In this post I will outline my back criteria for picking or assessing political candidates.
1. The Buckley Rule
This is variously paraphrased, but the basic idea is to choose the most conservative electable candidate. So there's a balance between ideology and electability.
2. Electability
i) Some Christians become very agitated if you mention electability as a criterion. But why vote? If you don't think electability is relevant, why vote at all? What's the difference between voting for an unelectable candidate and not voting for him? The outcome is the same.
Why participate in the political process? To me, it's to influence the outcome. To change the status quo. To make a difference. That's the objective.
What do you wish to accomplish when you vote for a candidate? Do you wish to accomplish anything? If you knowingly vote for an unelectable candidate, then what did you acheive? What's the point of voting for someone who can't win? As a practical matter, how is that different than not voting?
Why bet on a race horse when you know he can't make it to the finish line?
ii) For this reason, electability is my first consideration. Ideology is not my first consideration. I start by asking which candidates are electable, not which candidates are conservative.
It's not that ideology is unimportant, but it's unimportant at this stage of the analysis. If they make the first cut, then I consider ideology. If they don't make the first cut, then ideology is moot, since they can't win. If they can't win, they can't turn their wonderful ideas into law and policy. These are just inert, otiose ideas.
I don't begin with a comparative ideological analysis of the candidates. That's premature. That's a waste of time.
If one candidate is ideologically superior, but unelectable, then his ideological superiority is beside the point. The invidious contrast is irrelevant.
Conversely, there's no point at this stage in the process of detailing the flaws of each candidate. If a particular candidate is the most conservative electable candidate, then there's no point listing his flaws, because if he's the best viable candidate, then that's what you're stuck with.
iii) Electability is a best guess. A prediction. Based on probabilities. We may be mistaken, but we can only go with the best information we have at any given time.
iv) Electability can be a matter of degree. When I say "unelectable" that's shorthand. I don't mean that candidate can't possibly win.
Here's a common tradeoff: candidate A is more conservative, but less electable; candidate B is less conservative, but more electable. So that becomes a question of risk assessment. How much do you have to lose by losing with A? How much do you have to gain or lose by winning with B?
v) Some Christians get angry about these calculations. However, I didn't create the situation. I didn't create the options. I play the hand I was dealt. (Although there are extreme cases where I'd leave the table–to continue the metaphor).
3. Ideology
i) Having narrowed the contestants to a set of electable candidates, then I generally opt for the most conservative remaining candidate. That's where comparative ideological analysis comes into play.
ii) In addition, ideological considerations come back into play if he's elected. That's when voters should oppose those aspects of his policy initiatives that are unacceptable.
But that's after the primaries. After the nomination. After the election.
Someone might complain that if you wait that long, it's too late. But that's the best we can do. And we still have ways to influence or block his policies. For instance, if he wants to run for reelection, he will avoid alienating the base. Likewise, Congress can act as a check on the President.
4. Competence
Over and above the Buckley rule is competence. For instance, is the candidate a coalition builder? Does he have the social skills to form an effective working relationship with Congress? If he can't partner with Congress, he will be unable to get his great ideas enacted into law. That will severely limit the good he can do, even if he's a solid conservative ideologue.
5. Flip-flops
i) Most candidates, including conservative ideologues, backpedal on one or more issues to get elected. There are different ways to assess that:
ii) What's the scope of their flexibility? What's the spread? Does it fall within a conservative range, from far right to center right, or is it from liberal to conservative, or vice versa? Is their flexibility still within a conservative spectrum?
iii) Even conviction politicians have priorities. Some issues are more important to them than others. They might flip-flop on an issue they don't really care about in the first place. The issue is their core identity. Likewise, how responsive are they to the base?
iv) It also depends on the instrinsic significance of the issue.
My system has been to not vote for someone I do not want to be elected under any circumstances. Because, why would I vote for someone I don't want to be elected? Since adopting that philosophy in presidential primaries and elections, it has reliably narrowed my choices down to either zero or one. This primary season it only narrowed it down to two, so I need a tie breaker, which will be your №2.
ReplyDeleteJeff D,
DeleteGiven that the American people are so non-conservative, and given how liberal the Democratic party has become, how can you only find zero to two candidates you'd vote for? Even somebody like George Pataki or Lindsey Graham is more conservative than the average American and would leave the country in a much better place than a typical Democrat would.
If the brakes go out on your car, and you can either go over a cliff or stop the car by driving into a guardrail without doing much harm to anybody, then you drive into the guardrail. You don't have to "want" that scenario in order for it to be a significantly better option out of the two that are available.
"why would I vote for someone I don't want to be elected?"
DeleteTo block a worse candidate from getting the job.
