Jim Wallis's principles for citizens thinking about who to honour with their vote in any election

Jim Wallis has just produced his list of priorities in deciding how to vote in the coming US elections. India's national elections may be less than six months away....

Wallis's is also a good starting point for anyone considering how to vote in any election anywhere in the world, so I provide it below, with my comments in capitals.

"With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about how we treat the poor and oppressed, I will examine the record, plans, policies, and promises made by the candidates on what they will do to overcome the scandal of extreme global poverty and the shame of such unnecessary domestic poverty in the richest nation in the world. Such a central theme of the Bible simply cannot be ignored at election time, as too many Christians have done for years. And any solution to the economic crisis that simply bails out the rich, and even the middle class, but ignores those at the bottom should simply be unacceptable to people of faith. NEITHER THE DEMOCRATIC NOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THE USA HAS ANY PLANS TO HELP THE POOR, AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.

"From the biblical prophets to Jesus, there is, at least, a biblical presumption against war and the hope of beating our swords into instruments of peace. So I will choose the candidates who will be least likely to lead us into more disastrous wars and find better ways to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the world and make us all safer. I will choose the candidates who seem to best understand that our security depends upon other people’s security (everyone having "their own vine and fig tree, so no one can make them afraid," as the prophets say) more than upon how high we can build walls or a stockpile of weapons. Christians should never expect a pacifist president, but we can insist on one who views military force only as a very last resort, when all other diplomatic and economic measures have failed, and never as a preferred or habitual response to conflict. ON THIS BASIS, PRESIDENT BUSH MAY BE CONSIDERED DISQUALIFIED, AND PROBABLY MCCAIN - THOUGH I AM NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. OBAMA MAY BE QUALIFIED, BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO TELL AS HE HAS NOT REALLY RUN ANYTHING SO FAR, AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO TELL HOW HE WILL REACT UNDER PRESSURE. THERE IS ALSO THE OPPOSITE DANGER OF APPEASING POTENTIAL HITLERS.
HOW ONE BEHAVES AS A PERSON IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER FROM WHAT ONE JUDGES TO BE THE BEST OF IMPERFECT CHOICES AMONG CANDIDATES. WALLIS UNDOUBTEDLY PREFERS OBAMA ON THIS BASIS.

"Choosing life" is a constant biblical theme, so I will choose candidates who have the most consistent ethic of life, addressing all the threats to human life and dignity that we face — not just one. Thirty-thousand children dying globally each day of preventable hunger and disease is a life issue. The genocide in Darfur is a life issue. Health care is a life issue. War is a life issue. The death penalty is a life issue. And on abortion, I will choose candidates who have the best chance to pursue the practical and proven policies which could dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America and therefore save precious unborn lives, rather than those who simply repeat the polarized legal debates and "pro-choice" and "pro-life" mantras from either side.
God’s fragile creation is clearly under assault, and I will choose the candidates who will likely be most faithful in our care of the environment. In particular, I will choose the candidates who will most clearly take on the growing threat of climate change, and who have the strongest commitment to the conversion of our economy and way of life to a cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy future. And that choice could accomplish other key moral priorities like the redemption of a dangerous foreign policy built on Middle East oil dependence, and the great prospects of job creation and economic renewal from a new "green" economy built on more spiritual values of conservation, stewardship, sustainability, respect, responsibility, co-dependence, modesty, and even humility. OBAMA HAS A CONSISTENTLY ANTI-LIFE VOTING RECORD ON ABORTION. IT IS UNCERTAIN IF HE HAS ANY IDEA OF HOW TO TACKLE, OR IF HE IS EVEN CONCERNED OR KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT, DARFUR OR GLOBAL POVERTY OR CHILD MORTALITY. UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT WALLIS MEANS BY "practical and proven policies which could dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America". SO I SEE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO STICK TO AN OVERALL "PRO-LIFE" POSITION.
ON THE ENVIRONMENT, IT IS WORTH KEEPING IN MIND THAT A REPUBLICAN-SPONSORED NAFTA WAS SIGNED BY A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT CLINTON AND VICE-PRESIDENT AL GORE - AND THAT WAS THE TEMPLATE FOR THE WTO AGREEMENT WHICH HAS PRODUCED MORE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE THING IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND. I DON'T FIND EITHER MCCAIN OR OBAMA EVEN CONSIDERING ANYTHING IN TERMS OF GLOBAL MINIMUM STANDARDS, GLOBAL RULES AND GLOBAL VALUES - THOUGH PRESIDENT BUSH'S CALL FOR THE G20 TO MEET ON NOVEMBER 14 MAY SIGNAL SOME FRESH THINKING ON THIS.

