either one of them being elected.
I don’t get what is so great about Obama or why one would hope he gets the votes.
I totally get what you are saying Art.. Do you watch Glenn Beck too??
July 8th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Americans have been complaining about the length of this election process for over a year. The payoff is that we find out earlier and earlier who to hope gets nominated and who to start reading up on.
I’m hoping either Sen. Wm. Proxmire, Gen. Andrew Jackson, or Teddy Roosevelt steps out from behind a curtain soon! I can’t imagine McCain in the Executive Mansion, and I can’t imagine Obama ever even becoming a senior state senator, much less in Washington. I honestly believe you could run the Obamamessiah for governor in every state of the union and he’d lose every race.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Sheila,
I don’t watch Glenn Beck. I don’t have the time, I’m afraid.
Steve,
I don’t think he would lose every election. There are plenty of people behind him and in certain states where the electorate is concentrated in larger cities (which trend Democratic) I think he would win in a cakewalk.
I know a lot of Republicans who are very afraid of him winning and a number of others who seem to be resigned to that fact, which is dangerous for them. If Republicans think its a done deal, they are likely not to turn out and the sentiment becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
However, I have said before privately and now say publicly, that one should never underestimate the racism of America.
I am against racism - it is rank sin.
Commenting objectively, though, Obama is going to have to overcome old white people who will come out of the woodworks just to keep a black man from becoming President. On top of that, the accusations that he has Islamic ties/heritage will be a hurdle for a completely different section of society.
McCain, on the other hand, will have to cross a generation gap and negative emotions against the war, which he has supported and has not promised to bring troops home right away the way Obama did right away.
Bringing the troops home right away is, in my opinion, terrible foreign policy and will open the floodgates for extremists to make Iraq their home state, but emotional negativity about the war - whether we should even be in the war - will not worry about the long term future. Just the short term past.
Frankly, I think it is a toss up, at this point. We’ll see.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I’m writing in for CB Scott.
Marty Durens last blog post..Taking a Break