Stewarding your vote

As we enter the fall election season, it’s good to refresh ourselves on what we are doing when we vote for a candidate (and for simplicity’s sake, let’s focus on voting for president). In a democratic system, voting is an exercise of our civic power. When we vote, we are selecting the officials who will seek to pursue certain goods through particular policies. Voting then is using your civic power to select a representative leader who has declared an agenda in his public platform. As Christians, we ought to view it as a matter of stewardship. Like wealth, we must steward the civic authority that God has entrusted to us.

In the 21st century, voting ought to take into account that the president’s primary functions are 1) representing the nation symbolically as the head of state, 2) overseeing the armed forces and foreign policy, 3) working with Congress on legislation (not passing laws, but proposing and vetoing them), and 4) appointing judges and the heads of the federal bureaucracy. Thus, when voting for president, we ought to recognize that we are voting for three things: a platform, an administration, and a person. That means, when we vote, we ought to ask ourselves three major questions: What does this candidate want to do? Who will they appoint to execute their agenda? What kind of person are they?

Concerning the first question, a candidate’s platform establishes priorities and proposals. What do they hope to accomplish in office (foreign policy and domestic policy)? In evaluating a platform, we must distinguish between issues that are matters of wisdom and issues of clear moral significance. And there are several areas of public policy that are about balancing competing goods. For example, the disposition to welcome refugees is good. So is upholding the rule of law and preserving the stability of society. And debates about immigration ought to be about prudently and wisely navigating those goods. Debates about levels of taxation, healthcare policy, or environmental protection ought to be about wisely navigating and balancing competing goods. In general, these are areas of wisdom and folly, not necessarily clear righteousness and wickedness (though, of course, even in these areas, some may advocate for policies that clearly cross the line into clear rebellion against God and harm to society).

On the other hand, there are some issues where Scripture and nature speak so clearly and the matters are so grave that to lend support to a candidate in favor of such evil is to cooperate in the evil. This is where the Ten Commandments, especially those that directly address harm to human beings, can guide us. Honor authorities. Respect and protect human life. Respect and protect marriage and family. Respect and protect property rights. Respect and protect the reputations of others and the integrity of the legal system. To enact policies that violate these basic rights and obligations is a grave evil, and cooperating with such evil weighs more heavily than issues of prudence.

Second, we ought to consider who will join the candidate in carrying out his agenda in office. For example, there are approximately 4,000 political appointments that a president will make, in addition to nominations to the judiciary. The administrative appointments will be responsible for executing policy through the various agencies and bureaucracies. Given the size and scope of the federal government, these appointments are highly significant in establishing the policy of the administration. Great good, or great evil, will be done through the administration, and thus it is crucial that we look beyond the individual candidate to the sorts of individuals that they will appoint to the judiciary and the bureaucracy.

Finally, we should consider a candidate’s character and competence. Is he or she a person of good moral character? Is the candidate competent and effective at the task of governance? Will he or she be a capable and effective commander in chief of the armed forces?

At the same time, we must not separate a candidate’s character from his or her platform and personnel. Both policy and personnel reflect character. It doesn’t matter how upright a candidate is in private if he or she proposes wicked policies and appoints wicked people to carry them out. Conversely, a man or woman of poor personal character who advances good policy and appoints faithful people to carry it out is preferable to the alternative. This is along the lines of what Martin Luther often has been attributed as saying, that he’d rather be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian. The Turk may have any number of character defects, from false religion to personal immorality. But if he pursues just policies and appoints competent men to execute them, his rule is preferable to a Christian who worships the true God and lives uprightly but whose policies are evil and whose governance is incompetent.

In all of this, we must remember that we are never voting in the abstract or ideal circumstances. Thus, with our vote, we ought to first seek to limit harm. We ought to reject candidates and parties that desire to enshrine high-handed rebellion against God and direct harm to human beings in law and policy. Beyond that, we ought to seek to establish as much justice as possible in society through the various means available to us.

And so, Christian, trust the Lord and don’t waste your vote.