Wood Street Girl here. We saw the film 'Bobby' last night, a fictional account of the assasination of Robert Kennedy at the Ambassador Hotel in 1968. It was great, fantastic ensemble cast and very informative of the hot topics in the US back then in the dark days of the Vietnam conflict. The stellar ensemble cast was a wee bit too much at times (almost every scene had a Hollywood veteran) but really it was great. Obviously it was an excellent bit of propaganda for the Democrat party, which will doubtless get all those right of centre wound up, but it really challenged me on my views of the political scene in the US and more generally.
At present the Republicans market themselves as the no-brainer vote for Christians - anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti civil unions, pro Christian stuff generally etc. And the Democrats are, largely, pro this stuff . Now the Democrats on the other hand are pro more 'social programmes' covering employment/unemployment, health and the environment which is total anathema to the Republicans who belive a vote for bigger government is akin to voting for the Devil. However I find the view that a vote for the Republicans is a vote for God is abhorrent. Having spoken to some hard core Republicans I find their 'take care of your own' attitude is compassionless and unreflective of the selflessness of Christ. Here we get into lots of issues about the interpretation of Christianity in a very individualistic society, which is better left to the theologians. But I hope you see what I'm getting at.
Having studied economics I have to agree however, government intervention should be limited, broadly, to the areas where the market fails - property rights, environment issues and other negative externalities. Personally I am in favour of the state providing universal education for lots of obvious and not so obvious reasons. Universal health care?, Well I really think it could be provided more satisfactorily if those who work were to pay a stand alone health care premium of sorts and I would definitely overhaul the unemployment benefit system to make it more condusive to getting people back to work. The 'benefit mentality' of Scotland makes this a particular bug bear (also being battered with a hard core work ethic by my parents probably has contributed also). But more recently I was convicted while reading 1 and 2 Thessalonians - that we as Christians shouldn't be a burden and should work hard to support ourselves. What do others in the blogosphere think? Feel free to wade in and tell me I'm wrong, I'm just putting down my initial thoughts on the matter.
Having said all that I am a gut Democrat (social justice, overseas development, generally more compasionate), although I simply could never vote for them as they are pro-abortion etc. Although I am not eligible to vote in an American election (which makes this a bit of a hypothetical argument) this really bothers me: as Christians are we stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to politics? Are we happy to compromise our spiritual values in some way when we vote? Should we forego our democratic right to vote? I always vote (except once! aargh I didn't register in enough time in Norwich!), and I see it very much as voting for the democratic process as nailing my political colours to the mast. Men and women also died so I could vote and my vote is very much in appreciation of their sacrifice.
In short I am confused and interested in your views. Comment away!
Interesting fact about me: the reccommended purchases that Amazon suggest based on my wish list (seriously, if you don't have one, you should) tells me that I should get Richard Dawkins 'God Delusion'. Is there a subversive element to Amazon who having seen that I have Andy Hunter and Dave Crowder CDs on my list, and think I need re-educated? This surveillance society we're in may be tipping over the edge!
4 comments:
Woah, big range of topics there...
I wonder whether the US system (and the UK's, to a lesser extent) is actually democratic? In that it's basically a two-party state, and incredibly hard for any other party to get on the ballot paper, at least in the presidential election. (This is as far as I am aware. I am not now, and never have been, an expert on the US political system. Or on many other topics that I sound off about!) It seems undemocratic under any sort of party system, that it should be incredibly hard to get an additional party set up and eligible to be voted for.
Although, the UK system has its problems too. My main political views are that no one party or person should be in power for too long (child of the 80s - Maggie and all that) and that consensus politics might actually be a good thing. The Scottish Parliament, even with all its various problems and the fact that they went for a power-sharing coalition, I think has actually demonstrated some of that - and a somewhat more proportionate voting system has allowed more voices to be heard (socialists (!), older people, greens etc). Look at Wales - isn't there a minority administration there? Presumably some of those decisions are done by multiparty consensus. But Westminster still has an unfair electoral system - more unfair under lower turnouts, which are caused by voter apathy, partly because of a perception that the voting is unfair... and so the system goes on.
Of course, all this diatribe in favour of smaller parties could be a reflection of (somewhat) post-modern culture, where 'big-picture' ideas (even if a choice of two) have been ditched and everyone can be 'right' about their political views.
The whole 'who should a Christian vote for', and indeed should we vote for 'Christian' Parties (there are a couple in the UK I believe) is a hard one. Depends which aspects you consider most important, central to the gospel/the kingdom and whether you think politics is the way to achieve it - e.g. if you put social justice above abortion... etc but it all gets a bit grey and morally messy...
On the right to vote - it is a right, not an obligation. [You could argue that it should be made an obligation - might improve turnout?!] Personally I always vote too, but would defend anyone's decision not to vote, as surely the people who fought/died did so to give others the right to choose whether to vote or not. You could argue that one back and say that rights that are not exercised may be lost... Perhaps the thing to do is go to the polling station, then spoil your paper (e.g. write 'none of the above' or similar!)?
I sometimes vote tactically (to try and not elect someone) although that usually hasn't worked. Oddly, I have often found myself drawn to the LibDems (out of the main 3 in the UK) but they also stand for things I don't agree with.
One thing's for sure - the kingdom can't (simply) be legislated into existence, it has to come about from the ground up - from us. Yes we want to improve the conditions set by the government but we can't abdicate responsibility for our own little parts of being Christ to our neighbours - something I've avoided too often.
Sorry for the long ramble/rant - hope it's interesting/helpful.
Interesting question.....
I'm also a "gut Democrat" because (among various gripes) I can't abide what I see as the hypocrisy of Republican "pro-life" which protects one part of life (and rightly so), but conveniently forgets to be pro-life about the poor in their in their own country and worldwide.
I think the debate in the US becomes over-simplified because there are only 2 choices. Admittedly it's not much more than 2 in the UK, although things are opening up a bit in the Scottish Parliament, thanks to the proportional representation idea.
Have you read Jim Wallis "God's Politics"? I haven't, but I understand it's about this middle ground idea. Might be worth a read.
However, the real question for gut Democrats this week is ...... Clinton or Obama???? What do you think?
Wow.......Amazon recommended the God Delusion to me as well..........IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!
(call Jack Bauer)
Hey, I think this job may be too big even for Jack...I'll have to call Tony too!
Post a Comment