Truth 1: I have a multicultural background and have a heart for racial reconciliation, especially among God’s people.
Truth 2: I desire a society in which every citizen, regardless of ethnic identity, is afforded economic mobility while being treated with dignity and respect.
Truth 3: I was raised by a single mother and desire a society that honors women and gives them economic opportunities.
Truth 4: I was raised poor on welfare and believe that ministry to the poor is a matter of obedience and faithfulness to the commands of Scripture.
Truth 5: I believe that climate change is occurring and that we should be proactive about limiting our negative impact on the environment.
Truth 6: I think good healthcare should be accessible to as many people as possible.
Truth 7: I generally identify as and will be voting Republican this year.
The current domain of political conversation seems to imply that these first six statements—I could have listed more—cannot possibly coexist with the final one. David Kraus’s article concerning single-issue voters in the last issue seems to stand within this line of thinking.
I agree that single-issue voting is problematic, yet many conservative Christian voters that I know, myself included, do not take this single-issue approach to voting. David acknowledges this and states that he is only writing to single-issue voters, and he does so in a compelling way that gives valuable insight to a real problem.
Yet, in the midst of this task, he does more. He paints the Republican Party into a box I refuse to accept. He seems to create a false dichotomy, in which we can either vote pro-life while being aligned with several other moral failures, or vote on the side of a more just platform that has a single moral failing—abortion—or at least substantially fewer noteworthy moral failings than the Republican platform.
This is where my contention lies—he seems to have an idea of the Republican Party that is based on poorly derived stereotypes, which would hardly constitute a problem if it wasn’t a common mistake. I find his treatment of Republicans to be uncharitable and, since I am a registered Republican, I am concerned for the relational implications that are entailed by these stereotypes about voters and politicians alike. I have talked with David and he has stated that his depiction “is not a description of the Republican electorate, but of the party establishment and politicians themselves.” My first response is that I do not think his article adequately expresses this distinction. I also think his assumption makes the error of creating too great of a divide between the Republican voters and their representatives. The establishment and politicians are not completely distinct from their voters, though they may be caricatures of the voters they represent.
David states, "the world in which the Republican party gets their way is a utopia for white, wealthy Americans who prefer ethnic homogeneity in their communities.” I am forced to ask David if he has listened to many Republicans about their desires for society. I don’t know any Republican voters who stand for this. David’s portrayal is a common one: it is the idea that Republicans do not care about the poor, do not care about the climate, do not wish to advance the rights of women, and are in some way racist (implied by his comment about a white utopia of ethnic homogeneity).
The depiction of the Republican Party that seems to be present in David’s article is one that is commonly created through a general attitude of cynicism that accuses Republicans of malice for what appear to me to be benign statements of fact or opinion, or maybe even statements that are wrong but not malicious. The other possible mistake is stretching the actual malicious statements of some to be representative of everyone within the platform. Of course, Republicans do the same to Democrats and should equally repent of such hasty attribution.
This points to a much deeper issue than I am able to address in a short Bagpipe article, but it is worth reflecting on how uncharitable we have become when it comes to interpreting the words, positions, and policies of other fellow image-bearers. It is one thing to think that a person is wrong; it is another to charge them with malice, racism, sexism, and other forms of hatred because they disagree with you. I think this may be part of the issue that is at the heart of my discomfort with the article in question.
The real agenda for most Republicans is not to withhold money from the poor. Furthermore, it is not that they want segregation, or that they want people to be sick and die, or that they want to repeal women’s rights; rather, they want to make sure that America remains a free and just society. It is not that Republicans necessarily do not care about the issues that Democrats frequently address, but that they either do not believe the narratives that the Democratic Party tells us concerning current problems, or, if they do believe those narratives, they do not believe that the Democratic Party has enduring solutions to these issues. This is where I find myself.
With each of the above-mentioned issues, I am either convinced the Democrats have misdiagnosed the problem or that they are naïve in their solutions; more frequently, I think they are guilty of a combination of the two. Since I reject their diagnoses, I do not believe that the just society that David believes he is voting for will be the final result of their policies.
I do not agree with everything stated by Republican politicians and do not necessarily think certain ones should be in office, but I stand in more substantial agreement with the overall narrative of societal problems and solutions offered by the Republican Party over that of the Democratic candidates. Of course, here is the real misfortune of the voters like me who may make up a smaller class of Republican voters—I disagree substantially with Democrats and only moderately with Republicans. I fully agree with no one.
My last comment is this: if I were reduced down to a single-issue, it would be the issue of maintaining a free society. I believe that the Democratic Party poses a serious threat to this maintenance, and many of my fellow Republicans agree and are more concerned with this issue than that of abortion. The difference is this single-issue of freedom has far more implications for society. It also entails enough consequences to justify a single-issue voting stance. I do not believe that this distinct type of single-issue voting was covered by David’s argument.
Even with both of our voices, there is still much to be said from both sides. My desire is not to persuade someone to vote a particular way. What I do desire is a domain of discourse that is charitable towards both our neighbors and our those we are inclined to consider our enemies. These issues are much more complex than they seem, and both parties stand for much more than we tend to give them credit for when we stand on one side of the aisle.