Why I Am a Democrat

In this post (and perhaps subsequent posts as this one is getting long already) I will outline some of the reasoning behind why I’m still a Democrat and how I reconcile that with being a Christian. Why do I want to do this? Well it’s my long held belief that some of my brethren on the Right have branded Christianity as the official Republican religion. I won’t go so far as to say that they have highjacked the faith, but they have certainly cast aspersions on anyone that claims to be simultaneously a Christian and a Democrat.


A long, long time ago I found myself a young man sitting in my college dorm. There was a presidential election coming up and I needed to register to vote. I had made it through two years of college blissfully ignorant of anything outside my own sphere of influence (little larger than a hamster ball), but even I knew that I had a responsibility to vote for the leader of our country if for no one else. I knew almost nothing concrete about platforms or even why I needed to register with a certain party. At the time I figured I had two choices and based on my limited knowledge, I chose the Democratic Party. Of course I realize now that my options were somewhat broader, but we’re dealing with me then, not me now.
I did know that my politics, such as they were, lined up with the liberal side of things. I believed very much in the freedom of choice in all things. I was strongly pro-choice on the abortion issue. I believed that the government had the responsibility to take care of those who couldn’t take care of themselves. My mother and I, in addition to other family members, had been the recipient of government help in the past. Affirmative action sounded pretty good to me as did equal rights for women, homosexuals, and every human being that drew breath.
Now at this point in my walk of faith I was little more than a yearling, literally. I had been baptized the year before. I’d always believed in a god of some sort and was raised in a nominally Christian household, but church going and Bible reading had never been a huge part of who I was. If you had asked me then about any of the basic tenets of the faith you would have gotten an opinion to be sure, but it would have been as shaky as any statement I’d make on anything other than literature or role playing games (my whole world at the time). So I do think that my fuzzy faith informed my fuzzy politics or perhaps vice versa; all of this coming out of my somewhat insular and naïve, though good intentioned, worldview.
As I’ve gotten older my political and religious beliefs have developed considerably. I consider myself to be moderate when it comes to both. Some I suppose would say that that means I’m still a bit fuzzy. To them I say, the more extreme your beliefs in either of these fields of human endeavor are the less good you are likely to do for anyone or any group. I think history will back me up on this point. As my views have changed, my faith has always been the basis for how I view the world and interact with it. I think that that’s a natural enough thing for any religious person. I for one don’t trust a politician who says that their faith doesn’t “interfere” with their political calling.
So presently I am still a Democrat and still a Christian. Now here comes the fun part (I know you were waiting). I’ll pick a couple of issues and tell you why I think I’m on solid ground with this choice. You feel free to agree or tell me why I’m a nut case.
Welfare/Social Programs – This has long been a bone of contention between my wife and me. Oh, time for a sidebar. For those of you that don’t know, my wife is a VERY conservative Republican and Christian. This has led to many fights, debates, sleepless nights, accusations, recriminations, and as a result of that a fair amount of makeup whoopee. So that’s all good. I think that the Bible is crystal clear on the need for taking care of those less fortunate than we are. This includes but is not limited to orphans and widows. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves and do unto others as we would have them do unto us. All well and good but why does this mean that we have to do that as a country? Isn’t that a personal thing? Of course it is. I think that it is also a corporate thing. Christianity calls for the Church to help others out, not just the individuals.
Large bodies of folks are almost always able to do more good than individuals (at least financially). The larger than body gets the more likely it is that certain things need to be mandated and codified. In our country, especially the early days, the Church has often done just that and still does to varying degrees. Unfortunately, or perhaps very fortunately, we don’t have a state church to take care of those sorts of things as a centralized function. So it falls to the State itself to perform that function for the people and by the people (that sounds pretty good). If this is, as some claim, a Christian nation then its values and actions should reflect that. Even if it’s only Christian in the sense that the majority of Americans claim to be Christian (which is what I believe that means). So for me the idea of our country having a wide variety of programs supported by our tax dollars to help out those that can’t help themselves is pretty much a no-brainer.
Now I know what some of you are saying. These programs are abused, misused, mismanaged, can be a bottomless money pit, etc. I hear that. That’s no reason not to try. Reform is needed, rejection is not.
Well this has gotten kind of long, so I’ll go ahead and close for now. I’d love to hear from the Republicans in the audience. Tell me where I’m wrong, or where I’m right, but how the Democratic party isn’t the one to help take care of folks.

  • http://www.technicalstew.info Patrick

    You won’t say that they have gone so far as saying the GOP has hijacked the faith, but don’t you think that the Christian faith has hijacked the Party?

  • http://www.spiritualtramp.com Scott

    I think that they’re in what they percieve to be a mutually beneficial situation, both thinking that they’re using the other. And only of by “faith” you mean the “Evangelicals”.

  • http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog sidfaiwu

    Very nice, Scott. I can’t tell you were you’re wrong because I agree with you, for the most part.
    I find it interesting that evangelical republicans feel that helping people is the responsibility of individuals while hurting people (in line with their religious beliefs, of course) is the state’s responsibility. It’s as though they don’t want to take personal responsibility for enforcing their religious laws but want to take personal credit for helping the poor.
    I personally think that a state-based welfare program is the best way to ensure that all Americans are doing their part to help the poor in proportion to their ability to afford to help.
    I’m a Democrat because I thought long and hard about many issues and found that I agreed with the Democrats much more often than the Republicans.

  • Rock

    Pretty darn good essay, IMHO.

  • http://www.spiritualtramp.com Scott

    I too like the idea of leaving as much as possible to the states, even abortion rights. And there you go thinking again!
    Rock-Thanks! That means a lot coming from a lean, mean, writing machine like you.

