Faith, Culture and Politics--A Voting Guide Fall 04

Here’s my take on Kerry vs. Bush on an issue by issue basis.

As for my biases:

I consider myself a progressive Christian. I’ve been influenced strongly by the historical Anabaptist and peace church traditions. That means I’m not very enthusiastic about expansive political visions, military crusades (however well meaning) and near-religious forms of nationalism.

I’m committed to what I consider to be a consistent pro-life ethic which includes strong support for practical alternatives to abortion, war, capital punishment, hunger, and poverty.

I tend to favor individual freedom, creativity and innovation which take place within the healthy restraint and support of community contexts. I tend to assume that unusually strong and hierarchical concentrations of power normally hinder individual freedom, creativity, and innovation.

Concentrations of worldly power are a social necessity that can help free people to do what they do best. When those constellations of coercion get too much power, and when they begin to believe they are God’s instruments on earth, well, at that point I think we should all probably start paying more attention to what’s going on.

I’ve voted for both Republicans and Democrats over the years and I’ve decided not to vote too when I felt it was pointless.

Now that I’ve done the obligatory post-modern self-disclosure, on to the issues.

Human Life

Kerry

Opposes abortion from a personal point of view but believes the state shouldn’t dictate that choice for individual women.
Supports stepped up stem cell research
Questions capital punishment, but won’t push for major changes in current laws.

Bush

Opposes abortion and supports federal law and Supreme Court decisions that will severely restrict its practice.
Severely restricted stem cell research by denying American scientists access to adequate stem cell sources.
Enthusiastically supports capital punishment


Summary Comments

In terms of abortion, Bush is clearly the evangelical choice. I think he’s sincerely committed from a spiritual point of view.

Personally, I think abortion is a very substantive issue that has been elevated by many to the status of the only issue.

The Democrats still don’t get it that most Americans dislike abortion. What’s worse is that they won’t admit that many religious people and many political conservatives are sincere and thoughtful in their rejection of abortion. After a century of unique global violence and the introduction of mass murder and industrial killing, it seems clear to me that most people of conscience would want to restrict the taking of potential human life.

On the other hand, I believe evangelicals and Republicans have lost their sense of just proportion in elevating this issue to the level of “defeating slavery.” Maybe an honest discussion about abortion is more complicated than that.

Conservative Christians have felt overwhelmed and discriminated against for so many decades that I truly understand the anger and intensity in their political rhetoric and their relentless and impressive political organization.

But I wonder if some honest self-evaluation is in order. Is the extreme polarization and hostility really of God?

I’d personally prefer to see a more restrictive legal environment for abortion than exists right now. So score one for Bush, though I fear the religious far right will insist on restrictions that will become another failed social experiment like Prohibition.

I prefer Kerry’s position on stem cell research. The potential for remarkable medical breakthroughs through this kind of research is clear, and the cells can be harvested from fetuses that will never become human children. Though I understand and appreciate the caution that religious conservatives want to exercise with this issue, and particularly the nuanced decision made by the Bush Administration to allow existing stem cells lines to be used while restricting new lines, I believe both of their positions are unnecessarily restrictive and cautious. Score one for Kerry.

I’m torn on capital punishment. I do believe there are rare instances when people should be executed because of the nature of their crimes.

On the other hand capital punishment has been doled out in such an unfair way—with the poor and ethnic minorities bearing the brunt of the injustice—that it’s hard to support the policy from a practical point of view.

Kerry seems to be the candidate with the deepest understanding of the complexities.

Bush seems to represent a more unreflective position that isn’t willing to come to grips with the historical and actual injustices in our justice and execution system.

I’d score one for Kerry on this specific issue.

Overall, I’d give Bush a slight nod here because of the importance of the abortion issue, which clearly has a huge direct and practical impact on so many people’s lives, and the lack of widespread impact on most people’s lives of capital punishment and the mostly future impact of stem cell research.

Economic Justice

Kerry

Has a longstanding record of supporting efforts aimed at empowering the poor.
Promises to reverse Bush’s tax cuts to the richest 10% in order to reduce the current budget deficits and use that money for programs that will support efforts for better health insurance for the poor and middle class.
Rejects the conservative idea of relying on consumption taxes and slashing taxes on investment income because this would make taxes fall more heavily on the poor and middle class. Believes in the idea of distributive justice. That means he thinks that those who benefit most from a society and make the biggest bucks should contribute disproportionately in relationship to those who make the small change. It’s a very basic New Testament concept.

Bush

His tax cuts have mostly benefited the richest 10% of Americans and his policies have slanted strikingly toward the rich. He promises to make these cuts permanent.
Believes that by cutting taxes on wealthy peoples investment will increase and “all boats will rise”
Promises an “ownership society” where everybody can own property and control their own retirement accounts. Is committed to significantly cutting taxes on all investment and salary income, but will do it incrementally tax by tax (since doing it all at once would create intense opposition). Is committed to shifting the burden of taxes to consumption taxes (sales taxes, etc.).

Summary Comments

Bush sincerely believe that giving even greater federal policy advantages to the wealthy will result in good things for all. America now has income disparities between the rich and poor that make it more at home among third world economies than among developed nations, and I believe his policies will simply increase that gap.

His repeated public comments that “the rich will figure out a way to avoid taxes anyway” as a justification for cutting their taxes seems so cynical to me that I’m not sure how to respond.

I really like the idea of an ownership society. This is the path out of poverty for hundreds of millions around the world. This concept of an ownership society is closely related to some important biblical teachings and principles, including the ideas of personal responsibility, stewardship, etc.

The problem with Bush—along with almost all economic conservatives--is that his efforts seem to be focused on helping the haves to own even more. I’d love to see some results and not more rhetoric in helping the have-nots own and invest. Bush blows the right kind of hot air on the ownership issue, but I think we’d do better with a political leadership that not only understands the advantages of investment and ownership but also has a true commitment to helping the poor. I’ve seen no clear evidence from Bush or the current Republican Party that they have an honest commitment to do that.

Getting past campaign rhetoric and looking at actual decisions and actions, Bush and the Republicans have eliminated or crippled a number of the most important programs that benefit poor Americans over the past few years, including cutting housing credits for the poor when more and more working poor families can’t afford housing.

