IN A recent interview given to Beliefnet, a Web site designed to help people explore spirituality in all its forms, Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ). discussed the role he believes one's faith ought to have in determining who one votes for in the 2008 presidential election. Though his comments in response to a question pertaining to a Muslim candidate have drawn the most controversy, McCain's most interesting statement, from my point of view, is this: "I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the president of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'" McCain's comments strike at the heart of the decisions facing conservative Christian voters in this election: Who do you trust to carry out this mission?
But what are the Judeo-Christian values McCain so vaguely alludes to, and how exactly does a president carry on the tradition of the aforementioned values? In essence, what are conservative Christians looking for in their next presidential standard bearer? In contemporary politics, the phrase "Judeo-Christian values" translates to one's stance toward the ongoing battle about abortion and the struggle about gay rights. These come along with a host of other issues, such as stem cell research and the hydra of the separation of church and state.
In choosing their preferred presidential candidate, conservative Christians will look for the person who, if elected, would do the best job consolidating recent gains made in areas meaningful to social conservatives and would present the best opportunities for continued progress. For example, if a person's chief concern were "right to life" in choosing a president, he or she might vote for the presidential candidate who would secure the most favorable Supreme Court nominees.
The problem is trust. The voters to whom McCain is speaking seek a candidate in whom they can place absolute faith to carry out their political and moral agenda. For many to most conservative Christians, this rules out the Democratic frontrunners in this election. Where 2008 differs from other elections in recent memory is that the leading Republican candidates provide an equally sticky selection and leave the voter with three options: go with the candidate most likely to beat the Democratic nominee despite a questionable past, hold your nose and go with a solid candidate whose views are suspect or vote for a fringe candidate whose moral views are most consistent with one's own.
The problems with the Republican frontrunners' social conservative credentials are well documented. I don't want this column to simply smear the Republican candidates, but rather to illustrate the difficulty in choosing one one can conscionably support. So, succinctly, the problems with Republican candidates: Rudy Giuliani openly supports abortion rights and supports gay rights but not marriage; Mitt Romney is personally anti-abortion but wants abortion to be a state issue; Fred Thompson supports the "sanctity of life" and the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman, but, like Romney, supports a greater role for the states. McCain supports sending abortion back to the states, anti-abortion laws and defining the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. All these facts come from the candidates' personal Web sites.
The problem most social conservatives have with these candidates is simply one of trust. We know what they say, but we want to know what they will do if elected. McCain, for example, says many things in the interview with Beliefnet that would encourage conservative Christians to vote for him. He comes across as a sincere man who seeks to follow God -- it's difficult to ask for more than that. Again, the problem is, is it for real or just an act in catering to the voters?
Conservative voters thus have the unenviable choice of trying to discern truth from fiction in the world of politics. They have to decide if it is worth gambling that Rudy, Mitt, Fred or John will turn out alright, or if they are risky enough to throw a vote away on a Ron Paul or a Sam Brownback, who are at least consistent and forthright. It's a tough spot to be in.
Fortunately, we can look more closely at the candidates' records and hope that with more than a year left to decide, better information will come out. If not, the voter must decide if he or she would rather vote for a principle that will lose or risk a vote on a perceived lesser of two evils.
Robby Colby's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rcolby@cavalierdaily.com.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22001_1.html
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/issues/
http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Values
http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 6 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | May 1, 2025As people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | May 1, 2025We hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
