Pensees: Actors, Preachers, and Politicians - Thoughts On The Dangers of Presidential Endorsements

Actors, Preachers, and Politicians - Thoughts On The Dangers of Presidential Endorsements

Two months ago two men made public presidential endorsements: Bob Jones and Chuck Norris. One sounded principled. The other sounded pragmatic. And I have found myself mulling over the significance of Christian leaders making hasty endorsements of political leaders when there are more choices than just two.

First the quotes then the analysis.

Bob Jones:

“This is all about beating Hillary,” Jones said. “And I just believe that this man has the credentials both personally and ideologically in terms of his view about what American government should be to best represent the rank and file of conservative Americans.

“If it turns out to be Guiliani and Hillary, we’ve got two pro- choice candidates, and that would be a disaster.” (October 16, 2007 source)

And here is Chuck Norris:

Though Giuliani might be savvy enough to lead people, Fred Thompson wise enough to wade through the tides of politics, McCain tough enough to fight terrorism and Romney business-minded enough to grow our economy, I believe the only one who has all of the characteristics to lead America forward into the future is ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. . . .Mike is a compassionate Christian conservative. Though solid in his faith and standing for traditional family values, he’s not an uncaring extremist. He lives what he believes, and respects others’ beliefs even when they disagree with him, committed to a republic that was founded upon the free exercise of religion.

In all respects, Huckabee meets our Founders’ recommendations for president.

The David among them

The one question that remains is: Can Huckabee win the nomination? The presidency?

As with the other candidates, Huckabee has, and will continue to have, his hecklers: “He hasn’t raised enough money.” “He’ll never beat Hillary.” “Our society is too prejudice and paranoid to vote for a once Baptist minister.” “He’ll never out-race the top four Republican candidates.”

I was thinking about these types of comments the other day when I recalled another leader in ancient times that didn’t match up in the line up: King David. Seven men were poised and paraded for the position of king, but David was left in the field shepherding because he wasn’t “a frontrunner in the polls.” They overlooked the best because they were too busy judging by outward appearance. But God appointed David king.

It’s time to quit choosing our leaders based solely upon charisma or one strong suit, and move back to being a culture which esteems and elects its leaders because of character and qualifications. It’s substance, not pizzazz, we should want in a leader. Mike Huckabee is the real deal.(October 21, 2007 source)

One actor has more principles than the other actor. Or so it would appear. And the reason for this is in the timing and language of the two endorsements. The timing is October. And Chuck Norris said, “I believe the only one who has all the characteristics to lead America forward” is Huckabee. The operative word is “all.”

In this case, the Black Belt comes across as more principled than the Shakespearian. And thus we have a great illustration of why it is a very delicate matter for religious leaders to give political endorsements. Endorsements from teachers is actually teaching. And Christian leaders are teachers. Al Mohler, who is about as culturally-savvy as anyone in evangelicalism and whose political opinion I’d love to hear says, “I do not think my proper role is to endorse a candidate.” (HT: Paleoevangelical) Smart move, Al. But Bob Jones strongly endorsed Mitt Romney early, months before the Iowa caucuses and South Carolina presidential primary. And, whether you like Huckabee or not, Chuck Norris made an endorsement that seems more palatable to the average Christian because it is comprehensive, optimistic, and free of the hand-wringing worry that Hillary might win. (Of course, who could imagine Chuck Norris wringing his hands?)

The buzz among fundamentalists and evangelicals in October over the spate of high-profile evangelicals’ endorsements was almost funny, particularly when Jones endorsed Romney. Horatio BoJo and Marcellus Fundy were frantic:

Horatio: He waxes desperate with imagination.

Marcellus:
Let’s follow. ‘Tis not fit thus to obey him.

Horatio:
Have after. To what issue will this come?

Marcellus:
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Horatio:
Heaven will direct it.

Marcellus:
Nay, let’s follow him.

Well, frankly, I don’t think Hortatio is right. I don’t think Dr. Jones waxes desperate with imagination. He knows politics. He just might be ahead of schedule. Romney may well be the only candidate for president that is worthy of a “one-issue politics” endorsement. Romney may be the only one that could beat Hillary. Jones was probably speaking as an accurate political prognosticator. But that is beside the point. As a Christian leader he is more than a private citizen with the right to endorse whoever he wants. He is a teacher whose endorsement is received as teaching by many Christians.

The Texas Ranger, on the other hand, seemed to speak more like a thoughtful Christian University president in his more well-rounded endorsement. There were a lot of issues on his mind and many reasons for his support of Huckabee. Certainly, much more than a panicked, “This is all about beating Hillary.” Walker, the Texas Ranger, seemed to be so much more principled. Because it was in October.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must hasten to assure my readers that I am no Chuck Norris fan. I think his acting is lousy, his stories drip with a bizarre mix of maudlin machismo, and the choreography of the fights is so boy-ish fantasy-like that it makes one blush. And the Walker, Texas Ranger song is corny too. The only value of that show, as far as I’m concerned, is to satiate one’s craving for a martial arts fix. In less than an hour one can see about two-hundred and ninety-three roundhouse kicks. Apparently, a lot of people needed the fix. For eight years anyway. Or so CBS thought. Like I say, I’m no fan of Chuck Norris.

Of course, I wouldn’t say that to his face. The only black belt I have I bought at J.C. Penney’s.

Anyway, Norris’ endorsement seemed to make more sense to Joe Christian. In October.

And I’m sorry that Jones’ endorsement seemed so pragmatic. In October.