The Administration’s most recent innovation is an attempt to exempt the majority of banks from the federal laws governing “redlining.” Basically, these laws have been some of the most successful in our nation’s history in helping minorities get loans to own a home because they effectively restrict banks from denying home loans on the basis of racial and ethnic identification.

But they don’t fit in with conservative ideology, and it appears the new laws are meant to correct what many European-Americans consider to be an unjust prejudice against them over the past few decades.

The logic here seems to be a conservative version of “tough love” where we “encourage” the working poor by making it harder for them to attain home ownership and other basics in order to “inspire” them to greater efforts.

Consumption taxes fall most heavily on the poor and middle class. A 5% sales tax on buying a particular car, for example, would cost the same for both a wealthy person and a poor person. But it would have far less impact on the wealthy person, and require far less contribution to the social good (proportionally speaking) than it would for the poor person.

Income taxes that are higher for the wealthy are based on the idea of economic fairness and distributive justice, where those who benefit most from society pay more in taxes.

It is this idea of distributive justice that Bush and the religious conservatives want to severely limit or even overturn. They believe, in an interesting twist of logic, that everyone will be better off if the investment class (the upper middle class and the wealthy) pays little or no income or investment taxes, and if the burden of taxes falls on the middle class and poor through consumption taxes. Again, what they are really rejecting is the Christian idea of distributive justice, which is based on the idea that the wealth and income of a society should be more fairly distributed in order to help everybody do better.

The deeper logic of distributive justice is rooted in the traditional Christian idea that economic success is a gift from God. The Bible says that the biological and social accidents of high intelligence or marketable talents or family wealth (which is the greatest predictor of economic success) are gifts. What that means is that our own efforts have far less to do with our position in life than we like to believe. That’s a fundamental Christian teaching, and most every other religion teaches the same thing. The idea of life as a gift—or in some cases, a fortuitous accident--is one of the most basic teachings of all religious and spiritual points of view.

The biblical idea of distributive justice claims that those who have been given great and unmerited advantages should invest their gifts for the benefit of the community and do it gladly and gratefully.

The religious conservatives (basically, the evangelical and fundamentalist church) want to replace distributive justice with doctrine of economic opportunity, which they see as an important kind of justice in itself. The conservatives tend to see distributive justice and greater freedom of opportunity in conflict, so if one is going to prosper the other must be sacrificed.

I’ve never understood this tendency to polarize these things. It seems that a balance must be struck between the two, and that there is no reason that much greater economic opportunity for the poor can’t go hand in hand with a fair and equitable tax code that doesn’t put the burden of taxes primarily on the middle class and poor, which is what consumption taxes will do.

The tax cuts for the wealthiest, in my view, must be reversed as a matter of responsible fiscal policy (more on fiscal policy later). And the idea of shifting our tax code, tax by tax, to a system based on consumption taxes must be resisted even more strongly in my view out of moral and economic decency.

The idea that economic justice is served by favoring the rich in the tax code and cutting historically useful social programs for the poor is questionable at best. This is simply more overdone—though probably honestly felt--conservative ideology in my opinion.

As a side comment from a very personal point of view, it’s interesting to me that many of the religious conservatives seem so strangely attracted to social Darwinism. These are some of the same people who want to drive biological Darwinism out of the text books. Life is full of ironies.

All of this makes you wonder if anybody has been teaching the American Christian flock about the economics of the Bible or historical Christian social teaching.

Having said all that, I wish Kerry and the Democrats would be more aggressive in supporting entrepreneurship and ownership for the poor. Their failure to do this more assertively is surprising and telling. They need to wake up and smell the future. This is a very important issue that will legitimately influence many people to vote against the Democratic ticket.

In my mind, Kerry has a decisive edge in this category.

On the other hand, I’d support the Republicans if they decided to support fairer tax policies, and at the same time followed through on their rhetoric about truly committing resources and real political energy toward creating an ownership society for the poor.

Bush is trotting out the same old “compassionate conservative” stuff again. The problem is that almost none of it was enacted or even attempted in his first term, and that so much of it is based on unjust ideologies and bad theology.

Americans like to say, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Another older imperial culture liked to say, “Caveat emptor.” It’s a Roman expression that means, “Let the buyer beware.”


Fiscal Responsibility

Kerry

Must deal with the federal budget situation left by the Bush Administration if he’s elected. To his credit, Kerry hasn’t promised any magic solutions since the numbers are pretty grim.
Promises to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthiest 10% of Americans in order to help pay down the deficit.
Promises to bring other nations into partnership in Iraq. Claims he can do it in a way Bush can’t because of the hatred and disrespect around the world that the present administration has created. The idea is to dramatically reduce the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq and thus help reduce the deficits.
Wants to spend large amounts of money on health care for the substantial numbers of Americans without adequate health care or insurance. The projected costs of this approach would probably cancel out any savings realized by repealing the tax cuts on the wealthy, so it’s hard to see how the deficit will be significantly reduced if Kerry’s health plan is passed. On the other hand, the health plan is desperately needed, and the pressure on the budget comes primarily from the costs of the war on Iraq which Bush is directly responsible for creating.


Bush

Bush’s idea of doing some deficit spending early in the his term was appropriate in order to help jump start the slumping economy, but he and the Republican Congress quickly got out of control. Because of ideologically driven tax cuts and huge war expenditures we’re now facing one of the largest budget deficits in U.S. history.
Dick Cheney, who clearly has tremendous influence over our current president, remarked that “Reagan proved that deficits don’t mean anything.” Draw you own conclusions. I wonder what the leaders of countries in the developing world, who are severely punished by the World Bank and International Monetary fund for running deficits and being fiscally irresponsible, think about Cheney’s comments. But then again the powerful have always lived by a different set of rules.
Bush has no clear plan for reducing the budget deficit. Even conservative commentators complain that his numbers, given the programs and approaches he is promising for his second term, simply don’t add up, especially since he refuses to consider repealing the tax cuts and actually wants to make them permanent. Bush’s projected budget is nonsense from any sober or practical point of view.
The Bush Administration has consistently and systematically misled the public and even Congress about the costs of its initiatives and programs. During 2002, the Bush Administration didn’t even include the 80 billion cost of the first year of the war on Iraq in its federal budget figures submitted to Congress! Again, I’ve gotten most of my information on these abuses from respected conservative sources (like the Economist and the National Review) who normally support conservative and Republican approaches and politicians. But if you’ve been paying attention, none of this is surprising. The present administration has never produced a budget or cost estimate that has even come close to being accurate.

