No, seriously. As wonderful as civic duty is, there’s also civic responsibility. If you plan on voting in November, answer the following questions out loud before reading on:

Who are the two major party candidates?

Who are you voting for this November?

Why?

If you could not answer the third question, don’t vote. If your answer for the third question was “I can relate to him” or “the other guy’s eletist”, do not vote. If your answer used the words “Hope” or “Change” as reasons, do not vote. If your answer included the concepts of “national hero”, “black man”, “female vice president”, or “Mulsim”, do not vote. None of these are good reasons to vote for anyone, and that last one is flat out false.

If you made it past this first part, congratulations. You’re not an idiot. Unfortunately even good reasons can be wrong reasons. Now answer the following questions out loud:

Of the two major candidates, which one is typically considered Liberal and which one is typically considered Conservative?

What does it mean to be Liberal or Conservative in this context?

If your answer to the first question was anything but “McCain is typically considered conservative and Obama is typically considered liberal” (possible exception granted for an ideological disputation about whether conservative really applies to either one), do not vote. As imperfect as these labels are, they provide at least a rough marker for the candidates’ position on issues. Though it is beyond the scope of this article to verify the answer to the second question, if you couldn’t answer it, or if your answer didn’t include anything about the economy or government spending (I’ll give a dubious pass to a moral issues explanation too), don’t vote. Without the answer to that second question, you’ll have no idea about the framework that the candidates use to make decisions.

If you didn’t make it past the two sets of questions, you’re in good company. According to surveys, the majority of Americans wouldn’t. Their votes amount to nothing more than electoral static that rewards dubious campaign promises and sensationalism. A nice slogan and a snazzy graphic designer do not make a good president. A folksy, charming demeanor does not make a good president. Issues make or break a president, and if you don’t contribute to an emphasis on issues in the election, you’re contributing to media sensationalism.

But, no one wants to admit being a part of the problem, and not voting would be an admission of that. Luckily, you don’t have to be! If you failed either of the tests, take a moment first to decide what you believe and why. Not on a whim – do research. Everyone likes cutting taxes, but what are the cons to that? Universal healthcare is a nice and desirable thing, but what would be the drawbacks to that? After that (not before), take a look at the position pages of both McCain and Obama, and see who lines up better.

Keep in mind that voter registration drives are most often set up by candidates who want you to vote for them. They’d rather you cast an uninformed vote for them rather than no vote at all. But for the country at large, a non-vote is far preferable to an uninformed vote.

But an informed vote still trumps all. If you passed both sets of questions, or are making amends by researching the issues, I encourage you with the same force as any voter registrar, vote! And encourage others to vote as well – on the condition that they know what they’re voting for.

Change is the official buzzword of the 2008 Presidential Election. Everyone likes to throw it around: Obama started the craze with a series of high-minded-sounding but empty slogans, and now the word has even been co-opted by John McCain, seeking to recover his maverick image. But what exactly are we changing from? Partisan politics and rancor? I don’t think even the most ardent Obama supporter would be able to back up that claim. Obama likes to make reference to “the failed economic policies of George W. Bush”. But what exactly would be different?

As it turns out, neither party is willing to question the underlying economic assumptions that are leading us into recession. Ever since Nixon famously proclaimed “We’re all Keynesians now”, the party system in America has changed from being a competition between fiscal responsibility and fiscal irresponsibility, to a contest of how to be the best and most effectively fiscally irresponsible.

Roosevelt as the first modern Democrat brought into the mainstream the idea of deficit spending to stimulate the economy and smoothen the business cycles. While this may or may not be an advantageous strategy when coupled with surplus savings in times of prosperity, this has (with one exception) never been the case, and is thus an unequivocally bad strategy with the end result of accruing an infinite national debt, the full faith and credit of whose government eventually collapses.

We can see the beginnings of this happening now: the higher the national debt grows, the greater the risk of default on payment. This is exactly the mechanism behind rising interest rates for bonds, setting the bar higher for other, relatively riskier private bonds, and choking out private investment. More immediately and tangibly, there was a deliberate and vocal lack of faith in the full faith and credit of the United States government when it tried to reassure investors that it would stand behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and not let them fail. People didn’t buy it, continuing to sell stock until they collapsed, requiring the government to take on even more debt on their behalf.

Democratic administrations typically whittle away surpluses by giant spending programs – hence a record of higher economic growth under Democratic administrations. But these optimistic numbers belie the underlying truth that government spending is only a temporary stimulus, and can do nothing to effect long term economic growth or potential. What goes up must come down.

Republican administrations since Reagan, who instituted the largest tax cut in history, accomplish exactly the same end by different means. By cutting taxes rather than increasing spending, Republicans hope to put money in the hands of those who will invest it and build productivity, which does have an effect on long-term economic growth and potential. However, they do this at the government’s expense, which because of the aforementioned choking out effect cancels out any investment boost, making their endeavor perhaps more sensible, but even less effective than Democratic strategies.

