This year I have said more than once that I am bracing myself to vote in November for "the lesser of two evils." I do not want to vote for evil. I want to vote for good. Is that possible this year, or any year? Based on recent primary campaign tactics and antics, I expect that the Democratic and Republican party candidates will attempt to demonize each other all the way up to November. Each candidate will ignore or minimize the positive and exaggerate the negative aspects of his or her opponent's personality, capabilities, and platform.
To accept the demonizing of any political candidate is sloth. It is intellectually lazy and far less than we should expect of ourselves or our fellow citizens. And yet, conceding to vote for the lesser of two evils in November assumes that the demonizing politicians were right and that both candidates are devils. On the other hand, believing the choice is between my candidate who is an angel, or at least an admirable human being, and the other candidate who is a devil is delusional.
A twentieth century American theologian named Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) taught, wrote, and preached prophetically about political life in America. If you will engage his words thoughtfully, I believe you will see that what he wrote in 1946 offers a fresh and insightful perspective on this year's political campaign. I believe acknowledging the truth of his words, i.e., that you and I see from a limited and skewed perspective, allows us to make a clearer judgment about this year's presidential candidates. When I no longer project my deception and my ignorance onto them I can see more objectively their real strengths and real weaknesses.
The following is more than a sound bite, but if you soak in these thoughts and use them to reflect on our current political climate I believe the words will ring true. This is an excerpt from Reinhold Niebuhr's book Discerning the Signs of the Times (Scribner's, 1946, pp. 12-13).
Since we usually do not deceive others without also deceiving ourselves, our motives are frequently "honest" after we have dishonestly constructed the imposing facade of ideal intentions...
The combination of ignorance and dishonesty, which determines the composition of our social prejudices, is occasioned by the fact that all men are creatures of limited perspectives and yet are also free spirits who have some knowledge of the larger frame of reference in which their judgment and their interest are not the center of the scheme of things. Our anxieties as weak creatures in competition with other forms of life prompt us to advance our own interests. Our strength as rational and spiritual creatures enables us to advance these interests beyond their rightful range. Our further capacity to recognize the invalidity of these claims means that we must, with some degree of conscious dishonesty, hide our special interests and claims, and merge them with the more universal and general interests.
Thus it is that every party claim and every national judgment, every racial and religious prejudice, and every private estimate of the interests and virtues of other men, is something more and something less than a purely intellectual judgment. From the simplest judgment of our rival and competitor to the most ultimate judgment about the character of human history and the manner of its final fulfillment, we are tempted to error by our anxieties and our pride; and we seek to hide the error by pretension. We can not discern the signs of the times because we are hypocrites.Niebuhr's understanding does not elevate political candidates above the rest of us or give them immunity from the ignorance and dishonesty by which all humans pursue our own self-interest. He rather brings into focus the limited perspective we have to judge politicians, inviting us to take the first step toward gaining a clearer perspective by practicing a little humility. Niebuhr astutely observes further, as if peering ahead 70 years from 1946 (p. 21,22, 25):
Anger is the root of both righteousness and sin... One source of sin in anger lies in the selfish narrowness of our emotions... The second corrupt fruit of anger is hatred.. The cure of the sin in anger is not an emotional detachment from the issues of life. It is rather an attitude of humility which recognizes the constant temptation to sinful and egoistic corruption in our anger.Niebuhr's critique of human anger and limitation is on target. Does he see and offer any solution? He warns us not to assume that having faith purifies our politics. "A faith which claims to know too much is not merely the bearer of the pretensions of wisdom, but also the instrument of human will-to-power" (p. 90). He gives no final answer for us but has hope for our national life in the faith of Abraham who looked for a city whose builder and maker was God (Hebrews 11:10); in our expectant waiting for the coming of the Son of Man (Matthew 25:1-13); in the humor of God (Psalm 2:4) and our own capacity to laugh at ourselves; in the power of God that is made perfect in weakness (Matthew 27, 2 Corinthians 2:9); in the unconquered mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 13:12); and in peace of God which surpasses all understanding and keeps our hearts through Jesus Christ (Philippians 4:7).
As Christians we do not have to choose between two evil political candidates, but rather confess the evil in our own lives that distorts our perspectives and claim for ourselves the mercy, grace, and love of God at work to forgive us and open our eyes so we realistically, and without condemnation, assess human beings for who they are: sinners saved by grace, and therefore God's children. As children of God we are called and expected to embrace interests that are far bigger than our own.
Given these realities, and discerning the spirit of the times, I fully expect to see the good beyond the bad in both presidential candidates and to make a choice for the one I believe is most committed and capable of delivering the good of our nation and world in the days ahead.