Summary Comments

Bush will be supported by many millions this November because he supposedly represents the fiscally responsible conservative Republicans.

Most every bi-partisan budget projection looks for unsustainable budget deficits for many years to come under a re-elected Bush administration. .

Maybe we’ll get lucky and there will be another technological revolution that will create a 90’s style market explosion. That’s what took us out of the immense Reagan era deficits.

But maybe not. Maybe monies we could have spent on improving the country and on helping the poor will be drained for years to come because of the irresponsibility of the present administration.

Conservative ideologues in the past have actually argued for running up massive deficits by dramatically increasing defense expenditures in order to restrict new spending on social programs.

The idea is to overspend in an extreme way on tax cuts and things like war so that there’s no money left for Democrats to overspend on social programs. Perhaps that is Bush’s strategy.

I’m not confident that Kerry and the Democrats will deal aggressively with the budget deficit, though I think their ideas hold some promise, especially since they’re not ideologically opposed to rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. And Kerry’s numbers add up better than Bush’s, though neither seem to be willing to face the difficult choices necessary because of the spending binge of the past 4 years.

And neither candidate or party is facing the huge fiscal crisis that the Baby Boom generation retirement will create in ten years. It’s predictable that no one is trying to deal with it. Most Americans don’t want to deal with bad news and will punish any candidate or party that tells them major difficulties are ahead.

All I all, I can’t imagine a Kerry administration being more fiscally irresponsible than our present leadership has been.

I believe this issue is especially important in judging a president and administration since it’s one of the few areas they can truly control, unlike things like the business cycle and local education, etc.

Kerry and the Democrats are the clear choice here on the strength of Bush’s irresponsible fiscal performance over the past 4 years.

Support for Faith Based Social Programs

Kerry

Has made no commitments to support these kinds of programs.

Bush

Has vigorously supported faith-based initiatives by executive order. For the first time in many decades, the federal government delivers social services by awarding monies and contracts to non-governmental organizations without discernable prejudice against Christian or religious groups.

Summary Comments

Bush is clearly the choice in this category. I believe this in one of the best contributions this administration has made to the well-being of the U.S. I hope this effort to remove the favoritism toward secular NGO’s will become a tradition.

On the other hand, Christian social organizations have purposely avoided government funding for many generations in the U.S. because they understood that once they took public monies and began to depend on large infusions of federal cash that they would probably lose their independence and effectiveness. So maybe Bush’s breakthrough on behalf of Christian NGO’s will turn out to be a spiritual Trojan Horse virus. I truly hope not.

The Environment

Kerry

Has one of the best environmental records in Congress
Proposes aggressive measures to cut dependence on fossil fuels
Proposes aggressive measures to develop alternative sources of energy
Will support international agreements on global warming

Bush

Proposes aggressive measures to increase exploration and drilling for fossil fuels
In spite of compelling scientific evidence regarding global warming, rejected the global agreement worked out in Kyoto to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
Has mostly ignored conservation efforts in the U.S.
Has resisted efforts to induce car manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles.
Has dramatically cut funding for national parks and wilderness areas.

Summary Comments

Bush’s environmental record is very poor.

I’ve gotten to know a number of geologists, rangers, and lawyers who work for the Department of the Interior and the National Parks Service here in Colorado, and many of them are contemplating leaving those agencies if Bush is re-elected. Many of these folks are more conservative by lifestyle and inclination. They say morale is at an all-time low and people within the agencies are shocked by the hostility that the present administration has shown toward traditional environmental concerns.

I’ve tried to understand Bush’s environmental policies from a sympathetic point of view. I’m still trying.

Their latest adventure is an attempt to eliminate federal requirements for power companies to clean up old plants and equipment, even though the rock solid scientific evidence is that such dirty power plants contribute the majority of the air pollution in many parts of the country.

Their argument is that these requirements are cumbersome and burdensome for business. But that’s always their relentless and inflexible point of view, no matter what the situation might be. At times it seems there isn’t a single environmental regulation that they wouldn’t like cripple or get rid of.

Kerry gets the clear decision here.

The Economy

I’m not sure how to rank either candidate in this category because I’m not sure how much control federal governments have over the performance of the economy. I think federal governments can influence the economy and markets, but they don’t have real power to direct markets in the same way they can control things like federal budgets and foreign policy.

Generally speaking, political instability and unpredictability effect markets negatively. From the point of view of the past 30 years, the economy did its best under Clinton and the Democrats’ stewardship. The economy is mediocre right now and Bush has the worst record since the Depression in terms of creating jobs.

But I think most of this is due to global economic trends. America is going to lose lots of jobs in the years to come because we now have some real competition around the world. Neither candidate can honestly address this issue with the broader public because Americans usually punish—in the short run--any political leader who is honest and describes things the way they are.

I do think the government can affect and influence the economy through its policies on international trade. Basically, every government has to choose how much it will support free trade and how much it will seek to “protect” its own economy through tariffs on foreign goods and subsidies for its own industries and businesses.

My own take is that everybody is philosophically a free trader today, but that everyone has to deal with political realities too. For example, American government subsidies for American farmers distort free trade around the world and hurt farmers in the developing world. Poor farmers in Africa, who can grow and sell crops much more cheaply because of their low production and labor costs, are in fact cut out of world markets because American and western governments subsidize their own farmers and enforce high trade tariffs on African agricultural goods. These kinds of western subsidies and tariffs in a number of industries help keep very poor countries very poor because they assure that those countries can’t take advantage of their lower production and labor costs in the global market.

From a moral and economic point of view, I think that kind of protectionism is indefensible. The most important thing the west could do to help the economies of Africa—and help the poorest of the poor--would be to open agricultural markets and stop these kinds of dubious subsidies.

