lunes, 10 de octubre de 2016

MercatorNet: Democracy and providence: does political participation trump religious faith?

MercatorNet: Democracy and providence: does political participation trump religious faith?

Democracy and providence: does political participation trump religious faith?

Democracy and providence: does political participation trump religious faith?

Holding your nose might not be enough.
Zac Alstin | Oct 10 2016 | comment 

(Gage Skidmore October 4, 2016)
I’m a political pessimist, but I really feel for those conservatives, Republicans, and alienated Americans who have made up their minds to vote for Trump this election.
Having made the difficult decision to support a tarnished and disreputable candidate, the only consolation was that they were doing so with their eyes wide open. But even if you “hold your nose and vote”, Trump’s notorious video from 2005 has just demonstrated that your wide-open eyes might start to sting in his noxious atmosphere.
Watching the video, the most surreal element is that Trump’s language and tone sound so similar to his interviews and media appearances. It’s as if he’s just switched topics from immigration, free trade and Clinton’s emails to groping women and extolling the modern droit du seigneur of rich and famous men.
Nonetheless, many of Trump’s reluctant supporters argue that nothing has changed. They knew voting for Trump was going to be a bad deal, but like an urgent sale when you’re desperate for cash, they’ll take the best offer they can get.
Trump’s saving grace amongst conservative and religious voters is their fear of a Clinton presidency deciding future Supreme Court nominees, because in many ways the Supreme Court is more powerful than the government on issues that count in the culture war. In the secondPresidential debate, Clinton herself stated that she wants a Supreme Court that will protect Roe v Wade and same-sex marriage, whereas Trump said he would nominate a judge in the mould of the late Justice Scalia.
Some have argued that Christians might view Trump as a new Constantine – an imperfect leader who should nonetheless be welcomed thanks to his more sympathetic stance toward Christianity, and religious and political freedom generally. From this point of view, the alternative is Hillary as anew Diocletian, ready to demand allegiance to the central moral tenets of contemporary liberalism, including abortion and same-sex marriage.
But a complicating factor in the comparison with Constantine is the political mechanism and culture of modern democracy and its moral and spiritual ramifications for Christians hoping to discern God’s political will.
Christians in the Roman Empire could have no illusion of control over Imperial politics. The rise of Constantine must have seemed truly providential in part because it was entirely out of their hands. Christians may have enjoyed the benefits of the new Emperor’s patronage, but in a non-democratic regime the religious inclinations and attitudes of the ruler are as remote as the weather.
Democracy changes everything. It implicates us ordinary citizens in the collective choice of ruler and presents us with a sense of moral culpability in otherwise distant political outcomes. Notwithstanding the enormous benefits of democracy, Christians grapple with the new problem of whom to support and whether we can in good conscience support anyone. Pretending that Trump is a new Constantine is one way of trying to resolve the cognitive dissonance inherent insupporting a candidate who increasingly falls short of one’s political, religious, or moral ideals.
At face value the pressure to “get behind” and rally in support of one’s chosen candidate makes it hard to simultaneously disavow their shortcomings. It is psychologically difficult to say “candidate X is truly terrible, and I support him totally.” We naturally insert justifications and caveats that help resolve this implicit conflict.
Focusing on Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual assaults and abuses, and Hillary’s alleged complicity or guilt by association helps to rationalise Trump’s appalling comments. It’s a little like observing that while Constantine had his wife and son executed, those acts were nothing compared to the crimes and perversions of many other Roman Emperors.
So although Trump’s Christian supporters have naturally found his comments in the 2005 video deeply challenging, as one Evangelical leader explained:
“my support for Donald Trump in the general election was never based upon shared values rather it was built upon shared concerns…we are left with a choice of voting for the one who will do the least damage to our freedoms.”  
The trouble is that predicting “who will do the least damage” is simply not possible. We have no idea who will do the least damage in the short, medium, or long term. Nor, I suspect, are most people actually serious about predicting the future. Rather, they are using the idea of “who will do the least damage” as a rule of thumb to guide and rationalise a difficult and unpalatable decision.
In our state of deep ignorance over the long-term consequences of any action, such attempts to rationalise a vote for a morally and politically distasteful option are more of a cognitive strategy than a political one. It’s about reassuring oneself in the face of internal and external doubts and avoiding regrets.
In Germany in the early 1930s many Christians voted in support of the Nazi party and conservative nationalist groups against socialist and Communist parties. Without the benefit of hindsight the Nazi party would have at that stage seemed far more palatable than the atheistic, Stalinist KPD. Even with the benefit of hindsight one could still argue that the Communists’ abrogation of freedom would have had a deeper and more far-reaching impact on most Germans than the Nazi regime ever did.
This is not to say that voting for the Nazis was a better choice than voting for the Communists, but to illustrate the absurdity brought about by the “lesser of two evils” approach when applied to democratic participation by people of faith.
At what point would it be better to surrender political power than to continue to wield it in increasingly debased contests, where victory means having reason to hope that your chosen candidate is a little less terrible than their opponent?
Many of Trump’s reluctant Christian supporters think it is too idealistic to eschew political power altogether. Perhaps it is worth asking in return if there is a point at which the political options become so inimical to religious faith that the responsibilities and opportunities afforded by the democratic right to vote become morally inaccessible or at least inadvisable to religious believers.
Maybe this is easier for an Australian to accept. Americans have long imbibed an exceptionalism, an optimism, and an overt religiosity that risks conflating politics and religion. The American perspective seems dominated by the idea that Providence has delivered this great nation to the American people, but at the same time handed over responsibility for its upkeep. It’s as though Americans are unwilling to admit that their political system might be so flawed as to render participation impossible.
By contrast Australia was first and foremost an offshore dumping ground for convicts. Expectations were low from the outset.
Reading the accounts of Trump’s Christian supporters gives the impression that democracy has set Providence at a distance, that the power of the vote forces religious people to elevate pragmatism and politics alongside, if not ahead of, faith.
It is true that the future character of American law and society may depend heavily on future Supreme Court decisions, which will in turn depend on the perspective of its judicial members. The next President will likely influence the make-up of the court, and the identity of the next President will in turn be decided by the American people. If we stop there, then indeed the future character of American law and society depends on the voting choice of individual Americans, Christians as much as anyone.
But not ultimately. Ultimately everything is dependent on God, and either trusting or fearing politicians and judges is an error.
The real problem, common to us all, is fear: the fear we will be blameworthy if we do not vote for the less terrible candidate, or against the more terrible candidate. We fear we will be held accountable if we do not exercise our limited power to influence this remote yet significant political event. We fear that terrible things will happen if we do not do everything in our power to forestall them.
But Christianity has never promised that terrible things will stop happening. Christianity only makes one promise, a promise that was enough to let martyrs endure persecution and death without fear.
Of course, the martyrs never faced the difficult decision of choosing how to vote, so take all of this with a grain of salt. 
Zac Alstin is associate editor of MercatorNet. He also blogs at


The debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was one of the most dispiriting events I have ever seen. Mrs Clinton had a bucket of foetid garbage ready for her opponent and she used it to full effect. Mr Trump retaliated, in spades, threatening to jail her if he wins the election. This is the man who said, only a few days ago, “The Clintons are the sordid past. We will be the very bright and clean future.”
What did Americans do to deserve this? They have spent around US$5 billion on this election and instead of listening to a debate about policy, they ended up watching a domestic. Zac Alstin has some very pertinent observations in our lead story. 

Michael Cook

Democracy and providence: does political participation trump religious faith?
By Zac Alstin
Holding your nose might not be enough.
Read the full article
Trump and Clinton’s second debate: American politics in the gutter
By Liam Kennedy
An anticipated knockout for Clinton turned into a draw
Read the full article
Hormonal contraception linked to depression
By Tamara El-Rahi
A huge study finds that users face higher risks to their mental health.
Read the full article
Anonymous sperm donor opponent answers her critics
By Stephanie Raeymaekers
A Belgian woman describes some of the practices in the industry
Read the full article
Authors escape war with important manuscripts
By Jennifer Minicus
A biography about the creators of a beloved monkey
Read the full article
‘Deepwater Horizon’ honors oil rig workers but oversimplifies the blowout
By Eric van Oort
The film is a reminder that we must remain vigilant to prevent a repeat of the human and ecological disaster
Read the full article
A social care crisis
By Shannon Roberts
What does it mean to care?
Read the full article
A world without Down’s?
By Carolyn Moynihan
A British actress subverts the ‘arms race’ against people with this disability.
Read the full article
British youth: worn down, worried and in ‘suspended adulthood’
By Marcus Roberts
Worrying results from a new UK poll.
Read the full article
‘It’s all about me, me, me!’ Why children are spending less time doing household chores
By Shi Li
Give your child the gift of hard, tedious obligations.
Read the full article
Let me try to explain the strange spectacle of an American election
By James Schall SJ
For Australians and other parliamentary democracies
Read the full article
How Christianity created the free society
By Samuel Gregg
The Christian roots of modern liberalism.
Read the full article
Helping children understand dementia
By Jane Fagan
A picture book about memory loss and ageing
Read the full article
Abortion protests mark a black day for Poland
By Carolyn Moynihan
Furious young women throng the streets to reject an abortion ban.
Read the full article

MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia

Designed by elleston

New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605 

No hay comentarios: