'One Issue' Voting

Pat Robertson has recently raised some eyebrows with his endorsement of Rudi Giuliani for President. The eyebrows are raised because Giuliani's position on abortion is, to quote the Washington Post,

"I hate abortion," which is "morally wrong." But "people ultimately have to make that choice. If a woman chooses that, that's her choice, not mine. That's her morality, not mine."

Columnist Michael Gerson's overall reasoning is sound when he questions the validity of Giuliani's position:

But the question naturally arises: Why does Giuliani "hate" abortion? No one feels moral outrage about an appendectomy. Clearly he is implying his support for the Catholic belief that an innocent life is being taken. And here the problems begin.

How can the violation of a fundamental human right be viewed as a private matter? Not everything that is viewed as immoral should be illegal; there are no compelling public reasons to restrict adultery, for example, or to outlaw sodomy. But when morality demands respect for the rights of a human being, those protections become a matter of social justice, not just personal or religious preference.

John Piper expresses a similar argument in his article, One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Human Society.

I'm sure Pat Robertson has heard and considered these arguments. His endorsement hinges on the belief that, whatever Giuliani's personal view on abortion, his promise to appoint conservative, 'strict constructionist' judges to the Supreme Court means voting for this particular pro-choice Republican candidate will potentially do more to protect the unborn than support for an unelectable pro-life candidate.

Here is where I cry foul. If the decision is up to me (and it is when I'm in that voting booth), when a candidate has refused to take a stand on an issue of justice, who cares how his presidency might promote an issue I hold dear if such and such and such happens down the road? The bottom line is that there really are single issues that disqualify someone from public office.

In the end we, as Christians, need to remember that we serve a sovereign God who does not require the assistance of the Republican party to ensure that all is right with the world. I won't get into to it now but, in many areas, I feel like I've been 'sold a bill of goods' by a slew of Republicans who, at heart, don't share my convictions about the unborn or other social and moral issues. I feel 'courted' because these folks know they can't win without my 'Evangelical right' vote. So that I don't overstate the issue, let me assert my belief that there are many godly men and women serving in elected positions throughout the country, intentionally glorifying God by their service.

I've lived overseas for many years now in countries (Malaysia and now Thailand) where Christian views have absolutely no impact on the political process. Christians in these countries routinely glorify God and the government never asks their opinion when making policies for the country. America is certainly a bit different. Still, I have to face the fact that 'Republican controlled government' is most definitely not synonymous with 'Motivated by a desire to glorify God-controlled government'.

Based on these observations, I will still continue to exercise my right and responsibility, as an American, to vote. In my mind, however, my vote will serve more as an expression of my Bible-based beliefs than as a tool for making America a more God-centered place (at least in a Clinton-Giuliani-everyone else race). I will not support a candidate who is unwilling to stand up for the rights of America's most oppressed population segment, the unborn.

Let me know what you think. I don't have all the answers on these issues! I'm happy to dialogue with those who disagree.