A moral issue ignored by candidates and voters

There has been more than enough focus in this election season on the complexities of a Christian’s decision to vote for one of two flawed candidates for president. There is virtually nothing in the policy portfolio of Vice President Kamala Harris I find acceptable, and while former President Donald Trump’s policy portfolio contains plenty of points and emphases I agree with, I do count myself in that unpopular crowd of Reaganite conservatives deeply concerned about his tone, character, and behavior. That said, 2024 did not exactly present new tensions in the debate over binary choice voting. I may find myself aghast at the state of affairs, but I did in 2020 and 2016, as well. Same as it ever was …

No, as a believer, the more unique or profound consideration I would pose on Election Day is not piling on more exhausting discussion about the flaws of both candidates, but rather, what it says about the electorate that both candidates felt so comfortable sidestepping what is clearly the most significant issue facing the American populace: an excessive federal government indebtedness that is unsustainable, and for far worse reasons than just its own affordability.

The prima facie reason to be fearful of the excessive national debt is that it costs so much. Households and corporations rarely say, “Because of debt, I can’t buy this other thing, and this other thing would have been really good for my household or business.” They do not see debt as an opportunity cost; they see it as a risk to solvency. As long as they are affording the debt and have a plan for resolving it, they feel comfortable that they will live to fight another day. Corporations have the capacity to use debt productively (borrowing to build new factories or innovations). Households want debt to result in monthly payments that fit within their household budget, and when it doesn’t, they face tremendous stress.

With government debt, we err in assuming it is that simple. Sure, it would be really bad if a federal government could not make the principal and interest payments on its debt, but the federal government has a lot of ways to make debt payments that households and corporations do not. What excessive government debt does, though, which should be our national political obsession, is crowd out private investment, depress savings, depress productivity, and, ultimately, hamper economic growth and opportunity.

As a Christian, I see economic growth and opportunity as a moral issue, and so when I hear voters characterize it as a lower-tier political matter, I grow weary. We have a $35 trillion balance on the federal credit card, we are adding $1 trillion to $2 trillion per year to the balance, and we have massive unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare on top. Mandatory payments on the debt used to account for 30% of the budget but now represent 70%, making reductions in the budget almost impossible. This is a big deal, and yet I do not believe it was in the top 100 issues discussed during this year’s election cycle.

No president is going to be popular talking about spending cuts. And presidents rarely have cogent and coherent ideas for growing revenue to address budget shortfalls. But that does not mean Christian voters should not earnestly demand a sober conversation about this topic, one rooted in a grown-up appreciation for trade-offs, sacrifice, and, yes, math. We have an unsustainable path, and much of this election season has made me feel that voters do not care.

The entire nation will be made to care. And it would be nice if, in the aftermath of this election, leadership would surface that led by example in such caring. We can all dare to dream, right?