There is a minority of voices under the umbrella of Evangelicalism that seems to view Evangelicalism much the way that Anarchist Libertarians view government. If you start a question with "should Evangelicals," you don't have to finish the question to know that their answer will be "no." Now if you said "will Evangelicals" or "did Evangelicals" do a certain thing, you could answer that question by taking a poll, just as you could with a demographic like women or blue-collar workers (though there could be more disagreement over the working definition of "Evangelical" than with the other examples). As for treating Evangelicals as a tribe with a meaningful identity and community outside of ecclesiastical connection, however, these people would be deeply skeptical of such a suggestion.
Though hardliners on this issue of association may be rare, their concerns are less so. Even some celebrity pastors and influencers who do not shy away from the spotlight stress the importance of church community and affiliation. They warn about the dangers of prioritizing alternative communities of belief and belonging. Any effort to influence Evangelicals directly through popular appeals or parachurch organizations even on major issues is likely to get some pushback, and rightly so.
When Church Support is not Enough
When it comes to social and political issues, however, there are some important questions that churches will not or should not take positions on. There are some cooperative efforts that churches should not endorse or forbid. For example, it would generally be inappropriate for a church to endorse or oppose a political candidate. However, it would also generally be inappropriate for a church to forbid its members to endorse or oppose a particular candidate. There are strong reasons for individual Christians to work together on political campaigns, yet there are reasons at least as strong for churches to not get formally involved. It is difficult, then, to justify discouraging Christians from using movements and institutions outside of church control for social and political causes.
Should a church get involved, however, if a candidate commits a major transgression? What if, for example, a candidate incites political violence? What if he tries to use the force of government to retaliate against political opponents? What if he makes racist statements? What if he wages unjust war against another nation? What if he coerces people to affirm or support sexual perversion? What if he doubles down on government support for the slaughter of unborn children? What if he intends to use taxpayer money to fund that evil? Though ecclesiastical opposition to such a candidate and his voters might seem like an obvious choice, it becomes less obvious when there are no clearly superior alternatives. If there are no good options, how bad is too bad?
It is at such times that individuals and voluntary associations (more voluntary than a church) must be free to make arguments and take positions. If they are not, people's ability to find the best arguments and the best positions is greatly reduced.
Weighing the Options
We are in a presidential election in which both main candidates have major moral and ethical problems in policy and administration. Arguments for either candidate will be difficult (anyone who doesn't think so needs to sit down and listen for a while), but an argument to vote for neither carries with it some of the same costs as pacifism or opposition to the death penalty or opposition to all political activity (Christians who know church history will understand the importance of these analogies). Finding the best arguments for one candidate and against his opponent is important, even if you end up not voting or voting third party.
There are two things that the thoughtful advocate for a candidate must do. First, he must identify the best arguments on each side. Second, he must demonstrate as clearly as possible that the arguments for his candidate are superior to the arguments for the opponent. When it comes to debating actual people, of course the thoughtful person will have to debate those who support the other candidate. However, he will also have to spend some time trying to persuade his own candidate's supporters to stop using bad arguments and start using better ones. He will have to do this with confidence in his own opinions but with the humility to admit that he himself could be mistaken.
I want to try to model this by distinguishing between bad and good arguments on abortion for voting for Biden, whom I have already endorsed. If I do a good job, I hope it will inspire others to apply the same reasoning to other issues and other candidates. We may not reach agreement in this election or the next, but we can at least aspire to better debate and better discussion.
I will use a single source as my jumping-off point, the Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden consensus statement that was issued October 1st. I will try to identify arguments allowed for under its framework and evaluate their strength.
Good and Bad Reasoning from the Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden Statement
"AS PRO-LIFE EVANGELICALS, WE DISAGREE WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM ON THE ISSUE OF ABORTION. BUT WE BELIEVE A BIBLICALLY SHAPED COMMITMENT TO THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE COMPELS US TO A CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE THAT AFFIRMS THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE FROM BEGINNING TO END."
Bad arguments that would fit this statement:
Opposition to abortion on demand is reason enough for solidarity on the abortion issue.
The primary test of a policy that affirms the biblical sanctity of life is that it minimize the loss of human life.
Agreement with Biden or another Democrat on life issues other than abortion is reason enough to overcome the abortion objection to voting for him.
The strategic value of a vote for a candidate in spite of his or her support for abortion is the same regardless of the office the candidate is seeking.
Examples: Legal exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother are the most common.
The statement notes that Democrats want to help women financially with supporting an additional child, which would potentially alleviate the primary incentive women cite for having an abortion.
Quality of life issues, racism, disease prevention and treatment, possibly political violence or unjust war.
Transferring the arguments for Biden to Democratic legislators who would help him carry out his agenda or pressure him to take it further.
