But it is not just my own writing that has influenced my opinion of Obama. When I first became interested in the Obama campaign I decided to check out and read The Audacity of Hope, on the assumption that the ideas in his book would tell me something about him.  Rather than detail Obama’s writing myself, let me quote from The New Yorker‘s endorsement of Obama:

Nowadays, almost every politician who thinks about running for President arranges to become an author. Obama’s books are different: he wrote them. “The Audacity of Hope” (2006) is a set of policy disquisitions loosely structured around an account of his freshman year in the United States Senate. Though a campaign manifesto of sorts, it is superior to that genre’s usual blowsy pastiche of ghostwritten speeches. But it is Obama’s first book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance” (1995), that offers an unprecedented glimpse into the mind and heart of a potential President. Obama began writing it in his early thirties, before he was a candidate for anything. Not since Theodore Roosevelt has an American politician this close to the pinnacle of power produced such a sustained, highly personal work of literary merit before being definitively swept up by the tides of political ambition.

A Presidential election is not the awarding of a Pulitzer Prize: we elect a politician and, we hope, a statesman, not an author. But Obama’s first book is valuable in the way that it reveals his fundamental attitudes of mind and spirit. “Dreams from My Father” is an illuminating memoir not only in the substance of Obama’s own peculiarly American story but also in the qualities he brings to the telling: a formidable intelligence, emotional empathy, self-reflection, balance, and a remarkable ability to see life and the world through the eyes of people very different from himself.

On Obama’s Character

The New Yorker‘s endorsement has identified one of the biggest reasons why I find myself supporting Obama: his character.  This is not to say that all my other posts have been irrelevant; policies, voting records, and party affiliation are obviously important and essential parts of the election decision.  Yet their is a great deal to be said for character.  When you can trust someone’s character—his integrity, honesty, wisdom, and self-control—then you know that even if you disagree on policies, you can follow his leadership.

Obama has aptly proven his character on all counts.  He is, of course, not perfect.  Yet he is extraordinarily capable of understanding the world from multiple viewpoints.  He embraces what is best in Conservatism as well as in Liberalism.  He speaks intelligently to people of any race, gender, or age.  He commands respect when he addresses people, without intimidating them.  In short, he has all of the qualities of leadership combined in an unusually well balanced mix.

Perhaps this is why so many endorsements, especially from traditionally conservative establishments, speak highly of Obama.  The Chicago Tribune writes:

Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.

He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.

And The Washington Post speaks of Obama as “a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building,” writing:

Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country.

Americans are seeking leadership during this election just as much as they are seeking change.  They are looking for a President who understands democracy, listens to their voice, and consults other leaders.  Obama is an exceptional candidate when it comes to leadership and character.

Messiah Complex?

In the midst of this talk about character, there has been a large amount of hullabaloo about the Democratic party and their “messiah.”  These fears and concerns about Obama’s “complex” are seriously exaggerated.  While liberal commentators and bloggers have probably done themselves a disservice by waxing rhapsodic over Obama, this has never been the position of the campaign nor the candidate.  There are two things two remember here.

First, the Obama campaign has not been the last, best hope of all Democrats this whole time.  If you remember, the Democratic party was what really fired up this election season so early.  Not by any naïve hope about Obama, but by a prolonged and, at times, bitter struggle between Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Half of the Democratic party only came behind Obama after considerable debate and numerous elections.  Isn’t this what democracy is all about?  Obama has earned the support of the Democratic party.

Second, the charge of a “messiah complex” about Obama blatantly ignores the reality of his campaign.  The Obama campaign is not grounded on Obama, the campaign grounded on the American voter.  The campaign speaks of “we,” “us,” and “America” in ways that extend far beyond the candidate himself:

“I’m asking you to believe.  Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington … I’m asking you to believe in yours.”

And it’s not just the rhetoric that demonstrates this.  One of the lessons politics will learn from the Obama campaign is the power of grassroots organizing and fundraising.  Millions of Americans have become excited about the political process and are fully taking part in it now.  Isn’t this what democracy is all about?  Obama’s campaign is about “we” not “I.”