I don't want Pataki or Graham to be president. It think in their presidency they would cause more net harm than net good to the country on balance. I would share the responsibility in that net harm by the same amount my vote counts for who becomes president—which is, admittedly, not a lot. If I was an Iowa caucusgoer, I would have more responsibility than I do in my state and would be even more averse to helping someone like that get elected.
ReplyDeleteThat's my philosophy on the matter. It might be misguidedly scrupulous, but I can't help it at this point.
The brakes on my car work just fine. You are just asking me who I want to drive my car, the guy who I know will drive it over a cliff or the guy who will drive it into the guardrail. Neither, thanks.
Jeff D,
DeleteYou don't explain how Pataki and Graham "would cause more net harm than net good". (Graham has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 87%. The Heritage Foundation gives him 52%. But working with a Republican Congress as president would likely move him to the right to some extent.) The only alternative to somebody like Pataki or Graham, if he were the nominee, would be a Democrat who would be far worse. If you choose somebody like Pataki because he's better than the Democratic alternative, how are you responsible for the bad Pataki does? That's not why you voted for him, and you didn't create the situation in which the choice is between Pataki and a much worse alternative. Once other people have set those parameters, what's wrong with trying to make the most of the situation by voting for Pataki? Ten people can vote for the same candidate for ten different reasons and have different levels of responsibility accordingly.
Besides, even if we held your view of Pataki and Graham, why should we think only zero to two of the other candidates are good enough? For example, among Jindal, Cruz, and Rubio, which of those is unacceptable? Why?
Your changing of my car analogy doesn't work, since what you've done amounts to changing the subject. Who denies that we shouldn't pick the poor drivers you refer to in your scenario? My question was what you should do if you only had the options I described.
i) What do you mean "that's your philosophy" and you "can't help it" at this point? Nothing prevents you from changing your philosophy of voting.
Deleteii) How would Graham presidency do more "net harm" than Hillary or Sanders?
iii) What about sharing responsibility for letting Hillary (or Sanders) get elected when there was a better viable candidate?
Jason Engwer,
DeleteI was holding out hope, but I guess you are resigned to the fact that my car is going to crash one way or another. Let me ask you this. America is a pretty big vehicle. What is the guardrail in your analogy? I think, if America is going to crash, any guardrail that may or may not exist would only give a false sense of security. I wouldn't count on it. If tractor trailer America's brakes are really out, anyone other than MacGyver who is going to get out of the cab, climb under the vehicle while it is still moving and fix the brakes with chewing gum and a paperclip isn't going to cut it.
That being said, I knew nothing whatsoever about Jindal. A cursory Google search reveals that he may be mostly alright, but isn't running for president anymore.
steve
Deleteii) I do not claim a Graham presidency would do more net harm than Hillary or Sanders. It is enough for me that I think it would do net harm. As in the country would be worse off. And I don't want any level of responsibility for the country being worse off.
iii) I would disavow any responsibility for Hillary or Sanders getting elected. I wouldn't be responsible for any of it. I wouldn't be responsible for State Legislatures and Political Parties who setup the fantastically complicated primary and caucus scheme. I wouldn't be responsible for the poor choice of candidates on the ballot. I wouldn't be responsible for the party convention delegates ultimately nominating them for president. I wouldn't be responsible for the Electoral College ultimately and officially voting them in. I, Joe Voter, am responsible for filling in a box on election day which, when it comes down to it, signals to my State Legislature which slate of Electors should be selected to vote on my behalf in the Electoral College for President.
How about them apples?
Jeff D
Delete"I do not claim a Graham presidency would do more net harm than Hillary or Sanders. It is enough for me that I think it would do net harm. As in the country would be worse off."
At the risk of stating the obvious, the objective facts about whether a Graham presidency would do more "net harm" than Hillary or Sanders should trump your subjective opinions about whether a Graham presidency would do more "net harm" than Hillary or Sanders.
"And I don't want any level of responsibility for the country being worse off."
What if your non-action leads to the country being worse off? Non-action itself could arguably be just as culpable.
"I would disavow any responsibility for Hillary or Sanders getting elected. I wouldn't be responsible for any of it. I wouldn't be responsible for State Legislatures and Political Parties who setup the fantastically complicated primary and caucus scheme. I wouldn't be responsible for the poor choice of candidates on the ballot. I wouldn't be responsible for the party convention delegates ultimately nominating them for president. I wouldn't be responsible for the Electoral College ultimately and officially voting them in. I, Joe Voter, am responsible for filling in a box on election day which, when it comes down to it, signals to my State Legislature which slate of Electors should be selected to vote on my behalf in the Electoral College for President."