Explanation: Except for the life of the mother example, none of these reflect concerns proportionate to the dignity of innocent preborn life. Rape and incest exceptions create an additional victim of the original crime: the unborn baby. The life of the mother is trickier, as it involves philosophical questions of intent and other issues (is the baby's death the inevitable result of a legitimate medical procedure, or should the attendant have tried to save both lives?) Even intelligent, well-meaning people may not understand or agree with each other on this last exception.
Taking innocent human life, such as the life of an infant in the womb, is a moral evil. It is always wrong, unlike policy disagreement over the most just and effective way to preserve human life.
Though abortion is only one issue, it is a weighty enough issue to serve as a litmus test to some degree.
Policy strategy and constitutional concerns necessitate taking separation of powers and checks and balances into consideration.
Better arguments:
Political cooperation with people who disagree with abortion on demand, though they may make excuses for abortion in some cases, can be a legitimate engine for incremental reform if done judiciously.
Giving people policy incentives to preserve life rather than take it is a good thing in itself, and it makes penalties for murder more effective.
Compassion for the poor is not only prudent, but also a moral duty.
Superior positions on life issues other than abortion can combine with strategic calculations on abortion to build an argument that an explicitly pro-abortion candidate would better use the power of the sword.
Different offices:
A united government is not always good.
A divided government is not always bad.
A strategic split vote can send a message, even if it is not completely successful in electing each preferred candidate.
It is possible for an entire ticket for federal office to be worse than the alternative, even if the alternative is more explicitly pro-abortion. (Legislators could be as bad as or worse than their party's presidential candidate, or vice versa.)
"As the National Association of Evangelicals’ official public policy document (FOR THE HEALTH OF THE NATION) insists, “Faithful evangelical civic engagement and witness must champion a biblically balanced agenda.“ Therefore we oppose “one issue” political thinking because it lacks biblical balance."
Bad arguments:
One issue voters incorrectly think that a position on one issue is enough to earn a vote (straw man argument).
No issue is ever weighty enough by itself to disqualify a candidate from consideration.
Explanation: The fact that some parts of God's law are weightier than others implies that a single issue could be enough to disqualify a candidate from consideration, though not to earn a vote.
Better arguments:
Moral issues, whether broad ones such as life or narrower ones such as murder or abortion specifically, have complex policy implications. A simple litmus test is not likely to be appropriate in every situation.
Some candidates have problems of character and administration that make evaluating them on policy difficult. The baggage that a candidate brings can make that candidate's association with a preferred policy not only questionable, but actually counter-productive.
"For these reasons, we believe that on balance, Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump. Therefore, even as we continue to urge different policies on abortion, we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president."
Bad arguments:
All Pro-Life or Evangelical voters must agree on the same candidate or party.
All Pro-Life or Evangelical voters must agree on which policies best promote and protect human life.
The quantity of life issues in policy should be weighed without considering the differences in their kind.
Explanation: Though the best policy and non-policy arguments for one candidate over another may be clear for some, they will likely not be clear for all or even most. Even good and intelligent people can be wrong.
Better arguments:
Some elections demand that voters weigh more strategic and moral arguments than in other elections.
Consensus statements can point to the best arguments for a position whether or not they include them explicitly.
The Biden/Harris goal of codifying Roe vs Wade, while misguided, achieves a long-term goal of opposition to Roe: the goal of returning abortion policy to the legislature, where it belongs. Any way you look at it, whether in terms of Congressional legislation or constitutional amendment, it corrects the procedural mistake of Roe vs Wade that even supporters like Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledge.
Bonus meta-policy arguments:
Biden may be more likely to effectively pursue resolution of abortion issues through legislation than Trump, and legislation is both more appropriate and more permanent than executive order for settling political controversies.
Biden may be more likely than Trump to contribute to an environment that prioritizes principled cooperation and substance in policy decisions and less likely to create distractions and petty fights.
Biden may be less likely to bring beliefs and practices that perpetuate separation of powers and checks and balances into question than Trump.
Biden may be more likely to show confidence in his subordinates and to use his powers as Executive head and Commander-in-Chief effectively.
Wrapping it Up
This concludes my summary of the best arguments for voting for Biden that I am aware of. What do you think? Do you disagree with my criticism of some arguments? Do you think my statement of those positions is fair?
How about my own arguments for Biden: do you think that you can improve on my anti-abortion and pro-life arguments? Do you disagree on Biden being the best choice or even a legitimate option? What do you think are the best arguments for candidates other than Biden? What are the best arguments for voting Democratic or Republican for Congress?
Let me know what you think in the comments. Be sure to like and share on Facebook and Twitter, and check out my page!
No comments:
Post a Comment