On John McCain

It is important to remember, of course, that there are two candidates running here.  One of the very hopeful things about this election is that both men are honorable and able to be President.  John McCain, whatever liberal ideologues want to say about him, has been a superb politician in the past.  He also deserves our respect for his military service.  McCain is, as his campaign describes him, a true American hero.

Yet their is more than one aspect to leadership, and McCain has fallen woefully short on many of them during this campaign.  His temper is one of the largest of these problems.  He has often been known to lash out at reporters, and even his own wife, in public.  While being feisty is often a good thing, especially in an organization like Congress, it may be a much less beneficial quality in a president.

There is also the choice of Sarah Palin for Vice-President.  Plenty enough has been said, by Republicans and Democrats alike, that I’ll leave it up to the Economist to summarize:

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

This election season has seen John McCain track all over the board in an attempt to gain the upper hand.  There was the bizarre suspension of his campaign, the attempt to postpone the first debate, the lack of exposure of Palin to the media, the negative advertising (which, disappointingly, Obama has been guilty of too), and the unfounded terrorist and socialist accusations.

The John McCain evidenced by this election cycle has come up short on almost every area of leadership, especially when compared to Barack Obama.  This does not mean he would make a bad President, but it does mean that when the country is looking for leadership, McCain might not be the best choice.

In Conclusion

America finds itself now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, in a position it has not experienced in many decades.  While still the premier military power in the world, our forces are stretched thin across two wars and it is becoming increasingly obvious that America can’t control the world simply by flexing military muscle.  The recent economic crisis has shaken the system to its very core and greatly diminished faith in the U.S.  China and India are rising rapidly in the economic realm and are threatening to soon pass America.  Similarly, in education, science, and technology these and other countries are rapidly passing the U.S.

It is into this world, a world in which the U.S. may remain the preeminent power, but will not always be a superpower, that the next President must lead us.  This will take intelligence, foresight, inspiration, and the ability to understand the world.  Barack Obama contains each of these, and many more good qualities.  He is part of a new generation of Americans, who realizes that America must both look to the world and safeguard that which makes her unique.  Obama is the man to lead us as the next President.

Note: Why comments are disabled on this post.

In the end, this post is less about Obama in specific than politics in general.  While I do believe that Obama’s plans are superior in each of these areas, I know that not everyone will agree.  What I think we do need to agree on is that neither political party is presenting unintelligent and disastrous policies.  Both have firm ideological backing and logical reasoning behind their ideas.

If you have never been attracted to the other political parties’ ideas and ideologies, then you have never truly understood them.

I wish I could say that I was quoting someone famous there, but I made it up myself.  Nevertheless, I still think it’s true.  Just because someone embraces different policies than you, doesn’t mean those policies are ridiculous.  It’s worth trying to understand why they chose their policies before you denounce them.

The Economy

Let’s start off with the economy, obviously a pressing topic at the moment.  Democratic economic policies are often denounced as idealistic, unrealistic, or just plain stupid when one talks to conservatives about economics.  Thus it was interesting to see this “op-chart.”  Now before my Republican friends start jumping down my throat about this, you also need to check out the rebuttal.  But why am I sharing this if the conclusions are actually irrelevant? There are two related points here:

1. Neither party has a monopoly on good economic ideas, whatever they like to think.
2. As Gray points out, the real number to look at is the “both” curve: the economy has fared extremely well in the long-run, with significant periods of time under both parties.

This is important because it shows that the best ideas come from a synthesis of economic theories pulled from both sides of the aisle.  With this in mind, read the New York Times on Obama’s economic policies. The title of the article says a lot: “Barack Obama, A Free-Market-Loving, Big-Spending, Fiscally Conservative Wealth Redistributionist.”

(As a side note on that last word, and only because I’m forced to by the stupidity of certain political comments these days, let’s briefly look at the “socialist controversy.”  If you remember your history, socialism is “an economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government.”  If you read about Obama’s policies and listen to what he says, it is abundantly clear that he is not a socialist.  Trying to link him to socialism is a ridiculous political ploy of the sort I had hoped we were past.)