Thusfar it looks like neither candidate has the willpower, or even inclination, to change this cycle. They both throw around terms like “fiscal responsibility”, or even occasionally make reference to balancing the budget, but never as more than secondary items, and continue to think in terms of economic stimulus. Secondary campaign promises never make it past a hostile Congress – and believe me, if history is any indication, Congress will be hostile. John McCain may pledge to end pork barrel spending, but he’s pledged even more strongly to cut taxes. Obama may believe in “trusting the market but correcting its excesses” (whether that even makes sense is a discussion for another day) and not leaving a bill for our children to foot, but in the end, he’s more interested in welfare and stimuli than real fiscal responsibility.

Or, How God Works Through History to Suppress Bad Theology.

The history of the Church over the past few centuries may be surprising to many who consider the world to be in a perpetual state of moral decline. The 18th and 19th Centuries were particularly dark times for Protestantism and Evangelicalism worldwide. Having fully accepted the anthropocentric philosophy of the 18th century and positivism of the 19th century – first that man is the measure of all things and second that only what is experienced can be certainly known (Schleiermacher, often called the Father of Liberal Theology, was a particular proponent of this last point) – theology became less of the study of God and His relation to man, and more of a purely academic discipline, steeped in the historical-critical tradition. Many would claim to be simply following the Protestant Principle – that is, searching out historic Christianity by removing accretions (such as, many of the time would say, the divinity of Christ or the election of God) – but stripped of any meaningful distinction from generic morality, people began to, as Piper would say, “follow the Protestant Principle right out the door of the church”.

There seemed to be no turning back from Liberal Theology – the idea that simple, general and universal religious truths were the primary aim of the specific stories and letters of the Bible – by the early 20th century. And leaving little to commend Christianity over any other religion, the future of the Church looked quite grim. Fast forward to the 1960s. Evangelicalism was back on the rise with the Baptist denomination (which would quickly become the fastest growing denomination in America and eventually the largest in total number), mainline Liberal denominations were beginning to split off into evangelical segments, and Liberal Theology was virtually dead. What happened in the interim? Quite simply, two world wars happened.

The death of Liberal Theology and the rise of Evangelicalism was directly and immediately thanks to Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler. During the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, Germany was the center of the Western philosophical renaissance, with eminent philosophers from Kant and Hegel to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Incidentally Liberal Theology of that era was built upon defending the Christian faith upon a foundation of the popular philosophy of the day. Thus, Germany was also the theological center of the Western world. There was hardly a theologian of that day, Karl Barth notes in The Humanity of God, that did not also consider himself a professional philosopher.

The problem with Liberal Theology in Germany in the early 20th Century was, however, as Barth also notes in the same book, “He who in 1933 may have still been spellbound by the theology of the 19th century was hopelessly condemned … to bet on the wrong horse with regard to National Socialism”. Liberal theology was built upon the same philosophical tradition as the Nazi Party, and thus was prone to endorse it. Barth even describes the day he became disenchanted with Liberal Theology at large – when in 1914, 93 German intellectuals, including nearly all of the theologians he most revered, endorsed Kaiser Wilhelm’s war policy. Without a firm Christological foundation, Liberal Theology could do no other than be swept away in Europe’s brief mass enchantment with Fascism.

In the aftermath of World War II and following the discovery of the concentration camps, Hitler and the Nazi party came to and continue to carry such a strong stigma that even failing to display proper moral revulsion at their idea was sufficient to pick up the stigma. This was even more pronounced in Christian circles, in which the deeds of Hitler and the Nazis stood in even starker contrast to ideal Biblical morality. How could the greatest theologians of our time have stood by the greatest evil of our time?

Thus the Nazi stigma stuck to Liberal Theology, and it is now widely discredited. Germany never since has returned to the philosophical and theological prominence it once enjoyed. In this instance, we can see the hand of God working in history to stamp out the theology that had castrated the Christian faith for over a century.

So what does this have to do with George Bush and American Constantinianism? Far be it from me to compare Bush directly to Hitler (though it is a popular, if dramatic, comparison among those who oppose his policies) – my point is rather the stigma associated with them. George Bush is by far the most unpopular president in recent memory, and he is even more despised worldwide than at home. And with the national debt as it is, even if we manage to pull out of Iraq soon, his legacy is likely to be even more strongly negative in the future, both in America and abroad.

But even though his stigma is still significantly less than that of Hitler’s, his connection to the group we will focus on is much stronger. Though the Liberal theologians of the early 20th century gave Hitler moral support, there is one group that was singlehandedly instrumental in Bush’s rise to power: The Christian Right.

I have written much before about the danger of Christian Right theology to the Church at large, from engendering materialism to engendering undue disrespect from the World (not that we should actively seek its respect, but we are to appear blameless and shine our lights that the gentiles may “see your good works and glorify your Father in Heaven” (Matthew 5:16)), so I will not argue its harm here. But it seems to me that American Constantinianism – the Christian Right, which seeks to bring the Church into government – may soon face a similar decline to Liberal Theology of the mid 20th century. If Bush’s stigma continues to grow (which is likely) and the Christian Right makes no major move to distance itself from him (which wouldn’t likely matter much, even if it were likely to happen), then mainstream American Evangelicalism could likely move quickly and sharply away from its current state of political activism.