You're like the person who finds a newborn baby on their doorstep, but refuses to take in the newborn baby. Sure, the baby isn't yours, you didn't create the situation in which you find yourself now, but given you've found the baby at your doorstep, you simply leave it there. You leave the baby outside, to face whatever may befall it, whether the natural elements, whether wild animals, whether starvation and dehydration, etc. You exclaim: "I disavow any responsibility for the newborn baby at my doorstep! I'm not responsible for it! Just leave me alone! I refuse to care for it! It's not my problem! I don't care!"
"How about them apples?"
Is your slogan "Think indifferent"?
rockingwithhawking,
DeleteArguing by these weird analogies is tough. Nobody is asking me to take care of a baby. I guess in your analogy that would mean being president myself and taking care of baby USA. Instead, I am being asked to vote for a new baby sitter every four years. Every four years I am asked to choose between a baby sitter that will harm the baby a lot or harm the baby somewhat less. Well, no thanks. Maybe someday someone will ask me, "how about this one who does not harm the baby at all" and they will be rewarded with my vote.
Jeff D,
DeleteYour comments about Jindal suggest that you don't know much about some of the candidates and that you were wrong in your initial comments about only having zero to two candidates who could be supported. The number of acceptable candidates, even by your standards, is larger than you initially said.
You haven't demonstrated that Graham would do more harm than good. I gave you evidence to the contrary. You haven't interacted with it, and you haven't provided any evidence for your position.
It's true that analogies can be ambiguous and get complicated. But my car analogy wasn't significantly ambiguous or complicated. And you keep bringing more complexities into the discussion by changing the analogy, which is an effort on your part to change the subject. I was illustrating how it can make sense to choose between two problematic options, even though we'd prefer a third alternative. I think you know that you'd drive the car into the guardrail under my scenario. I'm asking you to do the same thing in a political context. Our society has set political parameters that we'd prefer not to have. Choosing the better of two problematic options in that context can make sense, and you aren't necessarily responsible for the problems that arise from choosing the better of the two candidates in that situation.
Even the best candidates are going to be wrong to some extent. As I said in a previous thread, typically the only way to avoid voting for somebody you disagree with is to do something like vote for yourself or not vote.
"It is enough for me that I think it would do net harm."
DeleteJeff,
i) Compared to what? Someone is going to win. If Hillary or Sanders or Trump do, won't that do "net harm" as well? How do any of your alternatives avoid "net harm." Not voting for any candidate doesn't avoid "net harm"–even if we grant your supposition that a Graham presidency would do net harm. So by your own yardstick, that's not a reason to sit out the election.
ii) You seem to think you're only responsible for what you do, and not what you refrain from doing. If so, it's trivially easy to come up with counterexamples where omission or inaction is culpable. Do you really need me to make list?
"I didn't want to get involved" isn't necessarily a good excuse. If you see a dog mauling a small boy, and there's a lead pipe lying on the ground that you can use to protect the boy from the dog, are you blameless if you refuse to act in that situation?
Jason Engwer,
DeleteJindal isn't a candidate, so the number remains zero to two candidates I could support.
Let me put it this way. It is the same thing every couple of years. I'm told I have to vote for the least bad candidate. I've been watching pretty closely over the last 12 years. There is very little evidence that this is a winning strategy.
I'm worn down. If I have to, I am willing to say, "No! Try better next time." in a futile attempt to play the long game. If I keep saying no, they will eventually get the hint, right?
Jeff D,
DeleteIf you only wanted to discuss candidates currently in the race, then you shouldn't have used such broad language in your initial post, which didn't suggest that sort of qualification. And why did you keep discussing Pataki, Graham, and Jindal without explaining that you didn't want to include candidates no longer running?
Even with your new qualifier in place, it still wouldn't make sense to say that there are only two acceptable candidates. It's not as though people like Santorum, Carson, and Paul are moderates, much less liberals.
You wrote:
"I'm told I have to vote for the least bad candidate."
That's not how the candidates are portrayed by themselves, their campaigns, or their party. I and many others arguing for those candidates haven't framed the situation the way you describe. To the contrary, I've frequently cited examples of good things the candidates can do, in terms of appointing judges, supporting pro-life efforts, etc. I've often cited American Conservative Union ratings and other such evidence that candidates are mostly right on the issues. That's not equivalent to merely saying that a candidate is "the least bad".
You go on to refer to how you're "worn down". That's what happens in a war. You keep fighting anyway.
You refer to a "long game", but the culture is nowhere near being as conservative as you are and looks like it won't be that conservative anytime soon. Let's say we can get a candidate elected who's something like 75% or 80% conservative, who will appoint conservative Supreme Court justices, etc. Why should we think a better long-term approach would be to wait for a candidate who's more conservative while letting liberals continue to gain more and more ground in the process?
You were discussing Pataki, Graham, and Jindal. I wondered why but didn't say anything. I figured it was some kind of hypothetical situation. Frankly, I didn't realize they were ever running. One of the bonuses about my voting strategy is that you don't have to pay too close attention.