So who is Obama when it comes to economics?  He’s a conservatively trained yet liberal minded thinker. Being conservatively trained is important because conservative economic ideas—the market, lower taxes, and free trade—have obviously been enormously succesfuly. (And yes, I am not entirely happy with Obama’s stance on free trade, though he does have good arguments for his position.)  But it is just as important, especially from an Evangelical perspective, to remember those in our society who are not as well-off. Obama represents an insightful combination of these two ideas, and one that I believe is the best choice for our economic future.

(See also this Economist article.)

Healthcare

Another issue over which the two Presidential candidates have argued a great deal is health care.  It is a fairly important problem, especially for those who can’t afford it.  Chances are that if you’re reading this entry you have reasonably affordable care, but it is essential that we don’t forget the thousands of Americans who aren’t lucky enough to be in the same position.

Americans often tend to have a very individualistic mentality when it comes to our lives, which may influence our approach to health care.  The ending of this article on NPR hilites this:

Yet Rappaz looks puzzled when asked about people in the United States who say that it would be intrusive to mandate health insurance.

“I’m not sure that I get you,” she says, cocking her head.

When the question is put another way, she laughs. “Oh, I see. That’s really an American question. You are so used to having this individualistic way of thinking, and that’s why you don’t have these social [safety] nets. You still have this pioneer mentality where everyone has to take care of themselves.”

That’s not how people in Switzerland think about it, she says. That pioneer mentality, “is good for people who have no problems, but there are a bunch of people who … need a social net.

“I’m really happy to give part of my salary to a solidarity system,” she says.

There is nothing inherently wrong in a health care system that mandates (or provides) universal coverage.  It is simply a different way of approaching the responsibilities of society for the individual.  Before continuing, it is worth noting that Obama’s health care plan neither mandates or provides universal coverage, except for children, so even if you dislike the more socialized systems, they are still different from what Obama is providing.

Another interesting article is this NPR look at France’s health care system.  This is especially fascinating considering the (conservative) American (irrational) dislike of France.  Yet NPR makes a convincing case that our healthcare system lags far behind what France has. Clearly healthcare is something that we need to reform, and the more “liberal” ideas are not inherently bad.

Obama’s healthcare plan is an interesting combination of the free market healthcare system and a government managed system.  It represents a nuanced approach to a tricky political and financial problem, combining both the increased efficiency of competition and the ability and responsibility of the government to provide a good for its citizens.  The system is focused on insuring that everyone is able to acquire coverage, and that this coverage does not cost too much.  It doesn’t give healthcare up to the whims of the free market, but it also doesn’t force a universal, government run healthcare system on American citizens.

Healthcare should be an important issue to Evangelicals, especially as we consider those who suffer because they are unable to afford care.  Obama’s approach seeks to provide healthcare for these people without abandoning good policy ideas.

Immigration

Thankfully both Presidential candidates believe that our immigration system needs to be reformed.  Thus I’ll keep my remarks on the issue short.

Obama’s position, and the Democratic one, is an excellent approach to the problem of immigration.  On the conservative side (again, not including McCain), there is a tendency to forget that immigrants are human beings, even the illegal ones.  This is not to say that we should let people into the country willy-nilly.  But it does imply that our response to the current situation has to be both intelligent and compassionate.

As Evangelicals we must support policies that respect the humanity inherent in each individual.  Instead of treating immigration as a border control issue, it should be an economic and moral issue.  The solution isn’t to villify immigrants or shut out the world.  The solution is to address the root causes and fix the immigration system, both of which Obama supports.

The Environment

The sad thing about the current political discussion of the environment is that it’s been eclipsed by the ridiculous Republican chants of “drill, baby, drill.”  It boggles my mind that offshore drilling has been such a prominent part of the environmental debate when it is fairly obvious that it will not help.  If you don’t want to take it from the media, you can go straight to the government report or let Colbert explain it to you.

