Civil Election Discussion

[Teallaura]

Okay, ground rules: No name calling, no snideness, no dog piles and no harshness. You don't have to agree but you DO have to engage the argument.

That means no 'but so-and-so did XYZ that's worse than whatever whatshisname did' arguments. If you dispute a claim, you address the claim and the evidence to the contrary. Also, no pretending that acting like a jerk is just 'being passionate'.

In other words, only the grown ups may play*.

So, I'll get us started. To be honest, I haven't paid as much attention this cycle as usual. I supported Carter and voted for him - I do not accept the theory that you should use your vote tactically when there is a candidate who meets more if not most of your criteria than the 'more likely to stop whoever' candidate. That kind of tactical voting results in a long term decline in candidate quality - no one is gonna run if they think they are spending all that time, energy and money and have to worry that their supporters will abandon ship at the first sign of trouble.

Trump would not have been my first - or tenth - choice for president. But since Clinton wouldn't be my 110th choice, there's no real question for me as to who will get my vote in November. From my perspective, Trump is the best candidate in a two horse field - and both horses are lame.

So why vote? Duty - both as an American citizen and a Christian. This 200+ year experiment in popular governance ain't over yet. It is not, in my option, time to clean up the bleachers and go home. The ONLY way this democratic republic will survive - and thrive - is if We, the People, do our civic duty and vote for the candidate that we estimate to be the best available choice.

This go round, I don't see a viable third party or dark horse emerging. I have no objection to that eventuality - maybe that would finally herald the actual beginning of the next party system. But it is not likely in this cycle. Staying home is an abdication of duty - if both candidates are morally repugnant to you then you still have an obligation to help sort out the crop by lesser repugnance. Staying home doesn't say much anymore. The turnout is so low that it's nearly impossible to sort out the 'fed up' from the 'too lazy' - so no, you are not going to make your voice heard that way.

[rogue06]

Okay, ground rules: No name calling, no snideness, no dog piles and no harshness. You don't have to agree but you DO have to engage the argument.

If only we could get the candidates to abide by this.

[seanD]

So why vote? Duty - both as an American citizen and a Christian.

I couldn't disagree with you more here. That it's our civil duty is understandable and arguably correct. But that it's our Christian duty... not a chance. Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with politics whatsoever as far as it being an obligation on our part, especially in the current corrupt environment of politics now.

[Teallaura]

If only we could get the candidates to abide by this.

We can, actually, but it begins with us. When we don't accept such behavior in ourselves, we can rightly refuse to accept it in candidates. Candidates will tailor their behavior accordingly - because you don't show up to the world's most expensive, difficult job interview doing anything that will tick the interviewers (us) off.

[rogue06]

We can, actually, but it begins with us. When we don't accept such behavior in ourselves, we can rightly refuse to accept it in candidates. Candidates will tailor their behavior accordingly - because you don't show up to the world's most expensive, difficult job interview doing anything that will tick the interviewers (us) off.

So in this day and age there is no hope of it happening.

[Teallaura]

So in this day and age there is no hope of it happening.

With God, all things are possible.

In politics, the slippery slope is a reality - one guy might stop when he sees the danger but twenty more are gonna rush over and topple in. BUT, the slippery slope isn't the unclimable slope; eventually, humans do trudge back up the hill. This age isn't the first moral cesspool, and unless the Lord returns forthwith, it won't be the last, either. Made in His image, there's a part of the human spirit that knows it doesn't belong in the mire and seeks a way out.

Being the city on the hill, it's much more evident when we fall - but stumbling isn't faltering. I still see hope - even in our non-Christian kin. If all atheists and like minded secularists rejected morality itself I don't think things would be any where near as good as they are now. Sure, we have a LONG way to go and a lot of convincing to do, but I don't believe it's hopeless at all.

Tough, difficult and a pain in the rear - yes; hopeless? Never!

[rogue06]

With God, all things are possible.

In politics, the slippery slope is a reality - one guy might stop when he sees the danger but twenty more are gonna rush over and topple in. BUT, the slippery slope isn't the unclimable slope; eventually, humans do trudge back up the hill. This age isn't the first moral cesspool, and unless the Lord returns forthwith, it won't be the last, either. Made in His image, there's a part of the human spirit that knows it doesn't belong in the mire and seeks a way out.

Being the city on the hill, it's much more evident when we fall - but stumbling isn't faltering. I still see hope - even in our non-Christian kin. If all atheists and like minded secularists rejected morality itself I don't think things would be any where near as good as they are now. Sure, we have a LONG way to go and a lot of convincing to do, but I don't believe it's hopeless at all.

Tough, difficult and a pain in the rear - yes; hopeless? Never!

I'm more pessimistic about our cultural decline. It will indeed take an act of God to pull us out.

[Teallaura]

I'm more pessimistic about our cultural decline. It will indeed take an act of God to pull us out.

I quite agree - but God only leaves us in the mud when we insist on staying there.

[KingsGambit]

I gotta agree with Sean here. I have my doubts as to whether Jesus would condescend to vote (though I really have no idea). I do plan on voting for Clinton though. America needs a healthy center right party and a Trump loss could give the Republicans an opportunity to save itself. The judge argument holds little water to me... after all, Trump thought his sister would make an ideal appointee.

[Teallaura]

Jesus condescended to pay taxes although He was exempt - and taxation is a civic duty as well.

I think the more correct line would be to look at what Jesus did when before Caiaphas. Confronted with a directive from the Chief Priest - who's earthly authority stemmed from God - Jesus responded to him out of respect for the office. Jesus, in so doing, performed His duty as a Jew. So, if the Lord Himself observes duty (where it is not in conflict with God's own law, of course) then how can we argue that earthly duty has no meaning for us?

The price for leaving in a country with an unprecedented level of personal and corporate freedom is to perform our civic duties - it is a necessary cost of such governance. To fail to vote is not unlike depraved indifference - having the power to act but refusing to do so even for the good of others.

I think looking at single elections is myopic - see tree, miss forest. It's a lifetime of good voting habits that make the real difference.

[Catholicity]

I'm with KG

[seanD]

Tea, I think you're thinking of civil acquiescence. Direct political involvement is a whole other animal.

[KingsGambit]

It's interesting, I've heard almost every conceivable argument backed up as mandated by Christianity. Christians must vote for Trump, against Trump, for Clinton, against Clinton, not at all (because we are not of this world and should not meddle with the affairs of another country when we are citizens of heaven, or because voting is casting your prayers to the government, or any number of other reasons I've heard).

This sort of line of argumentation doesn't hold much water to me because of how varied it is.

[seanD]

It's interesting, I've heard almost every conceivable argument backed up as mandated by Christianity. Christians must vote for Trump, against Trump, for Clinton, against Clinton, not at all (because we are not of this world and should not meddle with the affairs of another country when we are citizens of heaven, or because voting is casting your prayers to the government, or any number of other reasons I've heard).

This sort of line of argumentation doesn't hold much water to me because of how varied it is.

I think what you put in parenthesis is a very strong argument against government involvement purely from a theological perspective. I don't think there's any other material thing more representative of "the world" than a government system, especially a secular one and one as corrupt as ours. But this can go into a whole litany of off-topic theological avenues.

[Teallaura]

Tea, I think you're thinking of civil acquiescence. Direct political involvement is a whole other animal.

No, I'm arguing civic duty - and that is not acquiescence.