Why I am usually a 3rd party voter
As we approach yet another dumpster-fire of an election, one of my best friends of over 20 years asked me the following question. I thought it would make for an interesting discussion that others might like to read, so I am presenting it here on my personal blog for anyone who might care to read it. If you follow me on Facebook you know that I use my page primarily to encourage rigorous, yet thoughtful and respectful discussion of often-controversial issues. I think this is a dying art in our culture and I am trying to use my little corner of the social media landscape to keep it alive as much as I’m able. That is a part of my ministry calling and I take it seriously.
In other words, I don’t like arguing merely for the sake of arguing or being a contrarian. I believe there is a vital need for it as we become a more fragmented, vocal, and visibly tribal society.
Here is my friend Olatunde’s question:
Hey man. I’m just going to ask you point blank: who are you voting for and why? I typically don’t ask who people vote for, nor do I share who I’m voting for (or if I’m voting at all.) I ask because I respect your political knowledge and perspective as Spirit-led and balanced. Right now, I’m so ignorant about third parties in general and specific candidates that I just need someone who already knows both to share this knowledge.
Here is my response at length:
So to answer your question, I will be voting Libertarian again this year. Jo Jorgensen is the candidate and while I don’t totally agree with her positions, I find that I can in good confidence say that I would be comfortable with her as President. I cannot say the same about either Trump or Biden—as they are two sides of the same coin, in my opinion.
I think it was around the 2nd term of George W Bush that I started voting Libertarian. I had grown up a Republican because they were supposed to be the pro-life party and because they seemed to be where most evangelicals fit in, in terms of things like marriage, family values, defending Christian freedoms, etc. I voted for Bob Dole my first election after turning 18 because Bill Clinton was, in my mind, a slimeball adulterer and was very pro-choice. Then I voted for Bush over Gore because he seemed like a more Christian candidate and was pro-life. After 9/11 I felt he showed a lot of leadership and galvanized the country really well…
…and then we invaded Iraq on totally bogus pretenses.
At first I supported the war because I felt like Saddam had thumbed his nose at the world and was stockpiling WMDs—even Colin Powell, who I had much respect for, said so. But the more that debacle and the so-called “War on Terror” went on, the more I started to realize how we had been lied to and the war had been sold to the country based on lie after lie.
At this point I started thinking more about personal liberties and the role of government. Things like mass surveillance, the Patriot Act, and “preemptive” bombings of other countries stuck out to me. Then as I learned more about political Zionism and America’s one-sided support for Israel over Palestinians as something of a proxy nation–or 51st state, if you will–in the Middle East and how neoconservatives had for decades played up to Dispensational ”End Times” scenarios and anti-Arab biases among American Christians in order to maintain their military presence around the world, I could no longer support Republicans who would not speak out against such things.
This is when I first heard of Ron Paul and started listening to him and reading things he’s written (his book “Liberty Defined” was a pivotal work in my political development). He was technically a Republican, but ideologically a Libertarian. He was an OB/GYN who had delivered thousands of babies, and thus was staunchly pro-life; but he was also a vocal critic of neoconservativism and international military interventionism by America all over the world. Even when I didn’t quite agree with a position he took, I found his arguments to be rational, thoughtful, and often compelling.
More than that, I realized that Democrats were EVERY BIT AS PRO-WAR as Republicans…they just downplayed it in order to masquerade among progressives in Hollywood and entertainment. This was confirmed during Obama’s term, where Bush’s drone wars around the world were not only continued, but escalated! Obama also supported and/or allowed things like the Patriot Act and the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists with no trial or legal rights (i.e. Guantanamo Bay, black site prisons in the Middle East, “enhanced interrogation”—which is euphemism for torture). Obama—and Biden—were every bit as militaristic as Bush had been…they just couched it in progressive sounding language and masked it by pointing fingers at Republican hawks.