In this respect, I find Obama’s position on the environment, and especially on alternative energy, to be extremely intelligent.  There is an interesting quote at the end of this interview:

He [Obama] said, and it was a very… and it was a risky way to lay it out, he delivered some bad news. He said that for the last twenty years the economy has been running on easy credit and we couldn’t do that anymore, we had to figure out a new way to turbocharge the economy.  His feeling was that it was going to be an alternative energy program, a big one, and he said that that was going to be his number one priority.

This is strikingly similar to the ideas about alternative energy presented by Thomas Friedman in his book The World is Flat.  Over and over in his discussion of the environment, Obama returns to the idea of alternative energy.  This is not to the exclusion of other ideas; he supports nuclear power, when done safely, and he believes in clean coal technology.  Such an approach is nuanced, intelligent, and feasible.

There has been an encouraging movement in Evangelicalism recently which promotes the sustainable use of the environment.  We were given creation by God in order to steward it for our own use.  Stewarding it is going to necessitate sacrifice and intelligence as we approach the environment.  Obama’s policies and positions evidence these qualities.

(As far as science more generally, I’ll let the Nobel Laureates speak for the scientific community.)

In Conclusion

None of these issues is a game changer in and of itself.  But in each of these issues, Obama has a clear and nuanced approach that respects both sides of the debate.  He strives to incorporate both conservative and liberal ideals in a ways that can benefit this nation.  As president, these ideas and approaches would be invaluable for leading our country.

Note: Why comments are disabled on this post.

Advisors and Supporters

One of the things that has impressed me the most about Obama is how he has consistently surrounded himself with people who are experts on their topics.  If I had to identify the specific point in time when I started leaning toward supporting Obama, it would be when Major-General Scott Gration visited one of my foreign policy classes last year.  Gration is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and an advisor to Obama on security and foreign policy.  His visit occurred not long after the infamous Pakistan comments were made by Obama, which I asked Maj Gen Gration about and received a well reasoned reply.  (The gist of it being that Obama never said to attack Pakistan, but that if we clearly knew where Osama bin Laden was, we should not hesitate to take him out.)

The reason the people behind Obama are important on this issue is because he does have, admittedly, less experience than Senator McCain does.  In addition to Maj Gen Gration, several other endorsements are indicative that Obama has the appropriate credentials in the foreign policy field:

• The support of Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s Secretary of State and an extremely well respected person in the foreign policy arena.
• The recent endorsement by Colin Powell, also an extremely well respected Secretary of State, but for a Republican president.
• His running mate, Joe Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Diplomacy and National Security

The single most discussed issue about Obama’s foreign policy is, of course, his willingness to conduct diplomacy with foreign leaders.  That this has been such a big issue reflects what I find to be a disturbing trend within the American mindset.  The idea that we should only talk to people who are going to do what we want means that either we think the entire world should be like us or that we are better than the rest of the world.  Neither one is a particularly appealing option to me.

The fact is that most of the world is not like America, and much of it doesn’t like America.  When dealing with such countries and their leaders, there is an established approach.  It moves, roughly, from diplomacy through sanctions to military force.  (There are, obviously, many, many more tools that fall along that continuum, but I’ve condensed it for simplicity.)  If Obama believes that U.S. foreign policy during the Bush administration has failed (and I tend to agree with him), it’s unsurprising that he is willing to move back to the beginning of the continuum.  This doesn’t show naïvete, it shows someone who understands and appreciates foreign affairs.

It shows something else as well: a worldview that believes in talking with the Other and forging a consensus.  This doesn’t mean giving in to our enemies, but it does mean being willing to seek a peaceful solution before resorting to violence, whether economic or military.  As I said in my previous post:

What I find so persuasive about Obama’s foreign policy ideas is that he believes in talking to people. Much of our foreign policy of late seems to have been composed of demands and threats of force.

If we think that Obama engaging Iran in diplomacy means letting it have nuclear weapons, or speaking with Venezuela means ceding it control over Latin America, then our opinion on foreign policy is just as naïve as we think Obama’s is.  Diplomacy is at the core of the international system, and any president who is not willing to place it on the table is forgoing a powerful tool.