But that would be very costly politically since American farmers--and the folks in other industries who get subsidies--would be up in arms.

Bush and the conservatives talk big on free trade but often act like protectionists. Bush has supported and even increased subsidies for many American industries, including agriculture. The Democrats tend to give more lip service to protecting American industries and jobs, but in fact they strongly support most free trade policies. Kerry certainly has and does.

Who you favor over this issue depends on how you want government trade rhetoric to sound—both are going to do pretty much the same thing. In fact, Clinton’s government was one of the most oriented toward free trade in our history. Stereotypes are usually nothing but, well, stereotypes.

Foreign Policy

Kerry

Has been unclear on what he thinks of the war on Iraq. Sometimes he seems to believe the war was a mistake from the start. Other times he thinks the invasion was understandable and just given the knowledge at the time but that the occupation has been botched big time. In either case, he’s very clear in the belief that Bush has handled the whole thing exceptionally poorly.
Will aggressively attempt to repair the immense damage to our international relationships and to our image around the world that Bush has created. Believes that a new start and new leadership will make it much easier for foreign governments to cooperate with the US—even in helping rebuild Iraq--since virtually all of their populations, and most of their leaders, are very negative and even hostile to the Bush administration. Believes his election would given many foreign governments and people the political flexibility to become our partners again.
Is committed to a relentless war against Islamic terrorism, but wants to focus that war on terrorist organizations rather than on national governments who have no demonstrable connection to terrorism. Believes the US is engaged in a war on terror, but believes the terrorists are motivated primarily out of specific grievances against the US and the West (primarily their hostility over US incursions in Muslim lands and the unquestioning support the US gives to Israel and the complete lack of any serious attempts on the part of the Bush administration to deal with the Palestinian situation).
Believes that the war in Iraq has diverted the US from a real war on terrorism and has wasted vast resources that could have been used to deal with real threats like Al Queda, Iran and North Korea. Believes that because the US is now tied down in Iraq for many years to come that our political flexibility and military resources are so limited that we will have a hard time dealing with the real threats we’re going to face, and is committed to doing everything he can to extract us from Iraq as quickly as possible without creating chaos.
Believes the Bush administration has been remarkably incompetent in handling the occupation, that virtually every assumption the administration made about the post invasion situation in Iraq has proven to be false, and that the situation is grim because of a long litany of mistakes and miscalculations.
Believes in building and maintaining alliances around the world and using those as a basis of projecting American power and influence.
Rejects most of the ideas of neo-conservatism, which has been the basis of Bush’s foreign policy The neo-conservatives—who in fact have little to do with real conservatism--argue that America should feel free to pro-actively compel the world to change for the better at gunpoint wherever and whenever it is feasible to do so and whenever “soft power” approaches don’t seem to be working. Believes that using American military might more sparingly and relying primarily on American economic, diplomatic, and political pressure in the context of strong alliances and partnerships is a wiser, less destructive, and less risky approach.
Believes that supporting reasonable international treaties and participating in the world community as a supportive member will produce better results than rejecting international treaties and acting in a hostile and overtly arrogant manner that humiliates other nations.
Believes that dealing with nuclear proliferation is the most important practical way to deal with terrorism

Bush

Is very clear on what he thinks about Iraq. Believes that America is now engaged in an epic war against terror in which America has a call from God to rid the world of evildoers who hate America and the west for our freedom and goodness. Doesn’t believe the terrorists are primarily motivated by the continuing injustice in Palestine or by other U.S. and western policies in the Arab world. In effect, he believes the overwhelming opposition to his policies and the growing number of terrorists in the Islamic world are due primarily to their hostility to modernity and their fundamental hatred of freedom and democracy. Or in short, they’re bad people.
Embraces neo-conservative thinking and wants to lead a global revolution. Wants to break the power of Islamic fundamentalism by speaking loudly and carrying a very big stick. Has announced a new and unprecedented policy of ‘pre-emptive war’ in which the U.S. will strike first at any perceived potential enemy when such an action is politically feasible in the U.S and militarily practical, whether or not our allies or friends are supportive. Believes in projecting American military violence in a pro-active way in order to force the people of other countries to do the political will of the U.S.
Has announced a new doctrine of perpetual American global dominance in the world. Basically, he’s extended out the old Monroe Doctrine in which the U.S. claimed supremacy in the Western Hemisphere and threatened the European powers with war and violence if they messed around in “our backyard.” President Monroe staked that more local claim to dominance about 200 years ago. For Bush, the whole world is now our backyard, and he’s willing to do everything it takes to defeat all attempts to usurp American supremacy.
Believes Iraq is the main front against terrorism. Led the US into the war by claiming that Iraq was intimately tied to terrorism and that it was bristling with weapons of mass destruction. Both claims turned out to be false. Also argued that Hussein was an evil ruler with great potential to do harm to the US. The evil part was very accurate, but the other part has turned out to be dubious at best.
Invaded Iraq and broke the power of Hussein.
Invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban regime which clearly had ties to Al Queda and to global terrorism.
Sincerely believed he was doing God’s work in freeing the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq from vicious dictatorships
Continues to insist that the situation in Iraq is getting better and that Afghanistan is not falling back into the power of warlords and drug dealers, in spite of strong evidence and recent intelligence and Defense Department reports to the contrary. Decided that invading both countries with relatively small numbers of soldiers and doing nation building on the cheap would work. That strategy turned out to be a major miscalculation.
Continues to repeat that he will be tough on nuclear proliferation, but has done very little in actual fact to reduce that threat since the government’s attention has been focused almost exclusively on Iraq.

Summary Comments

I think the facts speak for themselves in many respects. I don’t want to oversimplify, but if you believe that we’re in an epic war against irrational evildoers and that aggressive military projection of American power, guided by the doctrines of unchallenged American global supremacy and of pre-emptive war against any perceived threats and enemies is the way to go, you know who’s foreign policy you support. If you believe that we’re battling a hostile but rational enemy who can best be influenced by a more judicious use of American military power and a greater reliance on partnerships and America’s immense economic, diplomatic, and cultural power, you also know who you tend to support.

