The following (as always) represents my opinion only and certainly not that of any place I work or my colleagues at any of those fine institutions! This piece first appeared at the Washington Post On Faith as an answer to a question.
God is not a Republican or a Democrat. In fact, I am quite sure He is a monarchist and so are His followers.
We trust that the city of God is coming and the King Jesus will rule and reign on the earth. In that blessed time peace will be normal, poverty will not exist, and every government decree will be just.
Our vote on Tuesday is not about bringing on such a time.
Traditional Christians have much more modest ambitions. We hope for a society where virtue is more likely to be rewarded than vice. We long for a culture where justice is the goal and where there is some chance that the rich will receive equal treatment with the poor. The poor will not covet what they have not earned and the rich will not use their wealth to oppress the poor.
In the city of man government has limited goals. It exists to secure rights it did not create: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There is no perfect candidate this election . . . even human greatness is not in sight, but this traditional Christian will vote for John McCain and enthusiastically for Sarah Palin.
Christians might disagree about the means needed achieve our goals, but we agree that human life must be protected. A dead person cannot join the debate about the best way to create a just society.
Only John McCain and Sarah Palin will protect the right to life from conception to natural death. Barack Obama and Joseph Biden have no interest in protecting the rights of the unborn. Even Bill Clinton could muster more concern for unborn children than the coldly academic discussions generated by Senator Obama on the issue or the blustering incoherence produced by Senator Biden.
Professor Michael J. New demonstrates that pro-life laws work. Some Christians, more hopeful than wise, assert that the goal for Christians should be to reduce abortions and not to criminalize them, but basic human rights should not depend on the generosity of welfare state payments.
Taking human life should be criminal, because it denies the essential humanity of the victim. Having as a goal the mere reduction of this assault on the image of God concedes that one human being should exist only at the whim of another.
Just as the goal of consistent Christian leadership was not to reduce the number of slaves, but total abolition, so the goal of any Christian leader must be to place the right to life of all God’s children in the law.
If Christians had not placed pocket book issues over principle, then Bill Clinton would not have been able to save abortion by his selection of Supreme Court justices.
Both the McCain-Palin and the Obama-Biden ticket are mixed when it comes to protecting liberty. Both tickets want, in some measure, to take away our right to fail—without which the right to succeed will be limited. Both are too apt to use the power of the state to protect special interests that have caught their ear.
Senator McCain uses better rhetoric, but it is not obvious that he would prioritize liberty more than Senator Obama. However, a President Obama combined with a Democratic Congress would almost certainly pose a greater threat to individual liberties than a President McCain with a Democratic Congress.
Christians can disagree about this prudential call, but the Republic seems safer at this time with a divided government.
Finally, government should encourage, where it can, human happiness. This does not mean that government should set up a Ministry of Jollification. Of course lawgivers are uniquely unfunny and ripe for parody, so saving Saturday Night Live from comedic oblivion by their very existence. Tina Fey making us laugh with a wonderful Palin impression is not, however, what the Founders meant by “the pursuit of happiness.”
Our Founders had in mind the happiness of Aristotle: human flourishing. A human flourishes when he or she is allowed to reach his or her full potential. Government can, at best, prod in this direction, but mostly acts to keep the powerful from preventing the weak from achieving this goal. This means keeping the mob from looting the rich and making sure the rich do not pervert justice with bribes.
Vice destroys human flourishing. For example, living immoderately, a debt lifestyle, destroys long term ability to live well. Teaching the poor to covet the wealth of their neighbor will not produce internal peace. Policies that encourage immoderation or covetousness are wrong.
Both John McCain and Barack Obama have too often pandered to our vices this election in order to win our votes. I suppose this is understandable. To the best of my knowledge, however, only one candidate, Senator Obama, has used the power of his candidacy to declare a virtue immoral.
He stated that traditional views on sexuality were “immoral.”
Theodore Roosevelt called the Presidency a wonderful platform to prod the American public to better behavior, a “bully pulpit.” While nobody wants a hectoring moralist for president, we must acknowledge that Roosevelt was right and at least look for a man who will not call vice virtuous.
Senator Obama is an excellent candidate in many ways. He has a moving story and is obviously intelligent and passionate about what he believes. In addition, given the American history regarding race, many of us would love to be able to vote for him.
Many good friends and Christian colleagues will disagree with my reasoning. The polls look like they will get their wish and we will see what an Obama presidency will bring, but as a traditional Christian I will be casting my vote on Tuesday for life, liberty, and happiness. I will vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin and would encourage all other traditional Christians to do the same.