In the Eyes of the World

Just as persuasive to me as Obama’s diplomacy-focused foreign policy is the international support that he enjoys.  Nearly every country in the world would prefer an Obama presidency over the next four years.  In this BBC News survey, he enjoyed a margin of support of almost 4 to 1.  Note that this isn’t just one particular form of government, this is democracies, dictatorships, and everything in between, including both our allies and our enemies.  The rest of the world may not like America right now, but what this indicates is that it wants to like America and it thinks it can, under Obama.

Oddly, this strong international support for Obama seems to be a negative point for some Conservatives (though they tend to be especially dismayed by his backing in France).  This is another facet of the disturbing American mindset that I mentioned above.  If the international community’s support of Obama is a bad thing, that means there is either something wrong with the international community or something better about America.  Such a view fails to appreciate the diversity of the world and the positive aspects of cultures and governments around the globe.

• The support of the international community is, in the end, irrelevant.  Obama is an American politician and is beholden to the American people.  The choices he makes will reflect that allegiance and no other, especially if he wants to get (re-)elected.
• The best thing that could possibly happen for the United States right now is for our credibility with the rest of the world to increase.  This would help with trade, diplomacy, the war on terror, and numerous other foreign policy agenda items.  Obama’s popularity with the international community is a perfect chance to do exactly that.
• The support for Obama around the world, but especially in Europe, is only partially due to an appreciation of his policies.  To many people it also represents a further advancement in the American community, as an African American becomes president and helps diversify the appearance of the United States to the world.  Europe, especially, may not like America’s current policies, but it does believe in what America represents, and Obama’s candidacy is symbolic of that American dream.

As an Evangelical…

So why does this matter to me as an Evangelical?  The answer is tricky, since we should not equate this nation, and thus its foreign policy, with Christianity.  Still, I’ll hazard a few answers:

• Even if we do not equate America with Christianity, much of the rest of the world does.  A diplomatic, well reasoned, and more internationally inclusive foreign policy will raise America in the eyes of the world, and Christianity along with it.  That sounds self-serving, I suppose, but Christianity has, sadly, become aligned with the worst of American actions in many places.
• While the U.S. is not Christianity, that does not mean that Christian ideals shouldn’t influence our policy ideas.  As Christians we are called on to wage peace over war, life over death, and reconciliation over division.  This doesn’t mean there aren’t times when war is necessary, but it shouldn’t define our agenda.  I believe that Obama’s foreign policy promotes these Christian ideals in powerful ways.
• Because all humans are made in the image of God, our foreign policy must promote human rights, both at home and abroad.  Obama’s consistent opposition of our practices at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere is a strong statement for this Evangelical belief.  (I am glad that Senator McCain also strongly opposes the Bush administration’s flirtations with torture.)

Two Additional Notes

First, on terrorism and national security.  Many people seem to think that Obama will jeopardize the security of our nation and somehow allow terrorism to grow.  I believe, however, that the most effective thing we can do to decrease terrorism is to improve the world’s view of America.  Terrorism will, of course, continue to exist, and Obama has demonstrated a clear resolve to confront terrorists at home and abroad.

Second, on Senator McCain.  This is by no means a one-sided election on the foreign policy front.  Senator McCain has very strong foreign policy credentials and would undoubtedly promote U.S. interests extremely well.  I support Obama, however, because I believe hehas a far stronger approach for the long run.

Obama’s approach is better because of the combination of excellent advisers, the emphasis on diplomacy, and Obama’s ability to connect with the rest of the world.  Each of these things alone is good, but when combined, they position America to take a unique roll in foreign policy at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

Note: Why comments are disabled on this post.

When talking with other Evangelical Christians about my support for Barack Obama it is not uncommon to encounter incredulity as to how Icould vote for a Democrat, much less one as liberal as he is.  So, for my own edification and to help others understand, I will try to lay out my reasons as best I can.

Do to a heavy work schedule at the moment, these reasons will be broken up into individual posts.  This also allows me to devote more time to each, without writing a tome for you to read.  To begin with, I will look at those traditionally Democratic positions that Evangelicals tend to disagree with.  From there I’ll turn to other campaign issues that I find important.

