Stones Cry Out

Ray provides a quick summary of a recent Wallis article:

[Jim] talks about the 3 traditional options we’ve had in American politics. The first is a strictly conservative, "America as Empire" option. That’s what the Republicans think they have a “mandate” for today. The second is a strictly liberal, “America as Teddy Bear” option. That was so 90’s. The third option is the Libertarian option, the “America as a Fine Place to Live as Long as it Leaves Me the Hell Alone” option.

I think Ray slightly mischaracterizes Wallis' first and second options, but his representation of the third option seems fair.

Of the first option, Wallis wrote:

The first political option in America today is conservative on everything - from cultural, moral, and family concerns to economic, environmental, and foreign policy issues. Differences emerge between aggressive nationalists and cautious isolationists, between corporate apologists and principled fiscal conservatives, but this is the political option clearly on the ascendancy in America, with most of the dominant ideas in the public square coming from the political Right.

Wallis wrote of the second option:

The second political option in contemporary America is liberal on everything - both family/sexual/cultural questions and economic, environmental, and foreign policy matters. There are certainly differences among the liberals (from pragmatic centrists to green leftists), but the intellectual and ideological roots come from the Left side of the cultural and political spectrum - and today most from the liberal/left find themselves on the defensive.

Wallis believes that the Republican's mandate is very tenuous and introduces a 4th option that, if adopted by candidates opposing establishment Republicans, could build a lasting and powerful political coalition.

I believe there is a "fourth option" for American politics, which follows from the prophetic religious tradition we have described. It is "traditional" or "conservative" on issues of family values, sexual integrity and personal responsibility, while being very "progressive," "populist," or even "radical" on issues like poverty and racial justice. It affirms good stewardship of the earth and its resources, supports gender equality, and is more internationally minded than nationalist - looking first to peacemaking and conflict resolution when it come to foreign policy questions.

Jim has more thoughts about this 4th option, but what I've quoted gives you the gyst of what he is saying.

So, would I vote for a "4th Option" candidate?

In the same article, Wallis wrote:

(4th Option Candidates) would not be mean-spirited and, for example, blame gay people for the breakdown of the family, nor would they criminalize the choices of desperate women backed into difficult and dangerous corners.

If Wallis is saying (and I'm not clear that he is) that Abortion should be legal in all cases, or that marriage should be legal between gay men and women, I am clearly not a "4th Option" voter. Mark Sides encouraged us to not wait for Roe to be overturned and to work to reduce abortions. If Wallis' position is anything other than Mark's, I don't know how it is Biblically supportable.

Another characteristic of the ideal 4th Option candidate is that she would be "committed to a foreign policy that emphasized international law and multilateral cooperation over pre-emptive and unilateral war." Not to disparage, but this position is simply stupid. Although the left would love to keep using the terms, our war in Iraq was not entirely pre-emptive and by no means unilateral. We were at war with Iraq since the early 1990s and acted with a coalition of the willing that consisted of 30+ nations.

I must ask then: Is there a 5th Option for Christians like me? Unfortunately, at this point, the answer is no.

The United States electoral system is First-Past-The-Post. In FPP systems, there will only be two dominant parties. Voting for a member of a fringe party, in all but very rare instances, is completely useless. Parties are coalitions and therefore a single party or candidate may never mirror my values or beliefs, but on issues that matter most to me and my family, there is but one party. I will fervently support the Republican party (for now), but will continue to work to convince members of my party that moderate (dare I say, liberal) socio-economic and environmental policies are more Christian than the policies advocated by the "oppressors."

As Jim Jewell pointed out in his fine post Virtues that Transcend Political Ideology, we can never legislate moralism and values constitute more than political positions on abortion and gay marriage. Not that we should abandon voting as a means of reforming society and its institutions, but that personal obedience to Christ is to be our highest calling; by yielding to Him, our lives will bear virtuous fruit.

Our activism has order. First in line is my relationship with Christ. Then I look to my family and my church and ask, are these "institutions" honoring God with their decisions? If not, I advocate for change, which is not always successful. Outside the family and church are other institutions of which I am involved. I'm thinking here mostly of the institutions of government. As I work within my family and my church to make them more Christ-like (understanding their weaknesses as being comprised of and lead by flawed people), I also work within the polity that gives power to the government so that it can better emulate Christ. I have no illusions here. Man's institutions, although constituted by God, will never perfectly conform - but that's no excuse for ambivalence.

Call me a Christian progressive who wants our governmental institutions reformed to glorify Christ. For now, I think the Republican party is the best vehicle for this type of progressive activism.

(Drew has a related post on Wallis and reaction from secular liberals.)