  • http://kansasbob.blogspot.com/ Kansas Bob

    I liked and agreed with your reasonings for government welfare programs Scott … this issue seems most important to you … look forward to reading your views on the other issues especially your pro-choice thinkings.

  • http://www.theologicalmusingsblog.com Steve Sensenig

    I’m very late getting to this, but had it saved in my Google Reader for when I’d really have time to read it and think about it. I still don’t, but I made the time! ;) hehe
    I’ve been registered Republican for my adult life, but I hear you on these issues. I’m disgusted with the Republican party, to be honest.
    I still have some concerns about the Democratic Party only because I would prefer to see the church doing its part in following the commands of Jesus, not turning that over to the government.
    But, you make a fair point in saying that it can’t hurt. I’m just under the impression that government programs don’t really work. Either Republican or Democratic! ;)
    This time around, I’m going more toward the Libertarian side and voting for Ron Paul.
    Oh, and by the way, the marriage of evangelical Christianity with the Republican party makes me very sick to my stomach.

  • http://www.spiritualtramp.com Scott

    Thanks KB and Steve!
    Steve, nothing that either party does should stop the Church from doing Kingdom work. I think we’ve gotten far too insular and engage in too much navel gazing.

  • http://eye4redemption.blogspot.com/ Kansas Bob

    I guess I don’t think the same as you on this Scott …
    “I too like the idea of leaving as much as possible to the states, even abortion rights.”
    … because I see it as “unborn child rights” rather than “abortion rights” … it is the same argument that could be made about the God given right of slaves to be free.

  • http://www.spiritualtramp.com Scott

    Slaves have a constitutional right to be free. Women have a Constitutional right (according to the Supreme Court) to have an abortion. At this point Bob unborn children don’t really have any rights that I know of. And that’s whether you or I like it or not.
    Now I’d love to change that. For a start I don’t think that a woman should be able to have an abortion in the 2nd/3rd trimester unless there are complications that clearly put the mother’s life at risk and then it should be the within the mother’s ability to choose. I know you and I probably don’t think the same way in regards to that.
    I’m not sure I follow you on slaves’ “god given rights” since the Bible doesn’t speak much about slavery in terms of abolishing it or how you roll that argument into abortion. Can you clarify that?

  • http://eye4redemption.blogspot.com/ Kansas Bob

    From the Declaration of Independence …
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    … denying personhood to unborn children is the same rationale used for slaves. If you don’t believe that an unborn baby or a slave is a person than you come to the conclusion that they do not have “unalienable Rights”.
    That said, I agree with you Scott about 2nd/3rd trimester abortions … if the child is viable outside the mom then it is undeniably a person that has rights.
    Also, the flavor of slavery in the bible was a bit different than what white slave traders did when they brutally accosted and kidnapped people from their homes in Africa. Slavery in the bible was more on a personal level and didn’t involve enslaving an entire innocent population.

  • http://kansasbob.blogspot.com/ Kansas Bob

    I found this at http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html …
    “The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people fail to understand is that slavery in Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.”
    … hope this helps.
    PS: Your blogsite is not remembering my email/url info after I comment.

  • http://sidfaiwu.com/blog sidfaiwu

    “What many people fail to understand is that slavery in Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world.”
    As if treating slaves nicely makes it okay.
    I was about to start debating the abortion issue, but then I remembered that we already did.
    P.S. My info is also not being remembered.

  • http://www.spiritualtramp.com Scott

    Must be my overzealous spam protection. I’ll look into it.
    Hey, sid weren’t you the one saying slavery was okay to a point? I htink all Bob was saying (and I concur) is that the slavery discussed in the OT is more like what we would call indentured servitude. Lifelong slavery wasn’t the way that God’s people generally did things, at least not if the were following the Law. Every seven years all debts were called off and land reverted to its owners.
    But again its all moot since at this point legaly speaking, you can’t enslave another person and a fetus doesn’t have rights. I’m sure that no one here has a problem with the first and the second will change with time. As we roll back the age at which a fetus can survive it is more likely that they will achieve the status of “person”. After all, once a 20 week old fetus is viable the majority of the time I’d think that even the hardest core pro-choicer would have a hard time saying that it had no right to live. I could be wrong though.

  • http://sidfaiwu.com/blog sidfaiwu

    “Hey, sid weren’t you the one saying slavery was okay to a point?”
    Ah, but you convinced me in that discussion that what I was okay with wasn’t slavery, properly speaking. What I had in mind is voluntary work without pay. Slavery has no voluntary component, and an indentured servant has only initial voluntarism. Really, indentured servitude is just slavery with a term limits.
    “After all, once a 20 week old fetus is viable the majority of the time I’d think that even the hardest core pro-choicer would have a hard time saying that it had no right to live.”
    If you remember our debate, you’d see that I think that all fetuses have a right to live. I just think that the mother’s right to not be pregnant trumps it due to the lopsided ability to suffer. Under this reasoning, if the fetus is able to be removed and finish develop outside the womb with no extra, involuntary suffering placed on others, then it should be done. I think we are a long way away from such a situation, but hope we make it someday.

  • http://kansasbob.blogspot.com/ Kansas Bob

    I think that the pro-choice perspective would disagree with you Scott when you say …
    it is more likely that they will achieve the status of “person”
    … because the baby is not considered a person to them no matter how old the baby is. Maybe it is just semantics but as long as ‘choice’ is involved the baby will continue to have no rights because they have no ‘choice’. That is why I think the debate should not be about ‘choice’ but about viability … maybe we should begin a ‘pro-viable’ crusade.. it could be something that most everyone embraces – maybe :)

«
»