Why Christians Shouldn’t be Undecided Voters
It's late October in an election year. The leaves in the nation's capital are turning, and everyone who thought they loved politics realizes just how much they truly hate politics.
The last few days I've despaired that maybe there is no November 7th. The election may never end. I've joined the chorus of people begging, "Can't we just vote already?!" After all, the vote of everyone who knows anything about politics has already been won. We have had a year and a half to learn the differences between the candidates—actually, we have had more than five years, since both of them were candidates the last time around. For clear-minded voters, the differences could not be clearer!
My personal view is that it might be wise for those who are not prepared to vote today to reconsider voting at all—since they obviously have abdicated their responsibly as an educated voter. I'm with Jonah Goldberg in thinking undecided voters in late October are an embarrassment to the democratic process, not to be lauded on all major national news networks as they currently are. Of course, the Constitution assures the right to vote for all Americans—decided in late October or not.
Why do undecided voters irritate me so? The short answer is that it's the height of irresponsibility to be so uneducated about the most important decision we make collectively as a nation. But there is a deeper principle to which I have only recently been able to put words. I do so with the help of Values & Capitalism friend, Matthew Lee Anderson of Mere Orthodoxy, who wrote in his book "Earthen Vessels:"
The goodness of the physical body is inextricable from the goodness of the world in which our bodies dwell. The creation is, in John Calvin's phrase, the 'theater of God’s glory.' And when the final curtain closes on the play, we shall look back upon it and say with the one who formed the world that it is indeed 'very good.'
Similarly, our friends over at the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics remind us that:
Christians cannot simply rest satisfied with individual conversions or separated enclaves when they discern the central plot-line of the Bible... In short, the purpose of redemption is not to help individuals escape the world. It is about the coming of God's kingdom to renew it.
Some of you may be saying, "Where did this Gnosticism debate come from?" Let me explain. I truly believe that part of our Christian obligation to reweave shalom in our world is to be involved in our political process, working through and struggling with these weighty issues alongside our fellow citizens. After all, none of our vocations are untouched by the political consequences.
A college friend of mine always argued with me that since she was called to be a long-term missionary in a Third World country, politics in the United States didn't matter to her. I pleaded with her that her calling made politics more important, not less. The relationship between our countries would affect her ability to travel; the strength of the dollar would affect her ministry in that country; and the economy here in the United States would affect the ability of those contributing to her ministry to support her. None of us in our vocations, even in a Third World country, are exempt from the political consequences of our elections. Therefore all of us, as a part of our calling, should be involved in the political process of our elections.
My argument should not be presumed to say that the political process is a means of salvation. We will not heal all of what ails our society through politics. But as Christians, we should understand the political process as a key element of our ministries and our vocations.
Christians should be among the most educated voters; we should not be undecided focus group members in late October.
4 people are talking about this
You seem to be equating uneducated voters with undecided voters. Perhaps there are voters who are weighing everything the candidates say or do to try to gain a better understanding of their policies, and to choose the candidate who they feel will be better for the country?
If everyone was decided two months before the election, what is the purpose of having the election two months later? Wouldn't it just be more efficient to move the election up two months, at the point of uniform decision? But then, people would still be undecided until the day of the election, thereby aggravating you again.
My point is, the election is set for a fixed date. For someone who is advocating for educated voters, you seem to be writing off some portion (the last month or so) of the inputs that should make you an educated voter. Wouldn't the most educated voter make a decision based on every bit of knowledge possible, up until the day of the election? To make up your mind before you need to is ignorant. That's not to say they shouldn't have an opinion today based on the facts, and an opinion tomorrow based on the facts. But that opinion doesn't have to be firm until election day.
I am equating undecided voters with uneducated voters - not unintelligent voters, just uneducated. I have never met an undecided voter in person, or seen one interviewed on television, who couldn't have made up their mind had they applied themselves more to studying the candidates and their positions. If a person insists that they haven't had the time to do so, then I would respectfully ask them to not vote since voting should be taken very seriously and be given the appropriate time and research.
Your argument that someone may be educated but undecided so close to the election might be true in a primary where there are minuscule differences among candidates. But when the philosophical chasm is so wide between candidates, there is no informed person who would be oscillating between them. If someone finds themselves doing so, they should commit themselves to more research. And my thesis is that a Christian should be committed to wrestling with these philosophical questions all the time - not just in October of an election year - as a participant in their vocation and should already be educated enough about the candidates to be in a prepared position to vote.
What do you make of Bryan Caplan's discussion in "The Myth of the Rational Voter"? Most undecided voters are rationally ignorant about whom they vote for. Their own lives will change so little based upon whom wins the election. Their individual vote has a miniscule impact on who wins the election. A rational voter would only devote the amount of resources marginally equal to the expected benefit from their preferred candidate's probability of winning *due to their vote*.
I am among the most well informed of potential voters, but I do not vote. Of course, if no one else voted, I would.
#BasicEconomics #GordonTullock
I almost didn't like this page, and almost blocked it from advertising on my FB homepage, since "Faith" is anti-logic, anti-reason, and irrational, and as such is the opposite of capitalism's rational self-interest. I'm glad I didn't block it though. It's better to engage the enemy, the faithful who have discredited capitalism as "socially conservative" (that is, socially intolerant of the diversity of market choice).
As for the unreason advocated by this blog post, I couldn't possibly have responded better than the two people who destroyed the blogger's logic with their first two posts, the only responses. Jacqueline's logic lies in smoking ruins, mission accomplished, gentlemen! (JF's logic in defense of careful decision-making is perfect, and I would add to it that as the election date approaches, there is a greater and greater information flow, and incentive to debate that recursively improves information flow, strengthening JF's point about increasing educational opportunity in the month or so prior to the election. This is partly due to present context USA mass psychology, but it is true nonetheless.)
And, I agree with virtually everything Bryan Caplan writes, and love his arguments in "Myth of the Rational Voter." Props to the enlightened viewpoints on the unenlightened blog concept.
Join the Discussion