Over the last two months, Yale professor and theologian Miroslav Volf has been providing his 20 election values that should guide us when we consider for whom and what we might vote. I'm compiling them here in one easy list. The only thing I changed is formatting and some spelling errors. Part One runs today.Part Two can be found here.
In this year of presidential elections, I decided to summarize key values that guide me as I make the decision for whom to cast my vote. It takes knowing three basic things to choose a candidate for public office responsibly:
- values we hope the candidate will stand for and the order of priority among them;
- ways in which and means by which these values are best implemented in any given situation;
- capacity—ability and determination—to contribute to the implementation of these values.
Most important are the values. As I identified each value, I thought it important to (1) name the basic content of the value, (2) give a brief rationale for holding it, (3) suggest some parameters of legitimate debate about it, and (4) identify key questions for the candidate.
I write as a Christian theologian, from the perspective of my own understanding of the Christian faith. Whole books have been written on each of these values, explicating them and adjudicating complex debates about them. In giving rationale for a given value, I only take one or two verses from the Bible to back up my position, more to flag the direction in which giving a rationale would need to go than in fact strictly to offer a rationale. I have identified some 20 such values. In coming days I will post one a day.
Value #1: Freedom to Choose a Way of Life
Value: All citizens should have the right to take responsibility for their own life and embrace a faith or a way of life they deem meaningful without suffering discrimination.
Rationale: One’s faith touches the core of one’s life and cannot, and should not, be coerced, a view arguably implied in the statement of St. Paul that one believes “in the heart” (“If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” [Romans 10:9]). "When many of his disciples heard it, they said, ‘This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?’... Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’” (John 6:60, 66-67), the implication being that one is free to choose another way of life.
Debate: The debatable issue should not be whether people should be free to choose and exercise their religion (or irreligion) without discrimination; that’s a given. Public debate should be about which way of life, including its public dimensions or implications, is more salutary, and whether there are ways of life so inimical to human flourishing and common life that their exclusion doesn’t represent an act of discrimination but is a requirement of humane social life. We should also debate publicly the moral foundation a state that is “neutral” with regard to distinct faiths and secular interpretations of life as well as the precise nature of political arrangements required to keep the state “neutral.”
Questions To Ask: Does the candidate respect the right of all—fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and secularists, conservatives and progressives, to name a few groups at odds with one another—to take personal responsibility for their lives and to lead their lives as they see fit? Does the candidate think of America as a Christian nation (so that, in one way or another, all others have to fit into a Christian mold) or as a pluralistic nation (in which a way of life is not imposed on anyone without their endorsement)?
Value # 2: Concern for the Poor
Value: The poor—above all those without adequate food or shelter—deserve our special concern.
Rationale: “When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 23:22). “However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you” (Deuteronomy 15:7).
Debate: There should be no debate whether fighting extreme poverty should be one of the top priorities of the government. That is a given. The debate should be about the following issues: How to generate a sense of solidarity with the poor among all citizens? In poverty alleviation, what is the proper role of governments and what of individuals, religious communities, and civic organizations? What macroeconomic conditions most favor lifting people out of poverty? What should the minimum wage be?
Question: Is overcoming extreme poverty a priority for the candidate? What poverty reducing policies is the candidate prepared to fight for?
Value #3: Excellent and Affordable Education
Value: It is important for citizens to understand the world in which they live, to learn to reflect critically on what makes life worth living, and be qualified for jobs that increasingly require complex skills. We should strive for excellent and affordable education for all citizens.
Rationale: “Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds in the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth’” (Genesis 1:26). "To you, O people, I call, and my cry is to all that live. O simple ones, learn prudence; acquire intelligence, you who lack it…Take my instruction instead of silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold; for wisdom is better than jewels, and all that you may desire cannot compare with her" (Proverbs 8:4-5, 10-11).
Debate: The debate should be about what families and government must do to improve the educational system, what exactly improvements in education look like, and what proportion of the budget should be allotted for educational purposes (as compared to, for instance, defense). The debate should not be about whether we should have an excellent educational system that is affordable for all.
Questions to Ask: What will the candidate do to ensure that all citizens—the poor no less than the wealthy—are taught to make intelligent judgments about what makes life worth living, acquire skills necessary for functioning in modern societies, and have an adequate understanding of the world?
Value #4: Economic Growth
Value: Economic growth is not a value in its own right because wealth and money are not values in their own right. They are means, indispensable means, but only means. In one of the wealthiest nations in the world, we should worry more about how to use properly the wealth we create than how to create more wealth.
