I recently listened to a broadcast of Al Mohler on his radio show. I think it was the last "Ask Anything Wednesday" episode in which he answers questions from callers.
One caller asked him about the possibility of him supporting a third party candidate (Constitution Party). Mohler responded by talking about principle and pragmatism. He first said that each believer should make up their minds the first tier issues... On these issues, Mohler said that Christians should decide beforehand those candidates they would not vote for as a matter of principle.
But then, once the candidates for the two main parties have been chosen, he seemed to be saying that Christians should weigh their vote pragmatically. He concluded by saying that there's very little possibility of a third party candidate winning. Mohler didn't give a "therefore" after that last statement, but it seemed clear to me that his conclusion was "Therefore, I wouldn't vote for a third party candidate."
Is it just me or does it look like pragmatism wins out in this situation? I've wrestled with this issue before and am open to reasonable answers, but I just don't see it for now. If the election was tomorrow and I had a choice between Giulianni? or McCain vs. Hillary or Obama, I would vote for someone else. Is that unreasonable?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
To my shame, I have done very little thinking about politics. I agree with Piper's article about "One issue politics..." The one issue for me is abortion (as with Piper). If a candidate supports a women's right to chose, I simply cannot vote for him/her no matter what else they support or oppose. If a candidate opposes abortion and isn't an atheist, I cannot think of another political issue that would make me not vote for them.
Call me simplistic or uninformed, but thats the way I see it.
JC
Jim, I think this goes back to the coversation you've had on your own blog about decision-making and the will of God. We need a renewed mind to learn how to vote for the glory of God.
For what it's worth, I think that you are not unreasonable. And I think that we would do well to remember that we will stand before God to give an account for our voting just as we will give an account for our other actions.
Mohler's advice seemed to be rooted in his belief that a third party can’t possibly win in America. Yet the most important thing in our voting must not be "Will my candidate win?", but "Am I being faithful to God?"
Here's the answer of the CP to the question "Can a 3rd party really ever win in our country?":
"No it can’t, as long as Americans keep believing lies such as this one. What would happen if everyone who objects to the GOP on principle would vote their conscience? People would be sending a clear message to the GOP that they want Principle Over Politics, not politics as usual. The CP would be a force to be reckoned with. But, sad to say, people continue to listen to the lies, and thus ensure that a third party never makes an impact on the political scene. In effect, if you believe this you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
It is interesting that this argument is made by Republicans, whose party at one time was a third party. Have Republicans forgotten their meager beginnings? Ultimately this statement admits two fallacies: first, that the two parties are the only valid avenues to public office; and second, that winning is the only thing that really matters. Remember, Adolph Hitler won, but that didn’t mean he was right.
It is a standard GOP goal to win at all cost. The GOP does not operate by principle. This is why a perceived conservative Christian President Bush can promote a GOP senator like Arlen Specter who is as liberal as they come in the GOP. Specter is pro-choice, pro-UN, anti-Second Amendment, etc. The president was not acting on principle when he threw his support behind Specter; he was trying to keep GOP control of the Senate by insuring that Specter was the GOP candidate for senator over his lesser-known, but more conservative GOP challenger."
JN
PS - Though a conservative, I keep up with politics through two liberal sources: www.electoral-vote.com and weekly podcasts from NPR.
Ok, I've listened again to the question and answer from the radio program. Here's what was said:
Listener: "If we were to get a liberal republican nominated for president... um... I don't know if you've ever heard of the Constitution Party or if any of your listeners have and if so, would you ever consider them to be a possible conservative alternative?"
Mohler: "It's a very interesting question... and so many questions in politics have to be answered at one level, which is principle and another level of pragmatics... That's the falleness of this world when it comes to the political system."
"The Constitution Party in terms of its affirmations and platform is likely to be more in sync with the concerns and principles of many conservative Christians than either of the two dominant parties."
"The pragmatic question is, 'Is there really any hope for a third party electoral victory?' There's no great hope in American history for that to be true. As a matter of fact, going back to the early twentieth century with Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party, it's hard to imagine a third party victory."
"So, do you vote for a third party in order to make a statement? I think that's where many conservative Christians are going to find themselves, potentially find themselves... with this coming election."
"How do we go to the polls and vote with principle also informed by the pragmatic value of our political decisions?"
Post a Comment