Values and Voting

Values and Voting
Gregory Koukl

What isn't fair or reasonable is when any group has to fight just to be heard or are condemned or ridiculed not for their point of view but for giving their point of view, regardless of how unpopular it may be, or how stridently it may be argued.

Yesterday I had a conversation with a reporter from The Daily Breeze . Apparently there's a Christian group that's been polling local candidates to determine their specific views on issues to help those with Christian values to cast their votes intelligently.

A candidate for a medically related post--some type of hospital administration job--had received one of the polls and was incensed at the pointed questions he was asked about abortion which made up most of the poll. He remarked to the reporter that this was another example of those fundamentalists rearing their ugly heads and trying to force their views on other people.

I'll tell you what I told the reporter (and a bit more) for two reasons. First, it might help you ask the kind of questions that will help you choose a candidate that represents what you believe is true and right and good in the area of political action. Second, it will help you explain why the questions you ask as a Christian are appropriate questions to ask of a person running for public office.

Two general comments to begin with. First, you don't marginalize a significant block of voters simply because you don't like what they have to say. It seems to me that in a truly pluralistic society every group should get a hearing who wants to be heard instead of being summarily dismissed. We wouldn't say, "Oh, that's those Mexicans making trouble again," or "Those old people are making demands," or "That Board of Realtors is forcing their views on us." Or "those blacks," or "those homosexuals," or "those unions," or "those fundamentalists."

The fact is that each is a legitimate voice among the constituency. It doesn't mean that we adopt every suggestion or give in to every special interest group. But it certainly seems appropriate for them to be able to ask questions, get informed, and make their point through a public appeal.

Second, the charge that Christians are trying to force their views on others is simply unfair. They're trying to make their case in the public square and then are willing to put it to a vote. No force, no imposition, just advocacy for a point of view and voting. Everybody has an equal shot. That's fair, that's reasonable. What isn't fair or reasonable is when any group has to fight just to be heard or are condemned or ridiculed not for their point of view but for giving their point of view, regardless of how unpopular it may be, or how stridently it may be argued. Christians just want to be players in the discussion. Why do others want to censor that contribution?

That's why I get frustrated when any candidate listens to the Christian segment who asks valid questions that relate to their point of view and their particular interests and then he starts screaming that they're an extremist group trying to impose its views.

First of all, I don't know anything in about this Christian fact-finding group. I do know some people in my church that have some association with it, but I'm sure there are Christians from churches all over South Bay that do as well. But let me offer a justification of the specific questions the pollsters asked.

There are a lot of different special interest groups in this state and this city, in this particular jurisdiction. Those groups want to know about different political appointments or positions as they relate to their individual interests.

Christians characteristically are very concerned with human rights issues, which include the rights of the unborn child. The concept of human rights is a very broad based concept and it affects a number of different things. So a person's attitude towards the rights of an unborn child may also influence his attitude towards the rights of other people like children with congenital defects or elderly people with terminal illness. These are timely concerns, especially in light of initiative 161 which will give a doctor the legal right to kill his or her patient if the patient consents. In addition, the abortion issue is not a peripheral issue in general this year; it's one of the hottest issues going, and I'm stunned that any politician would not be expected to be clear about his point of view, especially one for a hospital board. Even so, abortion has been a serious concern for Christians in any election.

Next, if I'm looking at a candidate as a Christian person who is concerned about human rights, I don't just want to know a candidate's fiscal policy, I want to understand some of the underlying values that motivate those fiscal views because those values will also determine other kinds of decisions that candidate will make if elected. And one of the most critical underlying values is what a person thinks about the nature and value of human life. The questions are good ones, they're fair ones, they're vital ones.

Here's another thing that's very important. Candidates are very reluctant to talk about their values but values are what determines what their decisions will be on a variety of issues. If you know a candidates values, you know the candidate. If you know that he is for fiscal conservatism or he is pro-family or he is against crime, you know nothing because everybody is those things. The question is "What are the values that will cause them to make individual decisions about how those specific convictions express themselves in policy and specific programs?"

The family question is the one that's really up in the air. Everybody is pro-family but what is family? Your values determine how you define that word. Some say that a family is just about anything, and so "family" is nothing in particular anymore. The debate becomes very confusing if you don't understand the underlying values and convictions about the specifics.

I think they're legitimate questions and I think the fact that a candidate is uneasy about answering them shows the reluctance of politicians to make their values public because values are what tie people down to particular positions. Those are the most important kinds of questions that can be asked of a candidate, in my view. This is what the press is trying to get at when they probe with questions. They're trying to get the underlying values. Is Bill Clinton reliable, trustworthy? Does Bush mean what he says? The probing is to get at the real person underneath. And that's what these polls attempt to do. There should be no fear in making deeper convictions public unless the convictions are discreditable. In any case, voters, even Christian voters, have a right to know.

At least that's the way I see it.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1992 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755 (800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org