Even now we are beginning to see this happening. I recently ran across a book mirroring many of my own ideas in Books A Million called Jesus For President, that besides the alarming title and artsy layout choices, makes a compelling case for the abandonment of Constantinianism. Though the book does not rail against any particular politicians, it is clearly inspired by a disillusionment with the political fruit of the Christian Right. These ideas, though widely looked upon with scorn by the Evangelical establishment not so long ago, are now gaining steam from the bottom up as more and more Christians recognize the failure of Constantinianism to bring about the good of the Church, or more severely, the glory of God.

Picture from Newsweek’s cover story Bush & God

Lest you think I’m going to be giving the Democratic base a break while I bite the Republicans, this bit of fun has been going around various left-wing blogs. Liberal bloggers have collectively lambasted Obama for appearing on Fox News without a confrontation and undoing all their work to “delegitimize the network”.

Delegitimize the network. YA RLY.

Let’s look at this lofty goal. Why try to delegitimize a major news outlet? They cite a constant conservative bias in reporting and “repeatedly broadcasting some of the most specious of rumors about Obama”. According to the article, one DailyKos blogger even said “By going on Fox News, Obama made the right-wing press legitimate. Simply put, I cannot vote or support anyone who participates in this medium.”

So the issue is a partisan bias. Shall we look at the left-wing press then? As I recall, McCain’s most successful fundraising day to that point came the day after the New York Times broadcasted its own pretty specious rumor about him. The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican candidate since Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s – a pretty solid pattern. In fact, with the exception of radio, the Left has a far more pervasive grip on all sorts of media than does the Right. But when was the last time you heard of a group of conservatives conspiring together to delegitimize the New York Times?

Or is it the case that the Left has a right to media and the Right doesn’t? For all the bemoaning of the left about civil liberties lost under the Bush administration, this amounts to nothing less than grassroots speech control. Whether it comes from above or below, the effect is the same, and just as wrong. This stunt is patently ridiculous, blatantly hypocritical, and thankfully completely infeasible.

So to these bloggers: News is politics. The media is just as private as you and me and thus has just as much right to be partisan as you and me. Bias and partisanship are thus inevitable until the demand for unbiased news exceeds apathy or blindness to bias. But if you’re going to be part of that demand, if you’re going to criticize media bias, be fair and balanced yourself: take the plank first out of your own eyes.

This time I’ll give the answer first and explain it later: Groupthink.

Why did Mitt Romney’s campaign fall apart? Because no one believed him when he said he was conservative. Despite having made a living off of rescuing companies from debt and being one of the most economically conservative of the bunch, his socially liberal record as governor of Massachusetts was used against him in such a way as to paint him as a flip-flopper and panderer.

Romney prior to his campaign had been in the unfortunate position of having to choose between switching his positions on several issues mostly social in nature (gay marriage, abortion, etc.), and being unpalatable to the Republican party. Ultimately he chose the former, and while the latter probably would have worked even less well (just ask Rudy Giuliani), he still got hammered by Huckabee in several races he should have won, all else equal.

McCain was in much the same situation. With a reputation as a maverick who didn’t mind working with Democrats to push through certain bills and an unpopular (among Republicans) stance on immigration, it looked like McCain would suffer the same fate as Romney (or that he had suffered the same fate as Romney would, McCain’s collapse coming well before Romney’s). But McCain had a distinct advantage over Romney: as a war hero, people trust him far more than a businessman. He practically oozes trust, the reserves of which have yet to be depleted.

The groupthink of the Republican party was made evident in Huckabee’s victories in several Republican primaries. As the only viable candidate who could claim “conservative” values where the others lacked (namely in the social arena), people flocked to him in droves despite each of the others (with the possible exception of Fred Thompson) having far more credentials, experience, and substantiative ideas than he. But McCain, solely by virtue of his war hero status it seems, managed to pull out ahead.

What is baffling now is that only since his presumptive clinching of the nomination has he been most vocal about his conservatism. He has even switched convictions on several issues (Bush tax cuts, for example) in order to be more palatable to the Republicans, despite that same strategy being behind his campaign’s original collapse as well as Romney’s collapse. McCain’s strength is in his independence, not in toeing the party line, especially now that he already practically has the nomination. Espousing his conservatism can only damage him in the long run. Despite what Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter may say about him, when faced with the alternative – Obama or Clinton – even the most conservative McCain hater must eventually vote for him (unless, heaven forbid, Ron Paul keeps going as an independent). When sticking with one or two unpopular opinions (regardless of their wider popularity outside the party) makes a candidate so unpalatable as to force him to change them – especially completely irrelevant meta-issues such as party loyalty – it’s time to rework the way parties do business.

So McCain, keep flouting the Republican party, and for heaven’s sake stop whoring yourself out to a base with so many people who probably don’t even know what “conservative” means but will vote as long as you are one. Your strength is the independent base – embrace them, and keep thinking for yourself.