one man's dilemma

what follows is an open letter to a new friend, a christian who can't seem to figure out what in the world's wrong w/ me in that i continue to lean toward voting for kerry/edwards. the friend, we'll call him "monty," graciously gave me permission to post this so you guys would have an equal opportunity to take shots @ my reasoning or otherwise urge a correction of my position. in fact, monty's already written me back (i emailed this to him last night) and given me much to think about. i'll warn you -- this post is pretty long, and it involves politics, two factors which don't serve it well as readership goes. nevertheless, w/o further ado, i give you a description of this man's dilemma:

dear monty -- thanks for the forward (of "r.i.p. free speech" by paul weyrich of cybercast news service), and thanks for checking out my scribblings on my weblog, too. i appreciate what mr. weyrich has to say in his article, but it's not quite enough for me to oppose kerry and edwards in this election, especially with bush and cheney on the other side. however, i don't know whether my posts adequately express my ambivalence w/ government (both national and ecclesiastical, as i am an episcopalian) right now. i confess i voted for gore in 2000, primarily b/c i thought he was more qualified to be president. to tell the truth, i still think he's more qualified, if only b/c he's far more intelligent than president bush, and i'm afraid the latter has allowed himself to get into a situation militarily from which it has now become almost impossible to extricate himself or the country. that being said, i pray for the president @ least weekly, usually more often, and i get fairly well pissed when some of my friends (trial lawyers, all) "bush bash" just b/c they don't like the guy. i'm an attorney working for the government (not a very important employee, i assure you), and most of the people w/ whom i come into contact (the staffs of mississippi's senators notwithstanding) are rabidly anti-bush. i, however, am not. and yet i still intend, @ this writing, to vote for the challenger.

i'm sorry, but you probably shouldn't expect a convincing defense of my decision, even if you're open to the arguments. this decision is one about which my wife and i are praying fervently; it's also one that is giving me ulcers. in short, the arguments on behalf of the democratic nominee are several. first, i never have supported the use of military force in iraq, and to date no one has been able to convince me that i was wrong. if the government had publicly stated that it intended to act solely to remove a despotic ruler; if the government had publicly stated that access to petroleum is of vital national importance (it is, btw), and military intervention was in furtherance of that interest; if the government had touted iraq's value as a buffer of sorts b/tw iran and israel; if there had been credible evidence linking iraq and 9/11; if, if, if . . . but that's not what they said. indeed, it's my understanding that the neo-cons hammered out the doctrine of preemption well in advance of the election or september 2001. my friend, dennis (who desperately needs a new post on his weblog), and i discussed this topic for hours a couple weeks ago, and it appears that there's no convincing him that war was wrong, just as i don't think there's any convincing me it was right. moreover, i've never heard a compelling argument for cutting taxes, running deficits, oligarchy by and for the wealthier americans, smaller but not smarter government, et cetera. dude, i almost can't think of a single reason to vote for these republicans over these democrats.

except one.

i'm so conflicted about the "culture of death" (to purloin a papal turn of phrase), and what my vote for the dems does to further that culture, that i'm almost ready to stay @ home in november. no kidding. maybe i'll write in my wife or margie or dennis (or you, monty, if you're up for it). everything inside me revolts against a policy of abortion on demand, although i argued for such a policy throughout law school. so, therein lies the rub. do i vote for the people that i legitimately think are smarter, far more caring, less prone toward militaristic nationalism, less cabalistic, more open to public debate, generally supportive of reasonable gun control, civil liberties and health insurance for every american, and opposed to advocating any religion or capital punishment? or do i vote for the people who, in theory @ least, oppose abortion on demand? (even if we had a conservative republican executive, congress and majority on the supreme court, i'm not convinced we could ever roll back what roe v. wade and the last 30 years have done to our national mindset, anyway)

finally, i can only say a little bit about mr. weyrich's primary argument, which i understand to be that the liberals will marginalize the religious right and make orthodox teaching about homosexuality punishable. as a lawyer, i don't believe that the existing supreme court jurisprudence would allow such a development; i really don't. moreover, as a priest-in-training, i don't think i have the right to demand that my views be embraced by the majority (or the minority), nor should it matter whether what i preach -- centrally the christian gospel -- is legal or not. my friend tom mentioned a few months back, perhaps offhandedly, that "it is entirely conceivable that w/in a generation, orthodox christians will be the enemies of the american progressive liberal democracy." he even cited some bigwig author or intellectual to support the premise. but to me -- it doesn't matter. the gospel should marginalize us, yet we should preach it. if we're hated by the world or the united states majority, well, the 1st century world hated christ first. if my allegiance to the lord demands conduct that the democracy deems criminal, then i should conduct myself as a christian and damn the consequences. maybe i'm naive; maybe i'm a little too "bleeding-heart"; maybe i don't think the religious right should dictate governmental policy to a nation that is effectively post-christian and disagrees w/ most of the religious right's doctrine; maybe i don't even think there should be a religious right -- but i can't vote republican just to protect my pocketbook. that's not to say i won't vote for bush/cheney or even abstain in november, but i'll lie awake tonight praying that god will give me wisdom and direct our leaders, republican or democrat, to make decisions that are more complex than anyone of my limited intellect could hope to solve.

but that's just me.

thanks again for reading, and i hope i haven't said anything personally offensive. i learned quite a bit about myself in typing the last few paragraphs, and i pray for you as you read them (if you read them!).

christ's peace, brother --

~ sam