This is my last blog post in the trilogy (because trilogies are a nice round series) of politically charged (shocking? electrifying? electrocuted?) blog posts (introduction–On Politics: Taking Christ to a Bull Fight–to my questions about the possibilities of a just war–Only War.)
Politically and historically speaking, liberalism means "leave me alone." It carries the idea that I can make better choices for myself than you can make for me. This implies that Republicans are liberal when it comes to money and business (we can make the best choices for ourselves for both our individual finances and our nation’s businesses in a free market capitalist system with as little governance as possible) and conservative (to use what has come to be the antonym of liberal) when it comes to moral issues (such as abortion and marriage), meaning we prefer government to step in to help guide people in morals, and when it comes to military.
Democrats are conservative, then, in the issues of finance and business (businesses need regulations to keep them in check, and this has implications for personal finances) and liberal in moral issues (individuals have the right to choose whether they live in heterosexual or homosexual relationships, for example).
Of course, the lines are not cut and dry. For example, where does an individual’s right to bear arms fall? If we say it is a moral right, meaning we prefer the government to step in to help guide people for their own safety and for the safety of others, then we can see how the Republicans and Democrats flip on this issue compared to how they would normally fall in regards to moral issues.
And several issues arise when Republicans and Democrats see the underlying problem as different. Democrats argue that in the case of business regulations (e.g. in the insurance policies lately put into place) it stems from a moral problem, namely that the businesses are doing moral harm to people. This, of course, has financial implications for the individual. Republicans, while agreeing that the medical insurance business needs fixing, would argue that government has overstepped its bounds when it comes to their role, which should be a minimal one in finances and business. Government should take on a more liberal approach here, according to Republicans.
And then there’s the issue of immigration. In general, both parties agree that the system is broken. The Republicans I’ve spoken to don’t begrudge immigrants; in fact, they want to welcome them with open arms, provided they come legally. These Republicans (1) want to be fair to the immigrants who have come over legally and (2) recognize that something in our system should change to help more immigrants be able to be here legally. They are conservative in this issue, interestingly enough, for both safety issues (to help protect the citizens and legal residents of the U.S.) and financial issues (immigrants should be paying taxes to help run the country whose services they use). So they ask the government to step in for these reasons.
Democrats want a more hands-off approach for moral reasons (we are all immigrants and we should welcome those who need better opportunities to provide for their families), but there may be a bit of moral liberalism in here as well (don’t tell people what to do or how to live).
Or so the environment issue: Republicans call for a hands-off, or liberal, approach to give businesses more free reign to develop (believing that people will in general weed out that which is corrupt and choose that which is moral; or perhaps believing that that which is corrupt must ultimately fail; or perhaps believing that we shouldn’t impose our morals here) while Democrats call for moral regulations (believing also, perhaps, that as we guide them morally it will bring about the best for our country financially, which also results in better financial opportunities for individuals).
Keep in mind that at this point, I’m not arguing if the policies being put into place are the best way to accomplish these goals. I only want to sort out what the goals are and which goals I should approve or work toward in light of my religious sensibilities.
If I have a somewhat proper understanding of this, I’d like to get to my question: Keeping in mind that how I vote will not bring God’s kingdom to earth because God’s kingdom does not come via America, how can I vote in line with God’s kingdom? If my Christian values and morals come from an understanding of what God says is best for humans, humanity, and all creation on the one hand, but I also believe that these morals and values are empty and to some extent unachievable without the Holy Spirit (though I would also argue that the Imago Dei, corrupt though it may be, allows humans to act in good ways, too), how much should I impose my Christian values and morals on people who aren’t Christians (whether for what I believe is their own good, for the good of those around them, or for the good of creation)?
If I believe that my Christian value calls for hospitality toward
If I believe God calls humans to take care of creation, shouldn’t I vote for government regulations on polution, what kind of cars we make, how we build our houses, even if it makes things more difficult for businesses?
If I believe that abortion is fundamentally killing another human being because life begins at conception, shouldn’t I ask government to step in and limit rights here, much like I ask it to limit the rights of thieves and murderers? Shouldn’t I ask them to also stem stem-cell research because of how it harms individuals? Shouldn’t I ask them to outlaw certain infertility practices that harm individuals?
How extreme do we take this: Should we outlaw adultery? Divorce? After all, both of these moral issues affect families, individuals, children, and communities. Should government limit rights here to protect our nation’s morals?
When do we correct people and businesses when they’re wrong, and when do we step back and allow them to make their own choices?
Discuss.
