Ah, another Election Day. I voted — even though, it seems to me, we are suffering a dearth of quality candidates this year. I find that I have to vote, though, because our right to free elections is too precious not to exercise. (I’ve read too much history of the 1950s and 1960s Civil Rights movement in this country, where people gave their lives for the right to vote. And what’s been in the papers lately about the election in Afghanistan? And I remember something this summer about an election in Iran …)
I voted for a Republican, two Democrats, and an Independent candidate today. I don’t know when I’ve voted a straight ticket. I’m sure I have, but I simply find that a party label does not necessarily identify the best candidate. When I compare candidates, personal integrity and character is awfully important to me.
I think it’s important to look beyond the party labels. The danger of liberalism is naivete; the danger of conservatism is cruelty. Both sides need each other as correctives. Our Founders were geniuses in building in the checks and balances that prevent one side from going too far.
Both liberals and conservatives are better patriots when they listen to each other, and adjust their positions according to the criticisms that each side brings to an argument. It’s dangerous for our nation when people listen only to those they already agree with. That’s especially true with media. I read the New York Times because that paper simply covers more than any other, and I sometimes agree with their editorial stance. But I also find it important to read the Richmond Times-Dispatch, because the thoghtful conservatism of those editors provides a counterbalance to the Times! I was excited last week to receive the first issue of a new quarterly recommended by David Brooks, in one of his columns. (I often agree with Brooks, but not always.) The journal is called National Affairs. It features long essays on domestic issues. What I’ve read so far is slightly right-of-center, but refreshingly unpredictable!
Unpredictability is a good thing. It makes me think.
(By the way, I find that all of this is important to us as church, too. Both liberals and conservatives are better “churchmen” when they listen to each other, and adjust their positions according to the criticisms that each side brings to an argument. It’s dangerous for a church when people listen only to those they already agree with.)
