Uh, Oh...Here We Go Again (Dobson, Evangelicals, and Party Alliances)

I grimaced a bit as the headline popped up in my news feed: "Evangelist Accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible." Across the blogosphere liberal secularists and theists alike were instantly all over Dr. James Dobson, head of focus on the family, citing this as another example of Right Wing Christianity.

Ironically, minutes before reading the article I had listened to radio broadcast in which Dobson expressed dismay for the Republican party, in that after Evangelicals threw their support behind the party, the party turned their backs on evangelical values. Dobson himself seemed to admit that Evangelicals had jumped in bed with Right Wing Conservatism.

In no way do my words here serve as a rebuke to Dobson. In fact, Focus on the Family passed an in depth IRS investigation after being accused of endorsing Republican candidates not too long ago. All I am saying is humans, politicians, and parties are quite fallible, as Dobson learned, and should not be thought of as the sole means to accomplishing an end, whether that end be spiritual, social, ethical, etc. Voting on issues, many of which may be intrinsically connected with the a moral principle, is quite acceptable. But voting strictly based on party is silly since parties are far from static and change over time (sometimes extremely small increments of time; i.e. the Bush administration).

While I would love to digress at this point and discuss, as I see it, blunders made by both Dobson and Obama, I would be straying from the purpose of this post, which is to serve as warning.

Young evangelicals, a group I personally find myself identifying with less and less (both the 'young' and the 'evangelical') are much more flexible when it comes to party lines, say statisticians such as the Barna Group. I don't need charts and figures to tell me this. Many friends who I sat next to at seminary have quickly covered up the Bush stickers on their bumpers with Obama.

Many, unfortunately, have done so based off reactionary emotions. Jaded by Evangelicals and Evangelicalism, they resond like a pendulum, rejecting anything remotely attached with their failing system besides Christ and the Bible, Republicanism being one of these things. Others are "social misfits," as Claiborne terms them. They are more socially liberal, yet maintain conservative evangelical morals and principals, the latter of which actually supports their social liberalism. They actually cannot identify with either party but may vote democratic based on social issues supported by a candidates platform.

No matter what the case, I fear that many of these individuals may make the same mistake Dobson and many of his peers made: hopping bed with a party in an attempt to leverage religious weight to affect or "own" the party. The ends to this means is the ownership of the religious institution by the party, as admitted by Dobson in the radio spot I listened to. It only causes division, both in the church and state, and warrants Christians being thought of as ignorant.

How to Vote

Wednesday, February 6, I came across a blog of triumphant overtones. In this blog, the author detailed an arduous caucus line he endured in freezing temperatures, rain, and sleet to vote for Barack Obama. I admired his tenacity, until I read the last paragraph that explained he had endured so that he could tell his future offspring that he stood out in the harsh elements just to vote in the first black president of America.

Before I go any further, allow this disclaimer: The following does not stand as any endorsement of any candidate.

Besides the fact that voting based solely on the color of one’s skin is racism (Clinton, Huckabee, McCain, and Paul don’t stand a chance based on this criteria), it is stupid. Voting based solely on anything other than platform is unfair not only to America and her constituents; it is unfair to the candidate. In the cited example, those things which Barack Obama is fighting for are being trumped by superficiality.

Obama’s race is just the most recent example. In the past few weeks I have heard more than a few people say they are voting for him because he is a gifted and charismatic speaker. Wow! Great criteria…so was Hitler. In the past few weeks I have heard more than a few people say they are voting for Huckabee because solely because he is a Christian. Brilliant! We all know that Christians always hold an impeccable track record (wasn’t Richard Roberts in the news recently?). In the past few weeks I have heard more than a few people say they were voting for Hilary Clinton because it is about time a woman sat in the Oval Office (gender discrimination).

When I have had the chance to talk with some folks mentioned above, I have asked them point blank questions about their candidate of choice, such as, “What is Huckabee’s economic policy? Every time I receive a stammering, uninformed response that is so general it could apply to any candidate on either end of the weird political spectrum.

We are a shallow people. We are plebeians. We poignantly driven. We live in a nation in which we have the freedom to be wrong, but also to be right. Thus, we cannot vote according to our nature, according to our predisposition, our rearing, our cliques, etc. Here is my advice to anyone who stumbles across this post:

Before you head out to cast your primary vote, do this. Go to EVERY candidate’s website. Pretend that there are no suave or moving pictures of each candidate. Find out where each candidate stands on the important issues (in my humble opinion, the most important issues this election are economic and foreign policy). After having done so, whichever candidate most precisely matches where you stand on the issue, whether they are liberal or conservative, vote for that candidate.

If this struck a nerve in anyone, pass it on.