Here’s the problem:

Jones’ endorsement (what I could read in the papers) boils down the presidential race to basically two issues: defeating Hillary and abortion. Essentially, it is one-issue politics. One-issue politics is well-defended by John Piper. “Everybody knows a single issue,” says Piper, “that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.”

One-issue politics stated this way makes sense. One-issue politics affirms that a candidate may have every desirable trait yet be disqualified by a single issue. The single issue becomes the disqualifier. (For most evangelicals a pro-abortion stance would be such an issue). But Jones’ endorsement in the minds of many Christians seemed to stretch the logic of one-issue politics to unnatural, possibly even un-biblical, extremes. For him, so it seems because of the language and timing of his endorsement, the only issue that matters is abortion (and beating Hillary). In other words, for Jones and many evangelicals, one-issue politics has morphed from a political choice that disqualifies all otherwise acceptable candidates on the basis of one issue to selecting (endorsing) a candidate purely on the basis of one issue. In my simple mind there is a difference.

The problem with an October endorsement is that there are too many viable candidates who are pro-life who also have many other qualifications and qualities that matter to Christians. Qualities, I might add, that highlight disliked characteristics in Romney. Christians have both Christian and political choices to make. When a Sovereign God has placed before them a more qualified Christian choice, many Christians do not believe it is right to let their political choice trump their Christian choice. Even if the Christian choice doesn’t stand a chance.

Yet, it is precisely because the Christian choice doesn’t stand a chance that some Christians resort immediately to a lesser-of-two-evils pragmatism and make a political choice. They might say, for example, “But I’m not voting for a preacher. I’m voting for a president” (Jones). Well, duh. Way to make everyone who makes a more Christian choice (tacitly admitted by this kind of defense) appear as if they think they are voting for a preacher. Most Christians realize that simple fact. They know that they are voting for a president, not a preacher, but they also know that they are voting as Christians.

Therefore, when there are a number of options before them, many thoughtful Christians simply don’t buy Jones’ rationale: “It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs.” They don’t buy that line of reason because it is a straw man. Not because they don’t agree with it. The issue for them is not whether a candidate can best represent their religious beliefs, but whether they the voters can best represent their own religious beliefs in their selection of a candidate. They are not prepared to misrepresent themselves in a primary merely for the sake of having a winnable option in the general election.

As a pastor, I think Christians who are faced with a conflict between the Christian choice (which must necessarily be more than one issue) and the political choice ought to make the Christian choice. It is not fair to conscientious Christians to say, “What is the alternative, Hillary’s lack of religion or an erroneous religion?” (Jones).

Besides being prematurely lesser-of-two-evil-ish, there are two more problems with that question. First, it promotes a un-biblical dichotomy. Where in the Bible do we see that erroneous religion is better than a lack of religion? I imagine that Mormonism would fall under Paul’s category of “doctrines of demons.” Yet somehow a Christian leader can go public, allow himself to be quoted all over a lost nation, as saying that religion of whatever ilk is better than no religion. Secondly, it pretends that the only option to Hillary’s non-religion is Romney’s erroneous religion. There are more than two options in the primaries.

Faith should do the right thing. Even in politics. Even in the primaries. In spite of what might happen consequently in the national election.

I think if a Christian is faced with three different candidates, the Christian ought to select the best Christian choice on all the issues. And, as unpopular as it may sound post-Romney “I’m proud to be a Mormon” speech, that includes what the candidate personally believes.

If, however, a Christian only has two choices, he ought to adopt the “lesser-of-two evils vote” because his vote is not only a vote for the “less evil” candidate, but a pro-active protest against the “more evil” candidate.

Christians wonder (and so do I) if it is right to snub the good candidates from both a Christian and political perspective so early in the race. They wonder (and so do I) if it is ethically right to use one’s influence to encourage people to choose against the best candidate from a Christian perspective just because the other has the most likelihood of winning from a political perspective even when the political choice is right on the one issue. In other words, Christians wonder (and so do I) if it is right to turn the race into a lesser-of-two-evils decision when there are still more than two options on the table. Many Christians wonder (and so do I) if it is our place to make political decisions when the Maker of Kings has put before His people more Christian options.

Jones’ early endorsement of Romney (and that of other evangelical leaders) did a disservice to thoughtful pastors by prematurely divorcing the Christian choice from the political choice when it turned one-issue politics on its head and encouraged voters to think politically and not Christianly.

Jones’ endorsement is pragmatic politics. Pragmatism is not always wrong. But let’s call a spade a spade. He believed way back in October (election seasons seem very long) that a pragmatic choice was necessary for all the voters in the primaries. Romney can beat Hillary. This is “all about beating Hillary.”

But what if Romney gets trounced by Hillary? What if Hillary is not even the Democratic nominee? Does it suddenly become “all about beating Obama”? Since when does any Christian leader know that the crisis in America is suddenly only about beating any one person? How does any Christian leader know for sure that Hillary will even be a candidate in 2008? How does any Christian leader know for sure that Hillary is the worst possible thing that could happen to America? Why not make principled choices and watch a Sovereign Lord shape the race? The questions go on and on.

For the record, I abhor abortion. I would encourage one-issue politics, but I don’t think that pragmatism is automatically justified when our God gives us more than one choice. I personally don’t think this is the time to endorse any candidate with the one-issue politics

I think this is the time for Christians in Iowa and South Carolina and New Hampshire (et. al.) to be people of conviction. There will always be time to vote for the lesser of two evils. But you must vote your conscience. You must vote as a Christian. You want to know that when you had it in your power to nominate, you nominated the best available candidate from both a political and Christian point of view.

If Romney is the man, so be it. But I think a Christian is going to think of more things than simply beating Hillary.