why i vote the way i do

We acknowledge the vital function of government as a principal vehicle for the ordering of society. … We know ourselves to be responsible to God for social and political life (Social Principles 164). The strength of a political system depends upon the full and willing participation of its citizens. (164B) 

I would encourage you to consider your responsibilities as a Christian and as a citizen seriously. 

If someone were to ask me why I vote the way I do, I would have to say that I decided sometime in the mid 1970s. While in high school and college, I engaged in discussions of history, government, and politics. I worked for Humphrey in 1968, but wanted either Bobby Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy as the nominee. I voted for McGovern in 1972. However, it was in graduate school that I became acquainted with the National Review, George Will, Bill Buckley, and Milton Friedman. These people led me to read people like John Locke and Adam Smith. I came to realize that I wanted to be in a political tradition that went from the founders as enshrined in the constitution and bill of rights, both of which needed the completion brought by Abraham Lincoln and his speeches. It needed the completion of the women’s right to vote and civil rights. It needed the completion brought by presidents like Eisenhower and Reagan.  

To put it simply, I came to believe that limited federal government was best for the simple reason that politicians cannot know enough. To use a sports analogy, government can set the basic rules and umpire, but we are the ones who must play the game. We play the game by building character and pursue happiness. We play the game by choosing the basic beliefs and values that will guide our lives. We play the game by accepting a vocation and earn a living. We play the game by engaging in economic exchanges. We do so freely. Such a process is self-regulating, to the point where, properly understood, you do not need a large government apparatus.  

Of course, I have left much out. If a state denies individual rights of its citizens, as happened with slavery and the Jim Crow laws of the South, the Federal Government needs to be sure the Bill of Rights are respected. Free enterprise has done more to expand economies, which is the best way to help all citizens, and especially the poor.  

I focus on ideas rather than political parties. Over the course of a few decades, I have read the opposition. Walter Rauschenbusch and the social gospel, John Yoder, Jim Wallis, are the Christian version of politically progressive thought. On the secular side, John Rawls and Michael Walzer would be high on the list.  

With all its imperfections, I value my country. America has continually expanded its vision of freedom to all of its citizens. For me, this is the gift America has to offer the world.  

Yet, this world is a dangerous one. America deserves to be defended from those who would do it harm. The world would be a less free place where it not for America.  

I have problems with what passes for conservatism in this area. I wish conservatism were more conservative in its use of military power. Yes, I am a child of the 60s in that sense. No need to go into details here, but if the nation is to put its troops in harm’s way, it better have a good reason. As the Social Principles (165 I) rightly say, “We also respect those who support the use of force, but only in extreme situations and only when the need is clear beyond reasonable doubt ...”  

I share this account primarily because we need to take our role as citizens seriously. I hope you think it through. You may well come to a different conclusion that I do, and that is OK.