Bush made bold, and I believe very well intentioned, decisions to crush the cruel and repressive regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Millions of people who were living under vicious regimes no longer fear those governments.

Yet it has to be said that very few people in either nation asked to be liberated. That may be part of the reason they seem so strangely ungrateful for our military intervention and the resulting tens of thousands of civilian deaths among their fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers.

I visit a lot of nations around the world. Lots of ‘em are ruled by bad and oppressive types.

The question for American foreign policy is whether we should engage in serial conquest so we can kill their rulers (and huge numbers of their civilians) and “liberate” their people and introduce democracy at the edge of the sword?

In my view, that’s the kind of crusade that makes sense to folks like Napoleon and neo-conservatives, but I think there are at least some people who recognize the fatal long term weaknesses in this approach. It’s naïve, unrealistic, mostly destructive, and profoundly unchristian.

I believe Bush has done more damage than good to U.S. security and to the prospects of world stability and true change in the Islamic world. That’s the trouble with naïve and semi-religious military crusades. They sacrifice the long term good in favor of satisfying short term change and the adolescent allure of “cleansing” violence.

The future of both Afghanistan and Iraq are very much in doubt. Will they be better off for the imposition of American will and violence? Biblical teaching suggests they may not be, and that even if there are some important and true gains in those places, the cycle of violence and arrogance and dominance that plagues the relationship between nations and between the peoples within nations has simply been re-affirmed.

I wish the world weren’t fallen and I’d like it if things were simple and clear. But they’re not.

Can you help liberate oppressed people but do it in such an arrogant, incompetent and naïve way that you do more harm than good? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. I think some people will recognize the truth in what I’m talking about.

Personally, I believe the twin doctrines of perpetual U.S. global dominance and the pro-active and pre-emptive projection of American violence that support it are dangerous, politically unwise, and even immoral from a biblical point of view. I’ve gone into great detail in past messages and essays showing why the ideas of American neo-imperial pre-eminence and pre-emptive war are immoral and unacceptable from an historical and Christian viewpoint, so I won’t go back over that ground again.

But beyond those issues of basic principles, I’d argue that the Bush administration has been incompetent even by it’s own standards. The author of a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly interviewed a very wide range of national security experts of both parties, and their consensus is that the Bush administration’s practical policies and on-the-ground decisions in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been a “disaster” for the security of the United States.

Thomas Friedman, the brilliant columnist for the New York Times who wrote “The Lexus and the Olive Tree,” and who has consistently supported the war in Iraq, wrote just a few days ago about his change of mind and the very difficult task ahead in Iraq: “But here is the cold, hard truth. This war has been hugely mismanaged by this administration in the face of clear advice to the contrary at every stage…. I don’t know what is salvageable there anymore.”

We’ve done very little to slow nuclear proliferation and are now without real options in Iran and North Korea because our resources are tied up in Iraq and because we’ve lost most of our credibility around the world. No Iraqi WMD and no evidence of ties to Al Queda convinced most of those irrational and cowardly people in the rest of the world that they should think twice before trusting our government again.

George Will, who has got to be the most consistently conservative Republican commentator in America, recently asked in an article in Newsweek, “Does anyone really believe there are fewer terrorists today than there were before the invasion of Iraq?” He actually took John Kerry to task for not exposing the Bush Administration’s naïve and incompetent foreign policy more forcefully. Wow. You don’t see that kind of thing every day.

Bush is the most unpopular U.S. president overseas in the history of our country, and our standing in world opinion is at an all time low by far. Again, that isn’t Democratic spin. It’s cold fact.

Most of the conservative types seem to think this doesn’t make any difference.

From the standpoint of someone working in an international mission, I can assure our dramatic loss of support in the rest of the world makes a major difference. People around the world are very hostile to America right now. This does great damage to Christian mission in the world, particularly among Muslims, and it severely restricts our political options. As a “for instance,” we can’t get other countries to contribute to helping secure Iraq for the planned, upcoming elections, even though this would seem to be the most obvious thing these countries could do. Why? Because their people are overwhelmingly opposed to our current Administration.

Their politicians would run major political risks if they supported American policy in a straightforward way. Is this really the kind of relationship with the rest of the world that we want? When the U.S. becomes politically “radioactive” around the globe, it does make you wonder about the wisdom of the foreign policy that created that situation, or whether that foreign policy is rooted in any kind of biblical understanding.

I believe foreign policy is the key moral and practical issue in this election. From my point of view, Bush’s foreign policy vision is naïve and immoral, and his performance has been incompetent and embarrassing.

Ethnic Relations

Kerry

He’s made no clear proposal or shown a personal commitment to advancing the cause of ethnic minorities. The Democrats believe they are the party of struggling ethnic minorities but they haven’t offered anything significant in this area recently.

Bush

Appointed two African-Americans to critical positions in his administration. Past administrations filled posts like Postmaster General or Treasury Secretary with ethnic minorities—they’ve gotten to choose how stamps look and to put their signatures on dollar bills. I’m very disappointed in Condaleeza Rice’s performance in office and I feel very sorry for Colin Powell, but it’s kind of nice to have strong opinions about ethnic minorities who truly influence federal policy. That’s a new experience. Powell has served (mostly) obediently in an administration of people that I believe would do well to sit at his feet and learn a few ethical and political lessons. Yet I’ve haven’t heard a single word of spin or boasting from the Republicans about their ethnically integrated national leadership team. That’s remarkable, especially given the unprecedented level of spin and manipulation on the part of this administration regarding almost every other topic. I’m impressed with their restraint in that area.

Summary Comments

Bush wins hands down in this area.

In the 20th century, Democrats helped birth almost every important civil rights and economic breakthrough for ethnic minorities against strong Republican opposition. Those are the facts without spin.

But more recently, the Democrats have manipulated the naïve and alienated ethnic vote as skillfully as the Republicans are now manipulating the naïve and alienated conservative Christian vote. Ethnic minorities are somewhat less naïve these days and they’re beginning to wake up and become more skeptical about the Democrats who have delivered very little lately. It will probably take another 10 or 20 years before conservative Christians realize they’re being used too.

The Supreme Court

Kerry

Promises to support moderate and liberal candidates in order to help balance the current conservative court.