I also came to change my views on the war on drugs. Growing up, we all were inundated with “Just Say No” and “D.A.R.E.” So I thought drugs were the enemy. But over time I realized that the “war on drugs” was actually INCREDIBLY destructive—particular to lower income and minority communities. I couldn’t see why tobacco and alcohol were perfectly legal, but other plants like marijuana or mushrooms were illegal. Then learning about the disparity in sentencing between crack (a “black people” drug) and cocaine (a “white people” drug), as well as the ridiculous mandatory minimum sentencing for nonviolent drug-related offenses pushed me firmly into the Libertarian camp on that issue as well.
It’s not that I stopped thinking drugs were bad…it’s that I don’t think they should be criminal. America seemed to have learned nothing from Prohibition and the awful power it gave organized crime during that era. The only difference is that today, instead of being mob bosses in Chicago, it empowers cartels in Central America and fuels the majority of immigration woes (another issue that is inextricably related to the terrible “war on drugs” policies that our nation has adopted—and much of which Biden was responsible for helping put in place, ironically!).
So, during Obama’s time in office, I found myself aligning most closely with Libertarians in terms of politics. And I noticed that Libertarians attracted a WIDE range of people in terms of religious or ideological outlooks. Diehard atheists like Penn Gillette, agnostics like Joe Rogan, Christians like Ron Paul, and many others who TOTALLY disagreed with each other on issues of faith and ethics could all rally around the idea that as long as what you were doing wasn’t hurting anyone else’s life, health, or depriving them of their property in some way, it was not the government’s job to outlaw it unless a STRONG case could be made as to why that was in the common interest.
It seemed to align the closest with the biblical admonition to be “in the world but not of the world” (John 17:14-19) as well as “who are we to judge those outside the church” (1Corinthians 5:9-13) and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matthew 7:12). Rather than using the power of Rome to coerce people into adopting specific principles or ideologies (as I feel both Democrats and Republicans do), I became convinced that the approach that has the best chance of preserving peace in a pluralistic society where people don’t share philosophical or religious common foundational authorities is some form of libertarianism (I use a small “l” rather than a capital “L” to distinguish between the philosophy and the political party that bears that name).
So as of now, the Libertarian party is the one that I most closely align with…as well as the one that poses the best chance to arise as a viable alternative party to Democrats and Republicans.
On the issue of Black Lives Matter and systemic racial injustice, Libertarians and Libertarian-leaning Republicans like Rand Paul and Justin Amash have been raising criticisms and concerns about criminal justice and law enforcement abuses for years; long before George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, or Breonna Taylor in fact. But since they aren’t progressives, their voices largely went ignored by social justice advocates on the Left as well as rightwing Conservatives who “back the blue” no matter what.
On the issue of abortion, Libertarians are divided. But even many of the ones who are pro-choice do not believe Roe v. Wade should be upheld. They believe the Federal government doesn’t have the right to determine that issue and it should be decided by individual states (a position that, while I don’t agree with, I do think is a major advance over Roe v. Wade…enough so that I can comfortably support a pro-choice candidate like Jorgensen because she would support overturning it and opposes federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Other Libertarians oppose abortion on the grounds that it is the ultimate violation of the “Non-aggression Principle”…it deprives another person of their very life, and is thus unethical. So while I don’t love that Libertarians aren’t staunchly pro-life across the board, I feel that unlike Democrats, they allow for and even support those in their midst who are openly pro-life.
Republicans, on the other hand, make a big talk about abortion…but when they are in power they do nothing to defund Planned Parenthood or craft solid pro-life legislation. I believe abortion is the carrot on the stick that Republicans use to keep the White Evangelical vote, just as “social justice” is the carrot on the stick that Democrats dangle in order to keep the Black Church vote. But both parties, in my opinion, do little more than give lip service—while remaining bi-partisanly committed to the military-industrial complex and massive government overspending. This brings me to my final point…
In terms of voting for President, I used to have many issues that I felt a candidate must align with me on before I would vote for them. But now I have come to believe that domestic and social issues are largely determined by Congress, not by the President. The President’s most important job, in my opinion, is to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and to put in place an ethical, responsible, and peaceful foreign policy insofar as the world will let them. In other words, if there is a legitimate need to use military force (i.e. WWI, WWII, genocide, etc.), the President should do so…but only as a last resort, and only until the immediate threat is neutralized.