DeletePaul is one of the two. Good luck guessing the other.
"To the contrary, I've frequently cited examples of good things the candidates can do, in terms of appointing judges, supporting pro-life efforts, etc."
Pfffffft. Like John Roberts? Like the current congress supports pro-life efforts?
"Like John Roberts? Like the current congress supports pro-life efforts?"
DeleteWhat are you judging Roberts on? Obamacare? Just that?
He's far better than Democrat nominees like Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Stevens, Sotomayor, &c.
What about Scripture informing the issue, or even an argument as to why Scripture doesn't inform? It looks like a lot of "pragmatism" goin' on here. Pragmatism is the strategy that failed to keep us getting to this point.
ReplyDeleteii) You seem to think you're only responsible for what you do, and not what you refrain from doing. If so, it's trivially easy to come up with counterexamples where omission or inaction is culpable. Do you really need me to make list?
It's trivially easy to come up with analogies and purport they make the point. Would this work:
If you see two people mauling a boy, one with a baseball bat, another with a rope, we ought to support the guy with the rope; there's too much damage that can be done with a bat.
SkaterRingo
Delete"What about Scripture informing the issue, or even an argument as to why Scripture doesn't inform?"
1. Steve framed it as how he picks a candidate, not how Christians should pick a candidate.
2. If I recall, I think Steve has done posts in the past which involve Scripturally informed arguments and such like on politics and related issues.
3. Of course, Scripture doesn't talk about every topic under the sun, including how best to pick a political candidate in 21st century America.
"It looks like a lot of 'pragmatism' goin' on here. Pragmatism is the strategy that failed to keep us getting to this point."
Scripture itself can be quite pragamtic. Just check out the Book of Proverbs for instance.
"If you see two people mauling a boy, one with a baseball bat, another with a rope, we ought to support the guy with the rope; there's too much damage that can be done with a bat."
Jeff D statements commit him to non-involvement, yet what you say here isn't non-involvement but rather involvement. So your example likewise undermines Jeff D's point.
1. Steve framed it as how he picks a candidate, not how Christians should pick a candidate.
DeleteNot unreasonable to think there might be a little overlap, unless this blog is just autobiographical.
Thanks for the tip on other political posts informed by Scripture. I should have perused more, and will over the next couple days.
3. Of course, Scripture doesn't talk about every topic under the sun, including how best to pick a political candidate in 21st century America....says rockingwithhawking.
Scripture itself can be quite pragamtic. Just check out the Book of Proverbs for instance.
I'm not sure what argument this should negate. Simple "crass" pragmatism is no virtue; ask Abraham. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but we've been trying pragmatism for a lot of election cycles now, and "conservatives" continue to get more liberal.
Jeff D statements commit him to non-involvement, yet what you say here isn't non-involvement but rather involvement. So your example likewise undermines Jeff D's point.
I was being sarcastic with my analogy. It's basically, Given Hitler or Stalin, who do you support? (But I didn't want to be that inelegant). Answer: Neither. Jeff D can speak for himself, but I thought he was saying he wouldn't vote for anyone unworthy of his support.
i) How does Scripture inform your fandom for Breaking Bad and Janis Joplin?
Deleteii) As for the lazy "pragmatism" charge, pragmatism doesn't pick the positions we should take on foreign and domestic policy issues, but it's relevant to the means of achieving a goal. Pragmatism doesn't set the goal.
iii) I'm discussing teleology. If you wish to achieve something, then it makes sense to employ effective rather than ineffective means. Why bother voting for someone who has little chance of winning?
To take a comparison, if I'm sick, I go to a doctor, not an automechanic.
Now, one could debate the merits of participation in the political process. But if you think that's justifiable, if that's a given, then it's reasonable to consider the move effective strategies.
For instance, Scripture might warrant participation in the political process on the basis of our social obligations.
"If you see two people mauling a boy, one with a baseball bat, another with a rope, we ought to support the guy with the rope; there's too much damage that can be done with a bat."
i) Apparently, you don't know what the word "to maul" means.
ii) What does the rope do in this illustration?
iii) You're positing that there's only two choices: support the guy with the rope or support the guy with the bat.
What reason is there to think that's not a false dichotomy? What do those metaphors stand for? What contemporary political situation is that meant to illustrate?
"I was being sarcastic with my analogy."
DeleteTblog has little patience for smartass commenters. Your tenure here will be very brief if you take that approach.
"It's basically, Given Hitler or Stalin, who do you support? (But I didn't want to be that inelegant). Answer: Neither."
i) To begin with, you need to show what that corresponds to vis-a-vis the contemporary political scene.
