I Voted...and Other Controversies
This morning I cast my vote in the midterms. The process was quick, close by, monitored, and provided renewed confidence in our democracy. And I learned of some policy decisions that were fascinating to consider.
Now that my civic duty is done, let me weigh in on five national controversies. None of these are related to the Bible, nor theological principles. That said, all five are important to civic participation.
1. Trump lost the previous election.
Elections are rarely pristine. The last several elections included quite a few shenanigans that were later revealed. Democrats are notorious for bussing in crowds and lax voter requirements so that some can (apparently) vote multiple times, from beyond the grave, or outside of their own districts. Republicans are notorious for contesting anything close, and Trump's recent interaction with the state of Georgia is suspicious (criminal at worse). That said, elections are held with a knowledge that all Americans should continually strive to have as much integrity in the voting process as possible. Anything less undermines faith in the voting system. Ultimately, even if an election is close, it's helpful to have a civil concession speech. I'm not a fan of the label "election denier" mainly because it doesn't seem to allow for any questioning of shenanigans in elections. Simultaneously, it doesn't help either party to deny an election result. Just because it didn't go your way doesn't give you the right to flout reality. So, whatever the outcome, for either side who wins or loses their candidacy - acknowledge the result and get out of the way.
2. Yes, get out the vote.
Democrats are notorious for stating that Republicans don't want every American to vote. Underpinning their argument is a specific form of arrogance: if everyone eligible voted, then Democrats would always win in landslides. Rubbish. Republicans also want every eligible voter to vote. They want it because most Americans are more conservative than Democrats believe. Both sides want to "get out the vote." It's just that either side may not like the vote once it has been "gotten."
3. One eligible voter. One vote.
There's been a lot of controversy surrounding how to demonstrate that one is an eligible voter. But it's not difficult: 18 or over, registered, and some form of governmentally issued identification card that links the physical person to the I.D. One voter has the opportunity to submit one vote. That vote is theirs to offer and that vote matters. All polling centers should be within walking distance (within 1.5 miles) for those whose only means of transportation is by foot.
4. Move along.
We should consider a "too old to run" rule for presidency. There are already "too young to run" rules in place. The reason for this is two-fold: 1) the physical demands of the job, and 2) the mental strain of the job. This is not ageist, nor is it saying that all people above a certain age cannot perform the job (in the same way that not all people under a certain age cannot perform the job). It is acknowledging limits for effectiveness. In this scenario: both Trump and Biden are too old. Neither should run. Let's move along to other candidates without the spectre of either looming over the next Presidential election.
5. Balanced diets.
In our primaries, we need to figure out a way that party "red meat" (for Democrats or Republicans) catering to extremes is not the only diet. Is it true that centrists tend not to win elections? Yes. Americans want their politicians to take definitive, easy stances on complex, nuanced issues. And those stances need to be known in the 30-second commercial spot between NFL games. It's a self-feeding machine. So...let's stop the machine and figure out a different path forward. Two suggestions: 1) Primaries should include a "scale" on topics that allow candidates to express some degree of nuance and rationale. For example, on defense spending, percentages of GDP. 2) In debates, each candidate should sum up their opponents position on a given issue that first reflects their understanding of that position and its rationale...in under 3 minutes. This forces the moderators to be specific and the candidates to acknowledge their understanding of their opponent while also expressing their own position and rationale. It also humanizes the "other."