Before I begin, however, let me lay out a few ground rules for myself and others:

• My purpose here is to present why I support (or can support) Obama, not why I oppose McCain.  While some reference is obviously needed for positioning, that will not be my main focus. Don’t expect a lot about McCain.
• Following upon that, I aim not to avoid negative statements in favor of more positive reviews.  The one possible exception to this will be in the area of character, which does influence my opinion.
• Comments will not be open on this series.  While I appreciate feedback on my articles, I don’t want my blog to become a forum for debate, which is prone to happen on more controversial subjects.  I still would love to hear what you think, however, so feel free to email me at jim@smidg.in.  (Do try to keep the emails relevant to the posts.)  I’ll try to select the best feedback and publish it later on.

Now, let us proceed with the first part.

The Democrats and Abortion

Probably the most common objection posed by Evangelicals who learn that I support Obama is: “He’s pro-choice.  How can you support that?”  This is especially true since the selection of Palin as the Republican vice-presidential candidate.

The first thing to note is that I am still unequivocally against abortion.  The second thing to note is that the pro-life/pro-choice debate in this country represents not one tragedy, but two. One tragedy is well known: abortion means the killing of a human life, tantamount to murder.  The second tragedy is not often stated, but equally important: the term “pro-life” has come to be framed solely in terms of the abortion debate.

Simply put, my willingness to support Obama is not because I have ceased to care about abortion, but because of the very fact that I am pro-life.  Let me explain.

The problem is that “pro-life” has come to signify “anti-abortion.”  In reality, pro-life should represent exactly what it says: pro-life in every area.  This means to be pro-life is to oppose the traditional threats to life: abortion, euthanasia, etc.  But it also means that to be pro-life is to oppose any infringement upon the gift of life: unjust war, capital punishment, and policies that favor one group of people while injuring another.  If we are going to be for life, we must be completely and totally for it.

When seen in this light, I am dissatisfied with both parties’ stances on life.  My decision to support the Democrats, then, is not a sell-out, but an educated choice as to which party has a better grasp on the issue of life at this moment in time.

War in Opposition to Life

To some people my reasoning may not make sense yet.  When looking at the issues above, it is much easier to see how abortion is anti-life than many of the others.  The very idea of abortion is that of blatantly disregarding human rights to inflict damage, in this case death, upon a living being.  The idea is so graphic and emotional that it is hard to move beyond it, but that is what must be done.

The most relevant issue which can be placed across from abortion is that of the current war in Iraq, especially the controversial interrogation techniques.  (When considering this, it does not matter whether the invasion of Iraq was justified, etc., so don’t expect that to be addressed here.) The Bush administration, with the backing of the Republican party, has drifted dangerously towards sanctioning techniques that are recognized as torture by the international community.  It has also repeatedly opposed the extension of habeas corpus to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.  If examined from a distance, it becomes clear that the policies at Guantanamo Bay involve the blatant disregard for human rights in an attempt to inflict damage on a living being.

Before continuing any further, let me address several concerns.  Many would contend that those detained at Guantanamo Bay are terrorists and therefore do not deserve to be accorded rights.  This is wrong for two reasons.  First, it is written into the very core of the American ideal that every human being is accorded rights.  Second, the refusal to charge many of these detainees casts serious doubts upon the assertion that the detainees are terrorists.

A second concern, related to the first, is that this does not compare to the scale of abortion.  I believe, however, that it does.  The denial of basic rights, especially where torture is concerned, sets a dangerous precedent for the future of this country.  This precedent affects us in several ways.  One is in our foreign policy, which I will cover in a later post.  A more important result is in our domestic policy, and the willingness of the government to engage in policies contrary to human rights, stooping even to the level of torture, an assault upon life.

My final comment on torture is that as an Evangelical I do not stand alone on the issue: An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture.

Beyond the issue of torture, the current War in Iraq also represents a disturbing loss of life: approximately 90,000 civilians have been killed since 2003.  This is in addition to untold damage to life, health, and property.  Whether or not the war was the right choice, it is clear that its execution, especially in the early years, was done without proper knowledge of the country and culture of Iraq, resulting in an extreme threat to life and a serious challenge to its justification using the Just War Theory.

