I spent a bit of time this morning reading through a collection of political status messages on Facebook. Some of them were amusing, and some of them just left me shaking my head. I’ll admit, I don’t know if Obama is going to succeed as president. Will he fail in such a way to bring forth the moral and economic demise of the United States of America as so many of the conspiracy theories seem to suggest? Doubtful. So I wonder, why bother spewing divisive rhetoric onto the Internet after a majority (65% of the electoral vote and 53% of the popular) of Americans affirmed by their vote that our country needs more change than McCain could offer? I’m not just talking to the McCain camp. I am sure that there are plenty who voted “blue” who cannot begin to honestly acknowledge that they may have made the wrong decision.
This post is not intended to further divide. We don’t need division. Let me just say that I hate the way that American politics, and especially our two party system, promotes division. My only goal for this post is to explore my reasons for making the decision I did. Why? Because I haven’t always made good decisions. I still don’t always make good decisions. Moreover, maybe this is narcissistic, but I don’t expect the majority of Americans to be any better at making decisions than I am. If this comment is offensive, I apologize; however, I don’t think this is any worse than the dozens I’ve seen claim today that they’re reasoning is more intact than the majority of this country. Again, I wish I could say Obama supporters would have handled themselves differently … but I don’t really believe that statement.
Now for some disclaimers. First, I hate politics, and I DESPISE elections. I can’t handle all of the ridiculous claims the candidates make for themselves and against their opponents. I want truth, not marketing! Likewise, mud-slinging sickens me, and I wish it wasn’t necessary to get elected in this damn country! Most importantly, I feel like our two party system has evolved into a tool for creating division. This is not surprising given the history of our country’s exclusionary practices. America can’t handle any more division. Whenever we come out of an election season, I feel like we’ve already taken ten steps backwards before we even give our leaders a chance to lead us a step forward.
As a result of these feelings, I avoid politics and elections as much as possible. In fact, I can only claim to be a mildly informed voter. I am not an expert on all of the issues (or maybe any). I listened to debates and speeches in passing. I read snippets of articles when headlines caught my eye. I listened for claims that struck me as ridiculous, and I asked friends I trust to be relatively unbiased for their opinions about such claims. In the end, I voted my conscience. I didn’t vote experience. I didn’t vote a party line. I voted my faith, but not necessarily for my moral agenda. I didn’t even vote purely on the issues. Like I said, I don’t understand them well enough to base such an important decision on them. I voted for the candidate who has spoken (at least on the occasions where I listened) in a way that indicated a true understanding of leadership. Likewise, I voted against the candidates that I heard speaking the language of division.
This posting is an invitation to dialogue, not debate. If all you want to do is criticize “faulty logic” or create more division, don’t expect your comments to be acknowledged. My logic might seem simple and naive to a lot of people, but it cuts to the heart of what I believe is important for our country. This policy goes for asinine comments in favor of Obama as well. If you know the meaning of dialogue and would like to participate, write a comment (or a blog post and link it in a comment). I do hope that all sides will take the time to think about what goes into their own decisions.
Where to start? What did I like about Obama? I sat down on the couch one night, and I heard a moment of a debate between Obama and McCain. The topic of discussion was forcing countries such as Iran to make concessions before sitting with them at the table to begin a dialogue. McCain supports this practice; Obama believes it defeats the point of dialogue. I agree wholeheartedly with Obama. To enter a dialogue with an open mouth and a closed mind demonstrates arrogance and breeds hatred. How much worse do you think it is to refuse dialogue because the other stands too much in opposition to your point of view (no matter how right or wrong you really are)? Am I saying that John McCain is an arrogant and hateful man? Certainly not. I am saying that, in my opinion, he puts more faith in arrogance/hatred than humility/love when it comes to this aspect of foreign relations. Please, take some time to think about what brings us together and what divides us. I’ll even point you to some resources that have shaped my beliefs, namely: Jesus (the Bible), Miroslav Volf (Exclusion and Embrace), and Martin Buber (I and Thou).
Another significant factor in my decision was the cultural competence of both candidates. I’ve had quite a few opportunities in the past year to think about and talk about the current state of racism in America. Believe it or not friends, but racism still haunts us. And I am not just talking about the sort of racism that leaves me worrying that our newly elected president could be assassinated in office. I know that sort of racism is still out there, and I am sure that both of these candidates are grieved by their knowledge of it. I am talking about the type of racism that is mainly reflected in passivity and naiveté of white men and women who don’t stop to think that their lives have any sort of impact on men and women with different shades of skin. Why would they? They don’t hate people who look a little different, not even a little. Maybe they don’t, but they don’t know fully how to love them either.