Bush

Will attempt to stack the court with even more conservative candidates in order to give the conservative majority unassailable control

Summary Comments

Few people are talking about this issue, but I believe it’s one of the most important factors in the coming election.

I think our federal government does best when there is balance of power between competing ideologies and parties. When a single party becomes too dominant, bad things happen. A victory for Bush could well mean two more very conservative appointments to a Supreme Court that is already oriented in that direction. With an executive and administrative branch in conservative Republican hands, and the Supreme Court becoming a conservative stronghold, we could be in store for major social unrest. That’s because about half the country right now passionately opposes conservative Republicanism.

If half the country’s political aspirations are unduly frustrated by a stacked Supreme Court and a congressional landscape that has been ruthlessly gerrymandered into a permanent Republican majority, I wouldn’t be surprised to see civil violence in the years to come.

Supreme Court justices serve for life. Do we really want to support the creation of an extremist conservative Republican court that will likely copy the ways of the extremist liberal Democratic court that gave us divisive decisions such as Roe v. Wade?

Transparent and Honest Government

Kerry

By all accounts has a collegial and interactive decision-making style which emphasizes caution and looking carefully at all the facts.
Emphasizes that he will speak truthfully to the public and will run an administration that is far more transparent than the present one
Emphasizes that he will run an administration that seeks to cooperate with Congress rather than over-riding it or bullying it.

Bush

The Economist, which regularly supports conservative causes, recently argued that the Bush administration has run the most secretive and “imperial” administration in 30 years. Bush rarely holds news conferences and his administration is well-known (or notorious, depending on your point of view) for the immense control it exercises over information from within the government, and the extraordinary effort if puts into suppressing information and individuals who may cast a negative light on it.
Has demonstrated an individual and intuitive decision making style based on deep personal and ideological convictions that some have labeled ‘rash and unconcerned for facts” but which others admire.
Has developed a communication style which sticks tenaciously to “the message, “ while his administration has been extraordinary in its efforts and effectiveness in spinning the news and events.

Summary Comments

If Kerry becomes president, only time will tell if he keeps his promises about transparency and honesty.

But I think the Bush administration has a poor record in this area. I don’t think it’s unfair to characterize our present leaders as “ruthlessly efficient” at suppressing information that may cast themselves or their policies in a bad light and relentless about stage managing and controlling the message they send out. In many ways, they’ve led with a corporate style of leadership, with little input from anyone outside of a small inner circle. By all accounts—even the president’s interviews on the subject--Bush made the call on Iraq without any serious discussion with his closest advisors about the potential opportunity costs of invading Iraq. So even within the inner circle, information and decision-making is highly centralized and controlled.

I think any administration has to do this to some degree to be effective, and I understand that some of the senior leaders in the administration have a deep felt belief that the powers of the presidency have been eroded over the past decades. They believe they are helping restore a more balanced government in which the president can be a decisive executive leader. I actually agree that the executive branch has lost too much power relative to the courts and Congress.

But the degree to which the administration has gone about suppressing information, serious discussion, and collaboration with other parts of the government is simply inappropriate and dangerous in a democracy. It may be appropriate in certain corporate settings, but it is not when leading a democratic republic. And it’s especially not appropriate when the decisions being made are of the magnitude we’ve seen in the past few years.

Here’s just one quick example among scores. Did anyone else find it deeply disturbing that the administration threw all its considerable weight behind stopping the 9/11 Commission from ever getting off the ground? They resisted it in every way until the political pressure from the victims’ families forced them to relent. That’s simply a single example, but I think it captures very well the tone and tenor our present leaders

Looking at Kerry’s track record of transparency and collegiality, I strongly prefer him to Bush given Bush’s clear track record in office of the suppression of information, discussion, and debate.

Church and State

I’m deeply concerned about the decisive overlap now between the Republican party and the evangelical church. Most polls put the numbers of evangelicals and fundamentalists who are Republican at about 70%. If you look at the number of Euro-Am evangelicals and fundies who are Republican, the numbers go up to about 85%. As recently as 1976 the overall number was 50%. So something really significant has happened in the last 25 years.

This issue—and the Bush administration’s dangerous and morally suspect foreign policy—have motivated me to follow national politics closely and to get involved for the first time in my life.

What has me concerned is the naïve and very intense way many evangelicals have bought into the Republican agenda.

Abortion and a couple of other issues have become, at times, the only issues. Tom Sine wrote a very nice article about all this in the latest edition of Prism. He argues that American evangelicals have become very different from evangelicals in the rest of the world in the extremity and narrowness of their political views. For example, he says that many evangelicals now become enraged when anyone suggests that there are other major human life issues outside of abortion. Twenty years ago the idea that world hunger was a human life issue was commonplace among conservative American Christians. Suggesting that same thing now would create hostile responses among many American evangelicals.

I deeply appreciate that Bush has been willing to be honest and straightforward about his faith commitment.

But I’m very alarmed at the way the Republicans are “using,” to be blunt about it, evangelicalism and fundamentalism for political purposes.

However, the job of a political party is to gain power and then to hold onto it, so I expect that kind of devious and unfortunate thing from both the Republicans and the Democrats. From a Christian perspective, they are both “in the world and of it.”

What’s really sad is how much evangelicals seem to enjoy being used.

I think this trend is dangerous for the country and for the Church. When religious fervor becomes too closely aligned with a particular political agenda bad things almost always happen. This is a fundamental teaching of the New Testament and biblical politics.

Conservative Christians can now organize and mobilize politically with the best of them. But it’s not clear that the Church’s theological sophistication has kept up.

I think current conservative Christian political theology and biblical understanding of politics is mostly immature and misguided. Our grasp of the technology of politics has far outstripped our theological and moral preparation for it. And that’s why you end up with the strange sight of so many Christians fervently—even religiously--supporting so many policies and approaches that have little or nothing to do with biblical faith or a Christian worldview.

When our wisdom and discipline is weak we’re easy pickings for the governments and powers and partisans of this world.

Though I agree with the Bush administration on some important issues, it’s hard to be very supportive of the Republican party from a faith perspective when I believe Christian involvement with that party has become destructive, misguided, and imbalanced.