"Every human being is made in the image of God, so I will choose the candidates who are most likely to protect human rights and human dignity. Sexual and economic slavery is on the rise around the world, and an end to human trafficking must become a top priority. As many religious leaders have now said, torture is completely morally unacceptable, under any circumstances, and I will choose the candidates who are most committed to reversing American policy on the treatment of prisoners. And I will choose the candidates who understand that the immigration system is totally broken and needs comprehensive reform, but must be changed in ways that are compassionate, fair, just, and consistent with the biblical command to "welcome the stranger." ON THIS, OBAMA CLEARLY WINS.

"Healthy families are the foundation of our community life, and nothing is more important than how we are raising up the next generation. As the father of two young boys, I am deeply concerned about the values our leaders model in the midst of the cultural degeneracy assaulting our children. Which candidates will best exemplify and articulate strong family values, using the White House and other offices as bully pulpits to speak of sexual restraint and integrity, marital fidelity, strong parenting, and putting family values over economic values? And I will choose the candidates who promise to really deal with the enormous economic and cultural pressures that have made parenting such a "countercultural activity" in America today, rather than those who merely scapegoat gay people for the serious problems of heterosexual family breakdown." THIS IS TO MIX UP TWO OR MORE SEPARATE ISSUES. HOMOSEXUALITY IS THE RESULT OF FAMILY BREAKDOWN AND DOES LITTLE TO FAMILY LIFE, BUT CERTAINLY ALSO LITTLE TO CAUSE FAMILY BREAKDOWN. HOMOSEXUALITY IS, HOWEVER, CLEARLY ANTI-SOCIAL. FAMILY BREAKDOWN SEEMS TO ME TO BE CAUSED MORE BY GREED, AMBITION, AND NEGLIGENCE - ALL OF WHICH ARE ENCOURAGED BY THE SORT OF CASINO CAPITALISM THAT HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF ACTIONS ON THE PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC AS WELL AS THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES.

ON THE BASIS OF HIS PRIORITIES, WALLIS HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE PREFERS THE DEMOCRATS THIS TIME AROUND. IN ONE OF MY PREVIOUS POSTS, I HAVE MADE CLEAR THAT IF I WAS A U.S. CITIZEN, I WOULD VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICANS THIS TIME AROUND - THOUGH I PREFERRED THE DEMOCRATS FOR THE LAST TWO ELECTIONS.

WHAT AMERICANS WITH HUMAN VALUES NEED TO DO IS TO GET TOGETHER, FIRST TO CALL FOR ELECTORAL REFORM IN ORDER TO RID THEIR ELECTIONS OF THE INFLUENCE OF BIG MONEY, AND THEN FORM A PARTY THEMSELVES IN ORDER TO MAKE CLEAR THE MORAL, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL POLICIES THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR A NEW GLOBAL FRAMEWORK THAT IS HUMANE.

WALLIS OUGHT TO GET TOGETHER WITH RICK WARREN, CHUCK COLSON AND OTHERS - AND THEY WILL FIND THAT THERE IS MUCH TO UNITE THEM AND LITTLE TO DIVIDE THEM IF THEY STOP THINKING ABOUT THE CURRENT CHOICES AND CURRENT AGENDA, AND START PUTTING FORWARD THEIR OWN AGENDA AND PERHAPS EVEN THEIR OWN CANDIDATES. Sphere: Related Content