So how did these reflections impact my vote? Did I vote for Obama because he is of mixed race? No. Not directly at least. However, I don’t expect an older white man, even highly educated and respected, in America to have worked through his cultural identity and to have really considered the many faces of racism and the implications of his own privilege. At the same time, I don’t expect every black man in America to have done this either. I have a little more confidence though in a man like Obama who seems to understand the value of dialogue over division. And I feel even better when I am told that his wife is far enough along in her own identity development to express the shame that she has so often felt for her country while still standing by her husband to fight for its future. I realize I’m making assumptions. They may not be correct, but experience leads me to trust my instinct. Beyond my instinct, I also trust what I read in a conservative report about McCain’s position on Americas’ need to adopt English as a national language. I wish I could find the report online, but what I can tell you is that I was thoroughly disturbed by McCain’s interaction with the crowd on one particular occasion where this topic came up. The discussion seemed only to clarify the fear and discomfort of the crowd, and it illustrated how deeply some characteristics of racism are rooted in our culture.
I made other considerations too. These aren’t necessarily arguments for Obama/against McCain, but arguments I didn’t find sufficient to sway my decision. I read a couple of arguments for why Christians should vote for McCain. Let me reiterate what I said much earlier; I voted my faith, not necessarily my moral agenda. I haven’t always made this distinction, and it’s taken me awhile to become comfortable enough with this position to share it openly. I’ve read the bible, but I’m certainly not an expert. I don’t remember Jesus ever calling us to legislate our beliefs. He did call his apostles to obey their government, even to their own death. He did call us to love, even to his and our own deaths. But I don’t remember him ever speaking about how we should hold non-followers to his law and his commandments. He seems to imply that the upholding of his law will be taken care of in the end. The early church seems to trust this, so why don’t we? Moreover, I don’t know of a way to hold the tension of bringing my non-Christian nation under my version of morality while still offering love.
I think that if we trusted the Lord’s justice, we wouldn’t feel the need to “defend” marriage by denying homosexuals the legal rights associated with a civil union. Homosexual marriage is not a threat to the church or to marriages that are rooted in Christ. As deeply as I trust in the Word, I trust that a Christ honoring marriage could not be so easily torn apart. So many marriages are torn apart though, even those entered between Christians. Even my own. I don’t believe Christianity can lay an exclusive claim on the American construct of marriage. More importantly, I think that many Christians have forgotten that they are commanded to love their homosexual brothers and sisters when they march out to vote against gay marriage. If you aren’t following me, take some time to research how we limit the rights of homosexual couples by denying them the right to wed. I’m using this as an example. I honestly am not sure about the candidates positions on homosexual marriage. I do know that the church has a history of causing harm by imposing a Christian version of morality on a non-Christian nation and world. The church is responsible only for its own morality. To the rest of creation, it is to be the body of Christ.
While homosexual marriage wasn’t necessarily an issue I heard about in this election, abortion was. Many of the status messages I have read on Facebook have talked about all of the babies we murdered in our vote for Obama. Let me be clear, I am passionately opposed to abortion. Still, I am not sure I believe it should be in the scope of our government’s control — and it is painful for me to make that statement. Some may argue that this is just an issue of morality, not even simply a Christian version of morality. It is clear that a vast number of Americans stand behind a morality that values the freedom of a woman’s choice over the life of an unborn baby.
Do I think we should accept all versions of morality? No. That would be ridiculous. However, I do think that imposing a single version of morality, whether Christian vs. non-Christian or Liberal vs. Conservative is problematic. Like it or not, we have to find the common ground that does not threaten the other versions. And as far as I can see, this means that no matter how strongly I stand against abortion or assisted suicide, I have no ground in this country to prevent another person (with his or her own set of beliefs) from making their own choice on the matter. Any threat I face from this situation is perceived, not real.
There are other arguments that I have rejected; some of these are barely worth mentioning, if at all. For example, that Obama’s associations render him suspect and imply that he couldn’t get an FBI clearance seems absurd to me (an oversimplification at best). My favorite by far is that he is the antichrist. Maybe … a very slim maybe. And if I find out that he is, I won’t vote for him again in four years! One argument, that Obama is a socialist or a Marxist, is worth further engagement. It’s going to have to wait until a later blog post though, because I am so ready to click “Publish.”