If this is the case, the War in Iraq represents a assault upon a culture of life.  While the relative merits of beginning the war can be debated, it is clear that there have been decisions made that, whether through negligence or maliciousness, have resulted in serious threats to life.  In light of this, the Republican assertion that it is the pro-life party is difficult to maintain.

Presenting this argument is difficult, of course, because abortion and the War in Iraq are two very different things.  My goal, however, has been to show that both sides of the political spectrum lack a true culture of life.  This is important, as it shows that my decision to support the Democrats does not contradict my ideals.

Finally, I don’t believe I have done this particular defense justice and I would like to see Laura, with whom I have talked this over before, write her own position.

Capital Punishment and the Issue of Life

While the issues of torture and war are primary for many people in my position, the idea of capital punishment is also a problem for me.  This is an issue which I find particularly compelling as an Evangelical Christian, and have written on it before.  I will try not to rehash my words here.

Again, I consider it necessary to be completely pro-life if I claim that title.  While I recognize that those convicted of heinous crimes have torn the moral fabric of society in such a way that there must be special considerations taken in their punishment, I do not believe that death is the correct choice.  If we are going to assert that life should be preserved, then life should always be preserved.

There are good arguments for the death penalty based on precedent, deterrence, and the idea that criminals have forfeited their right to life.  When it comes down to it, however, given the choice to be pro-life in all we do I believe we must not make exceptions.

An obvious weakness to my argument is, of course, the Just War Theory.  In brief I would address that by saying that with capital punishment we hold a life in our hands which does not threaten others.  With war, however, inaction can mean further crimes against life which we would then be guilty of.  Unfortunately for us, and contrary to what some people seem to believe, the world consists of more than simply black and white.

Shifts in the Democratic Plank

To round off my consideration of the issue, it is necessary to draw attention to the recent modification of the Democratic plank on abortion.  In the past the plank has read:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

In the 2008 platform, it has been changed to:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption program

While this is obviously not the stance I would like to see on the issue, it does represent progress.  The Democratic party is making it clear that abortion is, for them, undesirable, if necessary.  This provides the hope that the two parties will be able to work together, whatever their final stance on the issue, to reduce the number of abortions.

Conclusion

In my beliefs and and ideals I remain unwaveringly pro-life, in the true sense of the word.  If you want a better sense of what that truly means, I would encourage you to read The Gospel of Life, by Pope John Paul II (Amazon).  The Catholic Church, it sometimes seems, is the only institution that truly understand what it means to be completely pro-life.

Since I don’t believe either political party has a monopoly on the protection of life, I refuse to be a single issue voter.  Voting Republican simply because the ticket is anti-abortion is a shame and a waste of one’s decision making power.  That is not to say that the abortion issue should not weigh on your decision.  But in my case, as I hope I’ve made clear, the assumption that being anti-abortion gives the Republican party a claim to pro-life does not work.  In my judgment the Democrats this year, as led by Barack Obama, have an equal claim on the ideas and ideals of the issue of life.  Thus I can, without moral qualm, give my support to their campaign.

Update (8/8/8): And another good article from Time on the subject.

By asking voters to understand the context of Wright’s anger, though, Obama is counting on voters to accept nuance in an arena that almost always rewards simplicity over complexity. Politicians tend to offer deliberately banal choices: Either we move forward or we fall backward, either we let the economy falter or we help it grow, either we succumb to our enemies or we defeat them — the choice is up to you, America! Obama’s formulation was different. Explicitly asking Americans to grapple with racial divisions and then transcend them — that’s a bolder, riskier request.

As for me, I believe Obama did exactly what he needed to do, both for the campaign and for his conscience.  The result was one of the most inspiring speeches I have ever heard.

Our greatest tool in advancing democracy is our own example. That’s why I will end torture, end extraordinary rendition and indefinite detentions; restore habeas corpus; and close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

On Israel-Palestine:

As president, I will commit myself personally, and I will assign high-caliber diplomats, to be engaged with both sides on an ongoing basis — encouraging communication, helping them develop and implement solutions, holding them accountable to their commitments by carefully monitoring and reporting on their implementation. I will also demand greater support for this process from the Arab world.

