Focusing On Worldviews...

Deciding who to vote for is more than getting what you want on some issue that you deem vital. They don't buy your vote! What you may see as the most important stand he takes may be of no value or consequence to the opponent. It is not a matter of having a wish list and whoever gives you what you want wins your vote. A person can be a godly person and have a Christian worldview, and still be wrong on something--no one is infallible and inerrant. There is such a thing as selfish voting for one's personal agenda to advance one's economic cause or predicament. We shouldn't be able to vote ourselves out of poverty. True decisions should be for the welfare of the people at large and not favoring one group with a bias. The government is of the people, by the people, and for the people (all the people!). What happens usually is that when someone gets elected he only feels beholden to those who put him there and fails to realize faithfulness and responsibility for all the people. Everything is not going to change when your candidate gets elected and it is just pie in the sky to hope that a would-be messiah will save our nation.

The most dangerous thing is an idea whose time has come and this is what we see now is new ideas that resonate with the people--a revolution in politics and things are not as usual and candidates march to the beat of a different drum. I've never seen such finger-pointing and using someone as a scapegoat. The campaigns seem like movements and I'm not the only one saying that--people are voting who have before felt disenfranchised--but I question the sincerity and naivete of the youth of our nation who don't realize that candidates basically make empty promises to get elected, and true competence is a rare commodity in the political arena.

I find myself agreeing with a candidate some of the time, and simultaneously finding him obnoxious and repugnant personally--but this is the way the common man in our nation is and they relate to him. I believe that "character counts" and one must have a candidate that God can use and can be trusted--God is the one who is really in control and is the one who ultimately decides our election, though we must be good citizens and vote the best we know-how. One can be right on a number of issues and still not have a Christian worldview--it is not a matter of who is right on the most issues like a math equation. Some politicians are more problem-solvers than ideologues or purists. Martin Luther said that he'd rather live under a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian--but I think he means one that doesn't think like a Christian (have a correct worldview) and is one in name only without conviction. God gives a nation the politicians it deserves and politics is dirty business according to Goethe and makes strange bedfellows--so we must beware that they all pander to a degree and are saying what they believe we want to hear.

What is problematic is when you find yourself agreeing in spirit with someone who doesn't qualify and may be dangerous. I'm not saying that there are parallels to the way Hitler had so much charisma and promised to make Germany great again (great slogans, but no record), but we have to look beyond the issues and the promises and really find out what kind of man we are voting for--can he be trusted? Do we want a candidate that appeals to our lower nature that is divisive? The litmus test: "Power tends to corrupt," says Lord Acton, and "absolute power corrupts absolutely"--can we trust them with the nuclear code or national secrets? After all, we are electing the diplomatic leader of the free world and the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces of our nation--not designated wheeler-dealer or deal-maker who thinks the path to prosperity is as simple as a trade war. As Bob Dylan sang: "The times, they are a-changin'." Promises have to be realistic and achievable, because anyone can just tell people what they want to hear and give their own solutions, but are they trying to buy votes with promises?

One must realize that in today's politics pragmatism rules and the test of the truth of an idea is its effects or whether it works. Adolf Hitler got a lot of success for that matter but was dead wrong--"the final solution" (making the Jews the scapegoat and eliminating them) looked like it was working. The end doesn't justify the means as pragmatists and utilitarians ultimately believe, and we can't just look at results to judge the morality of a law or action. Doing anything to win today's credo and saying anything to win is just politics as usual. The New Morality of today only looks at the motive and if one is sincere and well-meaning or doing it out of love, the methodology or the end result doesn't matter. In a Christian perspective, the motive, as well as the result or goal, must be concordant with Scripture and morality.

In the final analysis, we really don't know who God's man is until he wins and we acknowledge God's sovereignty. We do err in judging our fellow man for his political opinions, (no one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom) which may be due to ignorance of the biblical perspective, though he may be a Christian himself. No one is right on all the issues and should be crowned the king; we live in a democracy that respects everyone's right to vote their conscience and the way they see things in their world. Only God knows what is the most important issue--all we can do is vote according to what we know and our worldview and being willing to reach across the aisle and compromise to get things done in an otherwise dysfunctional government in gridlock. Soli Deo Gloria!