Hitler was the German head of state while Stalin was the Russian head of state. How is that comparable to American domestic politics, where it's a choice between different American candidates?
ii) In WWII we allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. You might disagree with that strategy, but it's not something you can simply dismiss with a rhetorical flick of the wrist.
Tblog has little patience for smartass commenters. Your tenure here will be very brief if you take that approach.
Delete*That* merited a rebuke? Alrighty then. Thanks for the warm welcome!
ii) As for the lazy "pragmatism" charge, pragmatism doesn't pick the positions we should take on foreign and domestic policy issues, but it's relevant to the means of achieving a goal. Pragmatism doesn't set the goal.
So what was "lazy" about the charge?
i) How does Scripture inform your fandom for Breaking Bad and Janis Joplin?
Sheesh, you're huffy. Could you explain what you're even getting at with that? I don't mean that you've discovered my darkest secrets, but what your point is. Are you saying Scripture doesn't say anything--directly or implicitly--about limits of Christian support for political leaders?
Why bother voting for someone who has little chance of winning?
Because Scripture may proscribe voting for the guy who does have a chance, and so that we might please Christ by who we vote for or not, just as that should be our rationale for what causes we do or don't support, etc., regardless of odds.
To take a comparison, if I'm sick, I go to a doctor, not an automechanic.
This assumes there is a candidate with a cure, and that the patient just needs a little cough syrup. You choose to go that way with these analogies; I suggest the choices have been between candidates where one offers cyanide, the other, arsenic. For all the blessings we enjoy, our nation is in a bad way, and it's not just because of Barack Obama and Democrats.
Scripture might warrant participation in the political process on the basis of our social obligations.
It might, and voting isn't the only means of participation, nor is it a requirement.
i) Apparently, you don't know what the word "to maul" means.
I could see requesting clarity where the crux of an argument is--and it's fine for you to call me on the Hitler/Stalin thing--but you're just being pedantic here. The illustration is simple enough: if the choice is between two candidates who are *so* evil, support neither. And isn't this a plausible eventuality? It is entirely possible two pro-choice candidates represent the major parties in an election, differing only in a few particulars on that issue. Even expressing pro-life sympathy may not be enough. John McCain claimed to be pro-life, but allowed the possibility he would appoint a pro-abortion SC judge. How are these guys not getting the message on abortion? How will they ever get it when we continue to vote for them? The pragmatic approach isn't even working on its own terms.
I should have included a smiley when I alluded to Hitler and Stalin, as I acknowledged it was "inelegant;" in that case, I do recognize those analogies are usually lazy. I only meant Stalin and Hitler to be "inelegantly" symbolic of the choices we have, and figured the analogy would not be read in a context beyond this thread, in which the discussion is about candidates available to us. Fine, McCain is no Hitler, and Trump is no tyrant. Or is he? Dun dun dun! Actually, that's not an unreasonable question.
SkaterRingo
DeleteJust briefly for now:
"*That* merited a rebuke? Alrighty then. Thanks for the warm welcome!"
Hm, I would think it's less "rebuke" than fair warning.
Also, to be fair, you explicitly stated you were being "sarcastic." That's not exactly very "welcome" in general.
And you're (intentionally or unintentionally) diving headfirst into the middle of a debate between Jeff D and others, and interjecting your "sarcastic" "analogy." Sorry, but that's likewise not exactly the best way to begin a conversation with people if that was your intention.
"So what was 'lazy' about the charge?"
I can't speak for Steve, but in my view, I wasn't sure if you were assuming or investing (political) philosophical or at least more intellectual undertones in your use of the term "pragmatism." It'd seem reasonable in context. Yet, if you were, then you didn't take care to make any relevant distinctions. It was just a vague or undefined "pragmatism," in my opinion.
"Sheesh, you're huffy."
Of course, you're self-admittedly "sarcastic." I'm not clear why it's ok for you to behave sarcastically, but it's not ok for Steve to reply to someone who is being "sarcastic" in the way he replied.
"I suggest the choices have been between candidates where one offers cyanide, the other, arsenic. For all the blessings we enjoy, our nation is in a bad way, and it's not just because of Barack Obama and Democrats."
"John McCain claimed to be pro-life, but allowed the possibility he would appoint a pro-abortion SC judge. How are these guys not getting the message on abortion? How will they ever get it when we continue to vote for them? The pragmatic approach isn't even working on its own terms."
Are you alluding to the Republican "establishment"?
"Fine, McCain is no Hitler, and Trump is no tyrant. Or is he? Dun dun dun! Actually, that's not an unreasonable question."
Steve, Jason, and other Triabloggers have criticized both McCain and Trump.
You seem to move the goalposts a fair bit. At least, you add qualifiers and clarifications later that you didn't originally include, but act as if these qualifiers and clarifications should've been obvious to people responding to you. However, at the risk of stating the obvious, a person can only respond to what another person has actually said, not what they intended to say but wasn't clear at the time they said it.