Instead, every President in my lifetime has been intent on playing a global game of RISK, and America’s foreign policy has come to resemble Caesar much more than the Lamb. Since the President is directly responsible for determining foreign policy, this has become my number one issue upon which my vote is cast.
Closely following it is the notion of character. How a leader represents the country on the world stage. As much as I deplored his actual foreign policy, Obama definitely excelled at this, as did Clinton and Reagan. Bush had the opportunity to do so after 9/11, but totally forfeit all goodwill with the Iraq debacle. Trump…well, I have no need to convince you how much of a narcissistic man-child he is, and that he possesses even less character than Clinton in terms of honor and faithfulness.
So, is voting for Jorgensen a “wasted vote”? That is the biggest critique of 3rd party voting. But I don’t believe it is a valid one. Firstly, if a 3rd party gets even 5% of the vote, that party then qualifies for major party funding in future elections. That alone is enough reason to see that a 3rd party vote for a party that aligns with your values is never truly a “wasted” vote. Secondly, the ONLY way Democrats and Republicans remain in power is by getting people to believe NOT voting for them is a “waste” and “actually a vote for _”. But the reality is that if every person who didn’t support either candidate from the two major parties voted for a 3rd party candidate on the ballot in their state, the political landscape would literally change overnight. Even if that candidate did not win, it would send a strong message to the country that there are other options and Republicans and Democrats could no longer assume that they only need to be “not as bad as the other guy” to win elections.
So for those main reasons, once again, I will be voting Libertarian this year. If Tulsi Gabbard had been the Democrat candidate (or even chosen as Biden’s VP), I would probably have voted Democrat—because Tulsi was the only Dem candidate who opposed the military-industrial complex and interventionist wars, and who has strong character. Harris, on the other hand, knowingly kept innocent people in prison and prosecuted nonviolent drug offenders to the fullest extent, while laughing about the fact that she smoked pot. She is the epitome of corrupt law enforcement and systemic racial injustice—and Tulsi called her out on it in the primaries, to the point where Harris quit the race. When Biden chose her as his VP, that was the biggest slap in the face to America and the grosses example of pandering identity politics I’ve ever seen. Given her prosecuting whistleblowers of Planned Parenthood while receiving donations from them (a clear conflict of interest), her being VP honestly scares me more than anything else about this dumpster fire of an election.
At the end of the day, I think Christians above all should use their vote as a pledge of tangible support for someone they respect and can in good conscience follow as a leader (for all offices, not just President!). I think voting for “the lesser evil” is what brought us to the place we are now, and after last election I’d hoped Democrats would have learned the lesson. Instead, as this first debate made pretty clear, they have doubled-down on choosing terrible candidates and are putting all their eggs in the “people will vote against Trump no matter what” basket. I’m not sure if it will succeed—though given Trump’s Covid diagnosis just weeks before the election, it is anyone’s guess at this point!—but I just know that I cannot tangibly support something I consider to be evil—even if it may be the “lesser evil” in many people’s eyes—when there is an option on the ballot that I could actually would support.
Okay, I hope that clarifies things or at least gives some insight into how I approach all this. Like I said, it was too much to text! But hopefully it helps as you and Lucy prayerfully consider how you will vote. At the end of the day, I can respect people who hold their nose and vote for someone they don’t like because of how much the REALLY don’t like the other person (as SO many of my Trump-voting friends did last time when faced with Hillary as the opposing choice). But I just don’t think that is the best stewardship when it comes to voting.
However, it’s not a foundational theological issue, nor should it ever divide brothers or sisters in Christ.
Romans 14:12So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.
Categories: Blog
MnmYFlTrQVodspf
by wNiYDSAFEcK on Oct 16, 2020 at 4:26 pm