Balance of Power

I’m convinced that our government works best when there is a practical balance of power between ideologies, parties, branches of government, etc. The founders were deeply skeptical of too much power in anybody’s hands.

Right now the Congressional landscape has been so radically gerrymandered that only about 15 seats in the House of Representatives are actually competitive in any given election. That’s astonishing to me! Both parties have attempted to define districts for the House of Representatives that will guarantee victory for their side.

Right now the Republicans are particularly ruthless and unprincipled (and that’s saying a lot after some of the worst abuses of Democrats in the past) in twisting the definition of congressional districts to lock in a long term Republican majority. Conservative Republicans now decisively control the Executive Branch and the House of Representatives and have effective control of the Senate and very significant influence on the Supreme Court.

Historically speaking, the best policies and the best governance have come out of periods when there was a balance between ideologies and parties. The worst periods--including the fiasco of Vietnam brought to us by the overwhelming influence of the Democrats in the early to mid-60’s, for example—come out of the dominance of one ideology or party.

We’re in danger of setting ourselves up for another “dark period” in our history by putting control of every lever of government into the hands of a narrowly ideological Republican Party.

I believe in the doctrine of original sin, and I also believe in the biblical thinking that power corrupts and too much power leads to destructive ends. Though the founders didn’t base their decisions about balancing power directly on those biblical ideas, they had grasped and understood them by way of observation and experience and by their keen grasp of history. That’s why they tried to create a structural firewall that would resist attempts to put too much power into one group or party’s hands.

In many ways, the founders—though very few of them were Christians--were much more biblical and Christian in their understanding of power than current evangelicals and fundamentalists are. I can only say to conservative Christians, “be careful what you wish for, because it may come true.”

National Security, Civil Liberties and Human Rights

Kerry

Promises to strengthen the Department of Homeland Security
Promises to enthusiastically implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission
Voted for the Patriot Act but believes some of it’s provisions were an overreaction to 9/11. Promises to repeal it’s worst excesses.
Promises to bring America back into compliance with basic international agreements on human rights and challenge the new laws and the “corporate culture” that have led to the moral and legal embarrassments of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
Promises to invest far more attention and resources to securing America’s ports and infrastructure than Bush has.

Bush

Aggressively and effectively rallied the country after 9/11
Eventually created a Department of Homeland Security, but only after dragging his feet and resisting efforts at reform
Made dramatic changes in airport security
Invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in order to strike a blow against terrorism and initiated what he believes will be a multi-generational war on terror
Strongly resisted the creation of the 9/11 commission and only relented after political pressure became too intense to ignore.
Strongly supported the creation of the Patriot Act

Summary Comments

I believe Bush has the best of intentions in the area of insuring national security and that he’s done the best he could by his own lights to insure the safety of Americans. He skillfully and movingly encouraged Americans immediately after 9/11, and for a brief time, seemed to rise above petty partisanship and actually become the leader of the whole country. I still think that period of time demonstrated something important about the best of George Bush. That’s not to make any excuses for many of his misguided and destructive decisions in the ensuing years, but I think his more basic and better instincts arose at that time in the midst of crisis when things were more fluid and unrehearsed and before the relentless Republican machinery and the dark, dualistic world view of people like Cheney helped spoil his opportunity for real greatness as a leader. What a shame and what a waste. I admit that I may be looking at Bush with rose colored glasses in saying all of this, but from an intuitive standpoint I think it’s true.

I’d say Bush’s record on homeland security, civil liberties and human rights is mixed. He’s helped lead some really important improvements in our national security systems, including increased airport security, increased collaboration between the FBI and the CIA, and the introduction of laws that remove some of the most silly impediments to going after terrorists.

On the other hand, as in so many things with this president and administration, everything is taken to extremes and done in a way that seriously diminishes the positive effect of their good decisions and policies. The Patriot Act is overkill and has reduced the civil liberties of Americans in unnecessary ways. His seemingly arrogant dismissal of international norms and agreements helped lead to the disgraceful and morally disorienting events at Abu Ghraib and the dubious situation of prisoners at Guantanamo. Some will argue that Abu Ghraib was simply about a few bad apples, but most people with common sense and a little bit of savvy about the way human polities and organizations really run understand that when leaders model arrogance and impunity these kinds of outcomes are to be expected.

Bush has also done a poor job of creating a more secure situation at American ports and in the protection of key infrastructure.

As I’ve mentioned above, I think the present administration has done a very poor job of dealing with nuclear proliferation, which I believe is actually the main national security issue.

Kerry appears to support, in general, many of Bush’s moves in the area of national security. He promises to repeal and reform the worst abuses.

In terms of nuclear proliferation, I believe Kerry is offering a different approach that will actually focus on this issue instead of the current administration’s fixation on Iraq.

I also believe Kerry is deeply offended and embarrassed by our loss of moral authority as a nation over these past 4 years. He seems to be genuinely motivated to restore, if possible, our reputation as a country where no one (including presidents or nations) are above the law, and where civil liberties and human rights are deeply respected rather than questioned as “impediments” to winning the war on terror.

But what Kerry will actually do in office if he’s elected is a guess. We do know what Bush has done.

I’d give Kerry a slight edge here. Given the shock of 9/11, I understand why the present government may have gone overboard with some of its policies. The idea may have been, “better safe than sorry.” And they’ve made many significant contributions to strengthening national security.

But I can’t help but think that Kerry will be a more judicious and responsible leader in this area, and that he’ll be less of an embarrassment to us in terms of civil liberties and human rights than our present leaders have been.

Winning “wars” and “national security” in the 21st century is mostly about winning hearts and minds around the world. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo—and the leadership culture that helped produce them--have severely damaged our moral credibility in the world, which means we’ll be much less able to win people over in the future. That’s a very real and concrete blow to our national security.


Conclusion

For Christians, the choices in this election aren’t easy and straightforward. There are some strong reasons to support Bush and the Republicans.

But personally, I strongly prefer Kerry and the Democrats in this particular election. I believe they will be more competent than the present administration and that they will uphold and encourage important biblical principles and teachings in a broader and more comprehensive way than will a second Bush administration.