Anyway, I'm not sure what your criticisms so far amount to? That Steve isn't using Scripture to inform what he has said in this post? Even though it's hardly incumbent on him to make every post an exegetical, biblical, and/or systematic theology about the particular topic at hand (e.g. how he picks a political candidate).
As an aside, you might be interested in this post. It's a short article from John Frame about the broader topic. Obviously it doesn't perfectly fit or suit the specifics of Steve's post, nor is it comprehensive by any means. But it's at least a decent start involving some general considerations for the sorts of things you're asking about, I think.
"Because Scripture may proscribe voting for the guy who does have a chance, and so that we might please Christ by who we vote for or not, just as that should be our rationale for what causes we do or don't support, etc., regardless of odds."
Deletei) Now you've turned what I said upside down. The question of why bother to vote for someone who has little chance of winning is hardly equivalent to voting for a guy just because he has a chance of winning.
ii) Electablity is the first cut. Ideology comes next. Some candidates make the first cut (electability), but not the second cut (ideology). Ideology is where Biblical ethics comes into play.
"This assumes there is a candidate with a cure, and that the patient just needs a little cough syrup."
No, the analogy is not designed to illustrate choosing candidates, but the general principle of choosing effective over ineffective means for achieving a goal.
"It might, and voting isn't the only means of participation, nor is it a requirement."
I didn't say "requirement", I said "warrant". You need to learn how to draw conceptual distinctions.
"The illustration is simple enough: if the choice is between two candidates who are *so* evil, support neither. And isn't this a plausible eventuality?"
Once again, you miss the point, since that falls under ideology. You're ignoring the stages of the process. Electability is a preliminary consideration, Then ideology.
"Fine, McCain is no Hitler, and Trump is no tyrant. Or is he? Dun dun dun! Actually, that's not an unreasonable question."
I've made my views on Trump unmistakability clear in many posts.
i) Now you've turned what I said upside down. The question of why bother to vote for someone who has little chance of winning is hardly equivalent to voting for a guy just because he has a chance of winning.
DeleteThe state of your approach being turned upside down is a consequence of your very approach. It begs the question that Scripture permits "1. The Buckley Rule" and everything that follows in the sequence.
I've made my views on Trump unmistakability clear in many posts.
That's fine, and I'm glad, but I mentioned Trump in response to your request that I provide modern day examples of unacceptable choices. That's what a McCain or a Trump is. Given the choice between a garden variety pro-abort Democrat or a Republican who would nominate a pro-abort judge, I don't see how voting for either is pleasing to Christ, and it's not even close.
There are only three logical alternatives:
DeleteWhat Scripture permits
What Scripture commands
What Scripture forbids
Let's stipulate that Scripture doesn't command the Buckley rule. Unless Scripture forbids the Buckley rule, then by process of elimination, Scripture permits the Buckley rule. Do you have some evidence that Scripture forbids the Buckley rule?
Keep in mind that I didn't posit the Buckley rule as a stand-alone principle. That is qualified by additional considerations which follow.
BTW, does Scripture permit you to watch Breaking Bad? Does Scripture permit you to hear Janis Joplin?
DeleteThose are good questions. Scripture commands rulers to kiss the Son. If a candidate does not kiss the Son, the Buckley rule is irrelevant.
DeleteMake the case I should not watch Breaking Bad and I will consider it, although it'll take a lot of heavy lifting to show how it would invalidate any argument I've made.
SkaterRingo
Delete"Those are good questions. Scripture commands rulers to kiss the Son. If a candidate does not kiss the Son, the Buckley rule is irrelevant."
Why do you assume a prerequisite for being an American political candidate is for the candidate to "kiss the Son" i.e. bow his or her knee to Christ?
To whom should the Psalm 2 command apply? Or, to choose one verse among similar, 2 Sam 23: ~3-4: "When one rules justly over men,ruling in the fear of God, he dawns on them like the morning light...." Similar Proverbs and proverbial verses speak of qualities of good rulers. I don't think it makes sense to consider those optional for political leaders.
DeleteYou act as though you stopped reading after the Buckley rule (or electability). That's not where my criteria terminate.
Deleterockingwithhawking:
ReplyDeleteHm, I would think it's less "rebuke" than fair warning.
You mention that I admitted to a sarcastic comment. About 14 times. Just reread what I wrote and see if it's all that uncharitable and deserving a "fair warning." To you, being called a smartass is "fair warning." I took it as a rebuke. Either way, I haven't intended to be belligerent, and not sure how I was read that way.
SkaterRingo:
Delete"You mention that I admitted to a sarcastic comment. About 14 times. Just reread what I wrote and see if it's all that uncharitable and deserving a 'fair warning.' To you, being called a smartass is 'fair warning.' I took it as a rebuke. Either way, I haven't intended to be belligerent, and not sure how I was read that way."
