My Personal "Voting Guide"
Wednesday, July 18, 2007 at 10:25AM 
Many people (in our congregation and readers of this blog) have asked me about my thoughts on particular candidates in the upcoming presidential elections. To put it bluntly, I'm not thrilled with any of them (at least not yet).
Rather than speak of individual presidential candidates, I thought I would post some of the criteria I will be using when I make my final choice. Perhaps, you will find this helpful. These apply to other state and national elections as well.
Like every other presidential election I can remember, my vote next time will probably be some form of a "lesser of evils" choice. It has been a long time since I voted for someone with great enthusiasm. But as Christian citizens, we must do our due diligence and weigh our vote carefully.
Since the focus of this blog is primary theological, I am reluctant to discuss presidential politics. But this might be of help to some of you. Again, the following list is largely descriptive, not prescriptive (i.e., this is how I will choose my candidate, not how you should choose yours).
Here, then, are a few of my personal criteria:
I. Moral issues:
1. Is the candidate “pro-abortion” (i.e., supports partial birth abortion and federal funding for all abortions)? I will not vote for such a candidate.
2. Is the candidate “pro-choice” (i.e., personally opposed to abortion, but defends a woman’s privacy over against state intrusion)? Under very limited circumstances I would vote for such a person (that is, if the person is an otherwise sound candidate, does not advocate federal funding and if they are running against a pro-abortion candidate).
3. Is the candidate politically pro-life (i.e., a generic conservative)? Perhaps.
4. Is the candidate consistently pro-life (i.e, in tax policy, supreme court appointments, etc). Likely.
5. Does the candidate favor homosexual marriage? I will not vote for such a candidate.
6. Does the candidate favor civil unions? Under very limited circumstances I would vote for such a person (i.e, only if they were an otherwise sound candidate, and only if they are running against a gay-marriage advocacy candidate).
7. Does the candidate support the traditional definition of marriage? Likely.
8. Does the candidate express their concern about the poor and suffering through the advocacy of increased federal spending and centralized government programs? Unlikely.
9. Does the candidate express their concerns about the poor and suffering through the advocacy of federal/state/community programs involving job training, welfare reform, etc. Perhaps.
II. Constitutional Issues
1. Does the candidate favor limited representative government? Likely. This is my primary voting criterion.
2. Does the candidate defend second amendment rights? Likely.
3. Does the candidate understand that the establishment clause of the first amendment does not trump the free exercise clause? Likely.
4. Does the candidate defend the principle of avoiding all foreign entanglements (i.e., nation building), but nevertheless is willing to defend America’s citizens and vital interests when necessary? Likely.
5. Does the candidate defend private property rights? Likely.
III. Disqualifications–Personal Reasons Why I Will Not Vote for a Particular Candidate:
1. Does the candidate engage in rhetorical class warfare–“two Americas,” “tax the wealthiest Americans” etc?
2. Does the candidate play the race card? (This is different than addressing racial issues--something which is vital)
3. Does the candidate have a thin resume for office? Executive office holders (i.e. governors) are generally better suited for high office than is a legislator (i.e. senators).
4. Does the candidate make unsubstantiated concerns (i.e. global warming) important themes of their campaign?
5. Does the candidate invoke "Christian America" themes?
6. Does the candidate see the judiciary as a means of enacting public policy?
IV. Qualifications–Personal Reasons Why I Will Vote for a Candidate
1. Is the candidate well-qualified for the position?
2. Does the candidate understand the vocation of “public service”?
3. Does the candidate possess strong leadership skills?
4. Does the candidate possess good communication skills?
5. Does the candidate manifest personal integrity?
6. Does the candidate understand the great threat posed by militant Islam?
Reader Comments (34)
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "
Does this imply that you bear arms against the state to rebel against the state or to secure the state? I think its the later and that's not exactly anti-Biblical.
The key phrase here is "regulated militia" This gives the legislature the teeth to keep the guns,tanks,and nukes away from the White House or my house.
You may call the American Revolution the greatest sin against King George III,"one of the most benign leaders in history," and the framers of the Constituion traitors, The First Amendment allows you to do that.