Rationale: “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth… But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (Matthew 6:24, 33).
Debate: We can abandon the old debate about whether efficient wealth creation or just wealth distribution is more important; both are important, for we cannot distribute what we don’t have and you should not have what is just for us to distribute. Instead, we should debate about what are morally irresponsible (wall-street gambling!), inhumane (child labor!), and unsustainable (deforestation!) ways of creating wealth; about how to use wealth properly as individuals, communities, and nation; about how to make wealth serve us instead of turning our whole lives into means of wealth acquisition.
Question to Ask: Which candidate is able to remind us that we diminish ourselves when we turn into money-making and pleasure-seeking creatures, and that we flourish when we pursue truth, goodness, and beauty, that we are truly ourselves when we reach to others in solidarity and enjoy one another in love (which, Christians would claim, is possible only “in God”)?
Value #5:
Value: Death should never be as punishment for a crime.
Rationale: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Since out of love Christ died for absolutely every human being (“the world”), no one should rob a human being of a chance to be transformed by God’s love and no one should put to death a human being who has been transformed by God’s love.
Debate: There is no debate on this one.
Question to Ask: Will the candidate push to abolish the capital punishment, and if so, how hard?
Value #6:
Value: Those seeking public office should foreswear spin and contempt, and be truthful with the public and civil to one another.
Rationale: We should all “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15) and seek to “show proper respect to everyone” (1 Peter 2:17).
Debate: There is no debate about this one. You can “advertise” but not fabricate; you can criticize but not disrespect.
Questions to Ask: Do the facts about the candidate’s own performance as well as that of the opponent match with candidates’ words? Is the candidate attempting to correct rather than seeking to benefit from the spin that others, without his direct endorsement, do on his behalf.
Value #7:
Value: Given the world’s resources, no human being should go hungry; as individuals and nation we should be committed to complete eradication of hunger.
Rationale: “[The Lord] executes justice for the oppressed […] gives food to the hungry” (Psalm 146:7); “Then he [the Son of Man] will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink” (Matthew 25:41-42).
Debate: The debate should not be whether the eradication of world hunger ought to be one of our top priorities, but what are most effective ways to achieve that goal.
Question to Ask: Is the candidate committed to the eradication of world hunger, and if so, what means will he use toward that goal? Is the candidate prepared to set aside a percentage of the Gross National Product for the eradication of hunger?
Value #8: (For differences between values, means by which values are best implemented in any given situation, and capacities of candidates to contribute to the implementation of these values, see the first post in the series).
Value: As individuals and as a nation we should live within our means and not borrow beyond what we can reasonably expect to return; we should not offload onto others, whether contemporaries or future generations, the price of our indulgence or risk-taking.
Rationale: Self-indulgent and reckless debt is a form of stealing, and we are commanded: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15)
Debate: We should debate about what responsible levels of debt are, for households, businesses, or a nation; what constitutes predatory lending practices and how to prevent them; to what degree, if at all, spending on consumer goods should be promoted as a cure for faltering economy and what might be public significance of contentment.
Question to Ask: What will a candidate do to bring and keep national debt under control? What will the candidate do to encourage individual saving and living within means?
Value #9:
Value: Every citizen, religious or not, Christian, Jew or Muslim, has the right to bring his or her own perspectives on human flourishing and on the common good to bear upon public life and do so on equal terms as everyone else.
Rationale: “Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7). “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).
Debate: The debate should not be whether religious voices should be excluded or not. It should be about what kind of political arrangements will ensure equal access of all to participation in the political process on equal terms.
Question: Does the candidate support participation of every person in public life, encouraging them to do so on the basis of their own specific motivations and reasons? Does the candidate seek to protect the voice of ordinary people from being drowned by powerful interest groups (like lobbies and superpacs)?
Value #10:
Value: It is important for every citizen to have meaningful and, if employed for pay, adequately remunerated work. All able citizens should work to take care of their needs and to contribute to the wellbeing of others and of the planet.
Rationale: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The prophet Isaiah envisions a time when all God’s people “will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit” (Isaiah 65:21). Jesus said: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).
Debate: The debate should be about what are the required economic, cultural, and political conditions for people to have meaningful work, and who is mainly responsible to create and maintain these conditions. How best to fight unemployment and underemployment? Given the present state of economy and future economic developments, how to stimulate creation of jobs that pay adequate wage?
Questions to Ask: What policies does the candidate propose to help encourage meaningful employment for adequate pay for all people? What will the candidate do to encourage people to work not just for personal gain but for the common good?
No comments:
Post a Comment