You neglected to include the part following the "smartass" remark: "Tblog has little patience for smartass commenters. Your tenure here will be very brief if you take that approach."
Respectfully, this is a mountain of a molehill. OK. You know how some people compare others to those who would look for an automechanic when they're medically ill? That's what I was doing. Is that permissible?
DeleteSkaterRingo
Delete"Respectfully, this is a mountain of a molehill. OK."
Respectfully, you're the one who's taking issue with all this. If it's a "molehill," then just let it go.
"You know how some people compare others to those who would look for an automechanic when they're medically ill? That's what I was doing."
That's disanalogous to Steve inasmuch as Steve gave a serious example, whereas you explicitly stated "I was being sarcastic with my analogy."
"Is that permissible?"
I'm not your mother or father. Do what you want, live with the consequences. That's generally how it works in adult life.
"It might, and voting isn't the only means of participation, nor is it a requirement."
DeleteWhich misses the point. If you don't think we should participate in the political process, then the question of choosing the best means to that end is moot, since you reject the whole process outright.
So your objection is a red herring. The Buckley rule takes for granted that it's legitimate for Christians to vote. If you think that requires separate justification, then the argument would go back a step.
"Those are good questions. Scripture commands rulers to kiss the Son. If a candidate does not kiss the Son, the Buckley rule is irrelevant."
This is another example of your inability to follow the argument:
i) To begin with, Scripture is not an encyclopedia. It doesn't speak to every issue. It doesn't command you to drive a car, brush your teeth, use deodorant or bathroom tissue.
ii) The Buckley rule is simply a political instance of a general teleological principle. Reasonable people don't knowingly choose means that are counterproductive to reaching the goal:
If you wish to win the 100 yard dash, don't wear hiking boots
If you wish to hunt deer, bring a rifle, not a squirt gun
If you need heart surgery, don't consult a brain surgeon
If you wish to cross a lake, use a boat, not a bike
One can debate the merits of the goal, but given the goal, a rational goal-oriented person will avoid methods that are counterproductive to achieving the goal.
You think I need to justify why we should be rational rather than irrational?
iii) If you think "kissing the son" is a prerequisite for an acceptable candidate, then than would fall under the ideological stage of the analysis.
Respectfully, you're the one who's taking issue with all this. If it's a "molehill," then just let it go.
DeleteI was called a smartass for doing nothing appreciably different than what the OP did. I didn't say my response was the mountain, but the overreaction to what, if anyone cared to re-read it, was a harmless comment of mine. Maybe I should have used a different word--sardonic?, ironic?, mildly derisive? I meant no more ridicule with my comment than Steve (probably) did with his comparing me to a sick guy looking for healing at the garage. What. EVER!
SkaterRingo
Delete"I was called a smartass for doing nothing appreciably different than what the OP did."
The original poster (i.e. Steve) in the original post (i.e. "How I pick candidates") wasn't "sarcastic."
"I didn't say my response was the mountain, but the overreaction to what, if anyone cared to re-read it, was a harmless comment of mine."
If it's "harmless," then drop it. The more you continue harping about your "harmless comment," the more concerned about it you appear.
"Maybe I should have used a different word--sardonic?, ironic?, mildly derisive?"
These aren't all perfectly synonymous, so it depends what you're attempting to convey.
"I meant no more ridicule with my comment than Steve (probably) did with his comparing me to a sick guy looking for healing at the garage. What. EVER!"
Steve didn't compare you to "a sick guy." He said it about himself. Here's what he said: "To take a comparison, if I'm sick, I go to a doctor, not an automechanic."
Hey just because I point out a molehill-turned-mountain doesn't mean I mind talking about it or explaining myself. So, no, YOU drop it. Or not, either way's fine.
DeleteI was attempting to convey something in exactly the style Steve was: that one set of assumptions leads to an absurd conclusion. To parse out how the rhetoric of one of us was meek and mild and the other's was malicious and grotesque is...making a mountain out of a molehill.
SkaterRingo
Delete"Hey just because I point out a molehill-turned-mountain doesn't mean I mind talking about it or explaining myself. So, no, YOU drop it. Or not, either way's fine."
That's your prerogative.
"I was attempting to convey something in exactly the style Steve was: that one set of assumptions leads to an absurd conclusion."
I, for one, haven't made any such "assumptions." I'm just replying to you based on what you've said.
"To parse out how the rhetoric of one of us was meek and mild and the other's was malicious and grotesque is...making a mountain out of a molehill."
You're tilting at windmills. I never "parse[d] out" Steve's "rhetoric" as "meek and mild" while "pars[ing] out" your "rhetoric" as "malicious and grotesque." That's your own fanciful interpretation.
