It is with some nervousness that I post these thoughts. I am not a student of political science and have not done nearly as much research as I could, yet I am a member of society and of America and so I have an obligation to participate in the political fabric of our society. It is in this sense then that I feel okay posting these thoughts. They are meant for dialogue, so please feel free to engage me on them.
a Christian I find myself as a member of what Martin Luther called two kingdoms, the kingdom of earth and the kingdom of heaven. I am a member of both kingdoms and have responsibilities to and in each of them. My ultimate allegiance is to the Triune God, but in this present time I have been called upon to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matt 22:21). Governments are part of the fabric of society and as a member of that society I have a responsibility to be involved. This is because the government has been instituted by God; "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1). God has appointed the government has his appointed means of restraining evil and promoting good in this world; "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." (1 Pet 2:13-14). In light of this, I ought to always be in prayer for our leaders and those in government (1 Tim 2:1-2) and to follow God's command: "seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare" (Jer 29:7). What does all of this mean? It means, at least, that I am to go to the polls and vote.
The question for me is not should I vote, but rather, for whom should I vote? Inevitably this is a difficult question. It has been answered by many in this country and on our campus, but in the end each voter must decide for whom they will cast their vote and be able to give some rational for the decision which they have made. What follows is a small portion of my rational for why I will be voting for George W. Bush in the 2004 Election. I make no claims concerning the strength of my reasoning; I am simply offering my thoughts on this year's election for public reading. My reasons for voting for a certain candidate are not the reasons of others, but again each voter ought to be able to provide some reason for their decisions and this is mine. As a side note, I would encourage you to write out your own reasons for why you have chosen to vote for the a certain candidate. Over time I expect these snapshots captured in writing will be most interesting to look back upon.
In this election, one of the main issues for me is the fact that whoever is elected president will be charged with the task of appointing a couple of Supreme Court judges. Given the moral shape of our culture and the growing number of renegade judges around the country who think it is their job to create law rather than interpret it, the appointment of new judges seems to be very important. Kerry is a self-claimed liberal on moral issues, and I am scared to think who he would appoint and how those individuals would shape our culture in years to come, long after either he or Bush are out of office.
On a related note, I believe that abortion is morally wrong. Similarly, I believe that the production of human embryos for stem cell research is morally wrong. These are not just personal morals but rather absolute ones. Therefore I have trouble understanding Kerry's position of disagreeing with abortion in principle but promoting it in practice. His desire to create an unhealthy divide between moral absolutes and public policy is one which I do not support and it then becomes difficult for me to cast my vote for him.
As for foreign policy, I am not sure how to state my thoughts carefully enough. The decision to go to war with Iraq is in the past. At the time the decision was made, we as a nation all had the same information. Since that point we have gained more information about the situation, information which may or may not have altered those prior decisions. I do not believe that George Bush intentionally misled the American public. But that is in the past, the reality of the situation today is that we are in Iraq and we need to continue the hard and difficult work there. I see President Bush's position on this issue as more consistent than that of Senator Kerry. I am not convinced that the apparent simplicity of Senator Kerry's position is the solution to the quagmire in which we find ourselves.
Given what I have written above, I will inevitably be labeled by the Christian left as a "single issue voter" Usually what is meant by a "single issue voter" is an individual who bases their decision for or against a candidate based on single issues apart from their broader platforms. The implication is that we can overlook certain "shortcomings" in a candidate because of other more important issues. In response to the charge of being a single issue voter, in some sense I acknowledge that this is the case. I am a single issue voter in the negative sense of the word, but not in the positive sense. What I mean is that there are some single issues which if accepted or denied would cause me to not vote for a certain candidate. There are some issues which are of such importance that when compromised, in my mind, disqualify that individual from holding public office. On the other hand, I would not claim to hold a view which we could define as a positive single issue voter. When considering a candidate I do not say that if they hold a certain position I automatically would vote for them regardless of whatever else they may say or do. Perhaps this distinction will be made more clear through the use of an analogy. The one which John Piper uses is that of marriage. When considering who to marry, there are some qualities which automatically remove someone from consideration. On the other hand, one could think of many positive qualities in an individual that ought to be considered in the selection of a husband or wife. It is in this sense that I am fine with being labeled a single issue voter. Let me also say that this charge of being a single issue voter could go both ways. I could just as easily level this charge against those who bring it against me. The question then becomes who gets to decide which issues are of such importance and which are not. I have great difficulty in answering that question, this is because in the end, at some level we all are "single issue voters". Therefore, I would much rather dialogue about each other's "single issues" than point fingers at each other as single issue voters.
In the end, when there is an incumbent candidate, the question for me is: is there a reason to change? At this point, I see no reason to switch presidents. While Bush might not be the best, I see no reason why Kerry would be better and therefore I have chosen to cast my vote for George W. Bush.