I just get a little worried when I see folks wanting to scrap segments of the Bill of Rights.
Take our president's pro-life stance. It's something I still admire him for. But has it really done us a lot of good? Are there less abortions now than there would have been if Al Gore was in office? And how pro-life really is a president that condones torture and preemptive war?
There's something to be said for voting for someone who will just do the job well. For all Bill Clinton's foibles, he certainly did a better job of running the country than our current president has. I think we shouldn't forget doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, and as I think Martin Luther said, (roughly) it's better to be under the rule of a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.
This is the first time I have responed to your posts. As a minister, I have the same thought processes. I keep my private life separated from my clerical life in that I must live in two kingdoms and both require my utmost attention.
Just because we, professional clergy, have political views does not mean that we cannot comment on them. We must be careful to not cross from sacred into the vulgar or from the vulgar into the sacred.
That is the greatest thing a minister can do for those sheep he shepherds, preach the sacred and teach how to live in the vulgar. Keep the vulgar from the pulpit and both kingdoms are happy.
In His Grace,
Jimmie W. Kersh
Legal texts from the period make it clear that the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the people could rebel against the government when it became tyrannical. It was largely put in place originally because Britain disarmed its population using Poaching laws. rendering them powerless against the oppression of the government.
The American Revolution was completely anti-Christian. The only difference between us and the French, Bolshevik, and Maoist revolutions that we inspired is that we didn't conquer England and get to execute the House of Lords.
Most of the Christians at the time of the revolution were brutally persecuted and fled to Canada, because they refused to rebel against God's appointed authority.
Our framers were almost universally open about hating Christ. (BTW, I am American, hb). I'm not saying that our consitution wasn't the stepchild of a Calvinist worldview. That is what makes it such a functional system. But it is ridiculous to pretend that the revolution wasn't a fundamentally Anti-Christian endeavor.
No one is advocating electing a fool.
It's also premature to judge the total effect of Bush's presidency on the modern Holocaust against the unborn.
Certainly there must be some impact, since he put in place prohibitions against murdering the baby during the second and third trimesters with federal tax dollars. He's consistently worked to defund the systematic murder of the unborn, especially with international aid money.
Since good records aren't kept in the third world, its uncertain how many murders have been prevented out the 50+ million global murders of babies occur. But certainly, even one is an improvement.
While this global holocaust continues, no other issue is particularly relevant to me. I would not care if we had record high unemployment instead of record low unemployment, if it meant less babies were murdered.
We can only hope that the supreme court appointees may someday rule in ways that save more babies.
Certainly, when the guard changes next year we can expect a massive increase in the global number of filicides each year:
Immediate global tax funding of murder in every country that receives U.S. aid...
Immediate tax-dollar funding of domestic baby murder and programs that promote baby murder and the further dehumanization of the unborn...
Court appointees who pledge to juro-legislate the inalienable right to murder your own child...
Appointees who rule that the unborn are not human, and not alive for the purposes of criminal prosecution...
Massive funding for experimental research that involves the murder of human beings...
Unlike the Cromwellian Revolution where the king was executed.
However, in this case it was more about which official government entity was appointed by God to rule? Was parliament sanctioned by God to prohibit a bad monarch from misrule?
Clearly, no one would consider it a revolt against the government if the president were impeached.
It is hardly a clear case, such as a private citizen revolting against the governemnt.
Is the present government sanctioned by God to rule?
Anon, Of Course.
While the leadership of nearly every government comes about by immoral and illegitimate means, we are still commanded to submit to that government.
Ceasar established his power by marching soldiers into the senate house, yet Christ commands us to submit, and that is perhaps both the most ruthless and illegitimate example of government in all of history.
I'm not saying there is no gray area. In the Civil War, was it morally wrong for state governments to choose to leave the union? Probably not. Between two masters, who was rightfully appointed by God? Most seemed to feel that their duty was to the states and that the federal authority was second. Since the civil war, I think most would consider the federal government the higher of the God-appointed authorities.