That's your prerogative.
DeleteEtc.
Is it that you want the last word? If that's why you keep replying, have at it; I yield.
SkaterRingo
Delete"Is it that you want the last word? If that's why you keep replying, have at it; I yield."
Hm, are you projecting (blame shifting)? Otherwise you have a strange habit of imputing to others what's not there. For example, claiming Steve is comparing you to "a sick guy" when he was referring to himself. Or suggesting I view your "rhetoric" as "malicious and grotesque" when all I said was what you yourself said - i.e. that you were being "sarcastic."
The basic reason I keep replying is because you keep replying, and you were the one who kicked it all off in the first place. Hence my advice for you to let it go or drop it if you don't care to continue.
SkaterRingo
Delete"You know how some people compare others to those who would look for an automechanic when they're medically ill?"
Completely misses the point of the example, which is meant to illustrate a teleological principle: your methods should match your goals.
Which misses the point.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't. I'm speaking to the implication, made variously throughout this thread, that abstaining is abetting evil. You only slightly temper this notion with your parenthetical "(Although there are extreme cases where I'd leave the table–to continue the metaphor)."
This is another example of your inability to follow the argument:
Can you just speak one Christian brother to another? Your comments to me are peppered with this piss. Why? I'm willing to listen.
The rest of your comment seems to beg the question. You (or someone) titled the post, "How I pick candidates." You assert "the goal" is to win the election, the posit various "pragmatic" ways of getting there. I don't disagree with those ways, but the very criteria of picking candidates in the first place, or at least the starting point in assessing (or even considering) them. So rather than emphasize the goal as you would have it, my view is that duty is ours; consequences are God's.
Or maybe I'm wrong and that's not where the disagreement lies. Can you please explain to this hayseed?
Sorry I'm so terrible at locating my replies. I'm terrible at that.
Delete"It doesn't. I'm speaking to the implication, made variously throughout this thread, that abstaining is abetting evil. You only slightly temper this notion with your parenthetical '(Although there are extreme cases where I'd leave the table–to continue the metaphor).'"
DeleteBecause there are many situations in which abstaining is abetting evil.
"So rather than emphasize the goal as you would have it, my view is that duty is ours; consequences are God's."
Why do something if you don't intend your action to make a difference?
Case in point: why vote at all if you are going to vote for a candidate you think has little chance of winning? What purpose does that serve?
Would you use a screwdriver to pound nails–or a hammer?
Why are you so resistant to an elementary principle of rational behavior? Why are you so resistant to the notion that our methods should not be at cross-purposes with our objectives?
Why are you so resistant to an elementary principle of rational behavior? Why are you so resistant to the notion that our methods should not be at cross-purposes with our objectives?
DeleteI haven't communicated either at all. Maybe it's a difference of opinion, but to me, to abstain from voting (or voting 3rd party) because "my" candidate is closer to "our objectives", yet is also willing to condone pro-murder judges at the highest court, is at cross-purposes to good and just rule. Also, the stuff about Scripture limiting whom we should support without regard to odd an all.
I'm fine with voting if casting my vote pleases the Lord. I'm sorry if I was veiled or coy about it all, but my belief is we don't please the Lord by voting for the guy who's somewhat less pro-death than the other guy, but by voting for, and only for, the kind of leader Scripture demands.
Sorry again, that's mangled. I'm between tasks. I mean, it is right and good to abstain from voting for someone who condones abortion, even if (or because) the way he does it is less extreme than they other guy.
DeleteAnd finally...(fanfare),
DeleteI'm not a single-issue guy; abortion isn't the only measuring stick for me.
It sounds like you're placing ideology above electability (e.g. "my belief is we don't please the Lord by voting for the guy who's somewhat less pro-death than the other guy, but by voting for, and only for, the kind of leader Scripture demands")?
DeleteYes, that's my take. I acknowledge the usefulness of electability as a criterion at some point, but only between worthy candidates. (I suppose this is stating the obvious). I acknowledge the usefulness of each of the criteria Steve listed. Perhaps Steve sprinkles this aspect in a few of those different measures, but I would also add a candidate must be able to display Biblical wisdom as relates to the office he seeks.
DeleteI understand what Steve is getting at concerning the apparent futility of voting for guys who don't have a chance, or not voting because the options are too repulsive, but Scripture is replete with examples of walking by faith and not by sight, and even when doing so did not bring about the ends we might have thought favorable beforehand. It's only an addendum to my argument (feeble though it may be or you think it is) that we don't have a lot of success to show for the "lesser of two evils" approach. And I actually don't care to refer to it as "lesser of two evils" as it can mis-credit its proponents; I'm just using it as shorthand. And I really am between tasks, so all typos are [sic]. So are all weak arguments. (Kidding).