Policy Evaluation
Is it possible to cut through the fog?
What makes the choice of how to cast a ballot difficult is the “mess.” By “mess” I mean the very nature of politics in a fallen world with fallen people running for office to pursue ambitions and agendas tainted by sin.
If only it was that simple
I have yet to find that there are all “pro’s” and no “con’s” in any decision. Those who wish to make it black and white are imposing an ideology on others. Granted some issues may be given far greater weight than others (is their policy on abortion a litmus test?), but remember: Christ-followers have not agreed even on this. When middle class white Americans think it wicked to vote for any Democrat, they are denouncing many of their brothers and sisters in the black or Latino communities.
Is it OK to vote against a candidate?
Is it right to evaluate the morality and character of a candidate and decide to vote to keep them out of office? I can certainly think of times in history when that was a solid option. But in our day, when who we vote for is considered by some to be a vote for or against the future of democracy, it is hard to turn down the noise enough to think clearly.
The Confusion of Pandering
As mentioned previously, politicians use morals and grievances to gain enough votes to hold office so that they can use power and money to accomplish their agenda. What they emphasize is what their polling tells them is important to voters. They may want to stand for or against something, but the handlers tell them whether that issues will win or lose votes. How they state their position is also ruled by its power to gain votes.
In other words, when I read a platform I am reading propaganda. They leave out so many things I wish they would say, and say so many things so vaguely — appealing to emotion not clear definition. Orwell would say our current political conversation is loaded with double speak.
What policies should I look for?
Like I said before, it is a mess. But I must think clearly. And then weigh the character and platforms and policies in light of clarity, as best I can.
I want to offer some suggested categories and questions. Most of these are drawn from the American Solidarity Party, whose platform more and more looks like a fairy tale. But they are principled people who want to see an alternative to the duopoly. I am not endorsing them. I am simply giving them as an example of the clarity of a fresh perspective. They have sought to think as Christians about politics.
How does this candidate or party view human life, from conception to the grave? How will they show honor to people of all races, both sexes, diverse politics and religions? How will they deal with criminal justice when human dignity and life is assaulted? Will there be policies that break through social barriers experienced by certain groups of people in our society? This question is very hard to address in a society that is appropriately named a culture of death, contempt, and violence. The tendency of politicians to demonize their opponents or classes of society is contrary to this value.
We live in a culture of death — abortion to the end of term, assisted suicide, sexual mutilation by surgery, and euthanasia are becoming acceptable.
Does this candidate and platform purposefully and intentionally encourage lifetime marriage, support for people to make their marriages better, policies which seek to incentivize child bearing and child rearing with both parents present. Do they discourage out of wedlock sex and childbearing (not by promoting abortion!)?
Our current political system is destroying the ordinary family, and with it, destroying the foundation of society. My reading tells me that sex outside of marriage, children born to single parent Moms, and the breakdown of marriage and family — and the policies which encourage this and protect it — is at the core of the welfare state and the rise of poverty among women.
Work, Community and Social Fabric
The “puritan work ethic” has been misunderstood. Out of the Reformation came the notion that not only should personal work and initiative be encouraged, but work should always serve the community. Work is good. Each person should labor to provide their own needs. But they should also labor to serve their communities.
Will there be policies which reward and incentivize work and success (rather than demonizing the millionaires) and at the same time incentivize personal actions to serve the nearby community? This could be applied to individuals and businesses.
We live in a society where government is replacing personal responsibility and community service and engagement.Will there be policies that encourage the building of a strong social fabric through community benevolence, and secured protections to the most vulnerable and weak?
Stewardship
Will this party encourage wise stewardship of natural resources, incentivize individual and corporate efforts to minimize environmental impacts of industry? As someone who grew up in Pittsburgh, I can tell you that workers in that since used to take a clean shirt to work so they could change into it mid-day. That was due to the pollution from the steel industry. But private citizens joined with politicians to clean the air and create what is well named, The Golden Triangle.
We live in a time of political apocalyptic and suppression of debate about the best policies to protect the ecosystem without destroying people’s lives here and around the world. Can the government encourage stewardship without demonizing disagreement?
And others
Even though I appreciate the ASP, I do not agree with them entirely I would also add a few beyond the ASP platform. What is their platform on national defense? on the role of the USA in the world? Presidents have immense influence over foreign policy.
Am I kidding?
As I typed these, I was asking myself if I am living in a dream world. You may be wondering the same.
I am not living in a dream world, but I am convinced that clarity of perspective of what should be done by government, and what policies would improve society, is necessary. I cannot evaluate the present corruption without clarity. I cannot be part of renewing the civic fabric of our nation without an independent agenda. The answer to doublespeak is clarity of principle.
How will I use these?
Very simply, I will score the platforms of the candidates against these. I know that I am not going to get a 100% score on any of them — but I can discern if they get any points. Then I can compare, pros and cons on each candidate.
I do not want to be a visceral vote — making my choice based on anger or fear or being manipulated. I want to be principled.