I think Bush has demonstrated some clear patterns in his leadership and personality that are disturbing to me. In areas of the budget, foreign policy, and transparency, among others, he has shown himself to be given to extremes and to ideology at the expense of experience and facts. While he seems personally an honorable and respectable man in every respect, his administration has been one of the most ruthless in suppressing information and opposition, and frankly, one of the dirtiest in terms of using political dirty tricks and spin. I know I’m supposed to believe that both parties are equally responsible in that latter area, but I don’t believe the facts bear that out at this particular time in our history.

I will speak very personally here, but I can’t believe evangelicals enthusiastically support an administration that utilizes the political methods it does. I can understand them holding their noses and then voting for such an administration if they believe it represents some important values they feel strongly about, but I can’t understand the ‘religious devotion’ and ‘enthusiasm.’

In the end, it comes down to the following

This campaign is, or should be, a referendum on the performance of the Bush administration
I believe Bush’s foreign policy vision is both dangerous and immoral
I believe Bush has shown himself to be incompetent in the execution of both foreign policy and important domestic issues like the budget
I believe the Republicans are strongly encouraging an idolatrous union between conservative Christianity and Republicanism. This union will do significant damage—in fact, it already has done significant damage—to both the nation and the Church.
I believe Kerry’s policies are more reasonable and more rooted, in general, in biblical principles
I believe Kerry will prove to be more competent in both foreign policy and domestic issues


Basic Political Values

I haven’t explicitly discussed my basic political values in any detail. Basically, I believe in what some call “Christian Anarchy.” This is just a more polemical name for the broad political points of view that come out of the Protestant Anabaptist tradition and the historical Peace Churches.

In a nutshell, Christian Anarchy asserts that all governments are fallen and mostly concerned with exalting themselves, justifying themselves, and surviving at all costs. Governments of all kinds (schools, non-profit organizations, businesses, ideologies, religious denominations, etc, etc..) are a social necessity from a Christian anarchist perspective, but nothing more. Sometimes those governments become truly evil, but mostly they are simply human, frail, presumptuous and sometimes silly. At times they can be helpful and at times they can be dangerous and destructive—in fact, they are often these things simultaneously.

They are all caught up in a worldly system of power and dominance and falsehood that often includes violence.

The Church’s job is to avoid becoming partisan and to avoid getting caught up in various ideologies, parties, political philosophies, and intellectual fads, and to speak the truth prophetically to all these powers from a biblical point of view. The Church’s job is not to try to overthrow or reform these powers by means of worldly methods, which means that resorting to partisanship or violence or lies or any of the other normal methods of securing worldly power are acceptable for Christians.

That’s because to engage on the world’s terms is to simply affirm the way of the world and to more deeply entrench its system. In fact, to engage on the world’s terms is to be the world. Christians are to live out the truth in community, to love neighbor practically in a humble and concrete way that is different from the world’s methods, and to leave the humiliation of the powers and their redemption or destruction to God

That doesn’t mean that Christians shouldn’t be able to distinguish between various powers and find some clearly preferable. From a Christian Anarchist perspective, those differences can be practically important. For example, while peaceful and democratic governments may be fallen and weak and human, they may be clearly preferable from a biblical and practical standpoint to totalitarian regimes that rely on terror to retain power.

But overall, Christian Anarchists are very skeptical about the inflated claims and pretensions of all governments, ideologies, etc. People who make too big a deal about capitalism, or race, or whatever, are somewhat suspect from the get go from a Christian Anarchist perspective.

More positively, Christian Anarchy asserts that the Church’s main political job is to focus in the most concrete way on practically serving our neighbors in the here and now. Since Christians are not to use worldly methods and means, that means that Christians will not usually engage in worldly politics or power struggles, except for very brief periods when they believe some practical good can be done or when a power has clearly stepped over moral boundaries in a new and potentially destructive way. Normally, Christians will focus on practical and creative methods to bless their neighbors, while speaking up clearly, humbly, and prophetically on the issues of the day from a biblical perspective.

This is true, from the perspective of divine anarchy, because Jesus directed the Church to be a “counter-society” in which the truth of authentic human existence could be practiced, rather than the violence and lies and self-exaltation of the world and its systems.

Personally, I believe that voting in elections is normally a positive and constructive way to love my neighbor concretely, but I feel no particular ideological commitment to doing so and feel very free not to if I feel this would accomplish nothing practical. I’m more engaged in this election campaign because I believe the Bush administration’s foreign policy ideas are immoral and could set a very destructive historical precedent, and also because I believe the Church is dangerously close to idolatry because of its ever closer union with conservative Republicanism. I believe both of these must be challenged, though my “weapons” are simply my words and my vote. I have no great love for the Democrats and I certainly have no desire to overthrow the American government or our political system.

This description, though I think pretty accurate, is so oversimplified that it would be dangerous to take it at face value.

There are other Christian perspectives too, including Reformed Theology, which has much in common with Christian Anarchy but differs in some very important respects.

Let me encourage you to do some reading of important books then look at your bible to see if these things are so. Talk with fellow believers about it. Maybe this contentious election will help spark Christians to look at these things in a new way.

Here are some suggestions for your reading:

Christian Anarchy by Vernard Eller—Wonderful explanation of Christian Anarchy and a great contribution to Christian political thinking. He takes historical peace church thinking and updates it. His biblical exegesis is particularly striking and convincing.
The Subversion of Christianity by Jacques Ellul—Ellul is one of my heroes, and this book is all about how the church got to the sad state it’s in today. A deep analysis of where the church historically left Anarchical (gospel) principles and the destructive results for both the church and the world. Ellul also wrote a book called “Anarchy and Christianity,” but I’d start with Eller. Reading almost anything by Ellul is well worth the time, especially if you want to understand an Anarchist viewpoint.
Facing the Powers by Thomas McAlpine—A short and deep description of the various ways Christians have historically thought about politics and the powers. It’s very fair, and it covers both Christian Anarchy and Reformed thinking, as well as other options. He comes from a Reformed perspective, but generally he’s scrupulously fair.

You can get all three of these books at Amazon. Definitely read Eller and McAlpine. If you want to go deeper (and you should), you’ll find suggestions for further reading in both of them.