Election Values: 11–20

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 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:

1. values we hope the candidate will stand for and the order of priority among them;
2. ways in which and means by which these values are best implemented in any given situation;
3. 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 #11:

Value: Those who are frail on account of their advanced age deserve our special help. They need adequate medical assistance, social interaction, and meaningful activities. (Humanity of a society is measured by how well it treats those from whom it can no longer expect much benefit.)

Rationale: “A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling” (Psalm 68:5). In the contemporary world, “elderly,” arguably, belong to the categories of the “poor” and “widows”

Debate: The debate here is the extent of the responsibility for the wellbeing of the elderly. How much resources should a society set aside for the care of elderly, and what are the best ways to manage those resources.

Question to Ask: What will you do to help honor the elderly and attend to their specific needs?

Value #12:

Value: War is almost never justifiable, and every adequate justification has to show how a particular war is an instance of loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies.

Rationale: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? (Matthew 5:43-44).

Debate: There is a legitimate debate on whether acts of war can ever be a form of love of neighbor and of enemy and, if they can, what kind of action of an enemy is a justifiable cause for a war (rule of a tyrant?) and what kind of conduct of war (drones?) is necessary for war to be just.

Questions to Ask: Has the candidate supported or advocated ending of unjust wars in the past? Has the candidate condemned significant forms of unjust conduct of war?

Value #13

Value: No nation represents an exception to the requirements of justice according to which countries should relate to one another. America should exert its international power by doing what is just and persuading rather than exertion of military power, and should pursue its own interests in concert with other nations of the world.

Rationale: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12).

Debate: The debate should not be whether America is somehow exceptional (and therefore permitted to do what other nations are no, as, for instance, carrying out raids in search for terrorists in other nations). The debate should rather be about what does it mean for the one remaining superpower to act responsibly in the community of nations.

Question to Ask: At the international level, would the candidate renounce double moral standard: one for the U.S. and its allies and another for the rest of the world?

Value #14:

Value: We should never torture.

Rationale: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27); “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44).

Debate: There is no debate on this one, at least not a debate that, from my reading of Christian moral obligations, is legitimate.

Questions to Ask: Has the candidate unequivocally condemned use of torture?

Value #15:

Value: Unborn human life, just like fully developed human life, deserves our respect, protection, and nurture.

Rationale: “For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13); “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13).

Debate: There is a legitimate debate about the point at which what can plausibly be deemed human life begins.

Question to Ask: Is the candidate firmly committed to reducing the number of abortions performed?

Value #16: On Healthcare

Value: All people—poor or rich—should have access to affordable basic healthcare, just as all are responsible to live in a way conducive to physical and mental health.

Rationale: “Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness” (Matthew 9:35).

Debate: There is a legitimate debate as to how best to ensure that all people have access to affordable healthcare, but not weather the destitute should or should not be left to fend for themselves when faced with serious or chronic illness. We roughly know what it takes to lead a healthy lifestyle (exercise, minimal intake of sugar, no substance abuse, etc.), but we can and ought to debate most effective ways to help people lead such a lifestyle (for instance, how heavily should the food industry be regulated).

Questions to Ask: Which candidate is more likely to give the destitute effective access to healthcare? Which candidate is more likely to reduce the number of people who need to seek medical help?

Value # 17: Care for Creation

Value: We are part of God’s creation, and we must seek to preserve the integrity of God’s creation as an interdependent ecosystem and, if possible, to pass it on to the future generations improved. Above all, we should not damage the creation by leading a lifestyle marked by acquisitiveness and wastefulness.

Rationale: “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it” (Genesis 2:15).

Debate: Debate here is should be about the extent of ecological damage (for instance, whether or not we are barreling toward a climate apocalypse) and about the appropriate means and sacrifices necessary to preserve God’s creation.

Question to Ask: Which candidate shows better understanding of the ecological health of the planet and has a better track record in preventing devastation of what God has created and pronounced good?

Value #18:

Value: We should honor every human being and respect all faiths (without necessarily affirming them as true).

Rationale: “Show proper respect to everyone” (1 Peter 2:17).

Debate: The debate about relation to other religions should not be whether we should have the *right* to mock what others hold to be holy; we do have that right. At the same time, the debate should not be about whether we have a moral obligation not to make use of that right; we ought not mock what other people hold to be holy. Instead, the debate should be about what the authentic teachings and practices of individual religions are, to what extent the claims of their teachings are true (or false), and in what ways each religion fosters (or hinders) human flourishing.

Question to Ask: Will the candidate promote respect for all religions, including Islam, while at the same time affirming the need for honest debate about how true and salutary they are?

Value #19: On Offenders

Value: Mere retributive punishment is an inadequate and mistaken way of dealing with offenders. We need to find creative ways to reconcile offenders to their victims and reintegrate them into the society.

Rationale: “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:17-19). “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility” (Ephesians 2:14).

Debate: We should debate viable alternatives to incarceration (in the U.S. the highest in the world!) and how best to achieve reintegration of offenders into the society.

Question to Ask: What are you proposing to do to reduce the number of incarcerated people in the U.S.?

Value #20:

Value: Competence, though essential, matters less than character because knowledge, though crucial, matters less than love.

Rationale: “If I … understand all mysteries and all knowledge … but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:2).

Debate: The debate should be about what dimensions of character matter most and what blend of virtues and competencies is most needed at this time.

Questions to Ask: Whom does the candidate strive to be like? To whom does he, in fact, most resemble in character? Will the fear of losing power corrupt him?