On Islam:

As president of the United States, I will directly address the people of the Muslim world to make it clear that the United States is not at war with Islam, that our enemy is al-Qaeda and its tactical and ideological affiliates, and that our struggle is shared. In this speech, I will make it clear that the United States rejects torture — without equivocation, and will close Guantanamo. I will make it clear that the United States stands ready to support those who reject violence with closer security cooperation; an agenda of hope — backed by increased foreign assistance — to support justice, development and democracy in the Muslim world; and a new program of outreach to strengthen ties between the American people and people in Muslim countries. I will also make it clear that we will expect greater cooperation from Muslim countries; and that the United States will always stand for basic human rights — including the rights of women — and reject the scourge of anti-Semitism. Simply put, I will say that we are on the side of the aspirations of all peace-loving Muslims, and together we must build a new spirit of partnership to combat terrorists who threaten our common security.

On Iran:

I do not believe that the United States can successfully pressure Iran by refusing to talk to them. If we engage in direct and principled diplomacy, combined with increased sanctions, we will create more opportunities to make progress, gain more support for our efforts in the international community, and we can reduce the risk of an inadvertent military escalation with Iran.

What I find so persuasive about Obama’s foreign policy ideas is that he believes in talking to people. Much of our foreign policy of late seems to have been composed of demands and threats of force.

Another thing to remember is that Obama is the only presidential candidate who is being cheered worldwide. People from London to Nairobi to Jakarta see Obama as someone like them. Just having a president so widely approved of by others will go far to restoring U.S. standing in the world.

Finally, retired Air Force Major General Scott Gration, one of Obama’s foreign policy advisers, spoke to my class last semester. He is a very intelligent man with much experience. If he is a representative example of the quality of advice Obama is getting on foreign policy, I have very few worries.

Edit (3/4/08): I realized later that the title of this post could easily be seen as either naïve or mocking.  In reality it is intended as neither, but as a succinct summary of why Obama’s foreign policy appeals to me.  Just goes to show, I suppose, the power of words to describe things, whether correctly or incorrectly.

So why is there an Obama logo on my website now?

Well, blame it on a lot of things. Blame it on the liberalizing influence of college. Blame it on certain friends of mine. Or blame it on blind stupidity.

Any of those could be true, I suppose. I don’t deny that I’ve become more liberal at college, I definitely have some friends who are quite liberal, and I could easily be mistaken about my beliefs. But there’s something more to it than that.

I’ve decided to support Obama because, as cliché as it may sound, his campaign really is change we can believe in. Obama’s personality, his message, and his appeal are unique in politics at the moment.

What message? The message of hope and change, not the policies behind that message. I don’t agree with a lot of Obama’s policies, but I don’t think that’s very important right now. At some point we have to get beyond the partisan divide over policies and see what it takes to be a great leader.

I’ve never seen someone rally young Americans like the Obama campaign does. In the long run, issues, ideas, and policies won’t change much. But someone who can get our youth to believe in democracy again: he can change the world.

Some general observations:

• Blue is the color of choice, present on all of the websites, and dominant on 7/10.
• Every website has a banner at the top with a horizontal navigation bar underneath.
  • Every website has an “issues” link on the navigation bar.
  • Every website except three has a “blog” link. Romney and Thompson just doesn’t label the link as “blog,” while conservative Ron Paul doesn’t appear to have a link at all.
  • All the Democrats made their “donate”/”contribute” buttons in the horizontal navigation bar a different color (all red except for Edwards). Of the Republicans, only Romney and Thompson did.
• Only McCain doesn’t have Facebook and Youtube links. Social networking is huge this election.
• Like social networking, grassroots organization is emphasized. “Get involved” or “organize event” links abound.
• Only Ron Paul’s website validates with W3C.
• Clinton, Thompson, and Guliani go be their first names. This works for Hilary. Not for Fred or Rudy.
• All the Democrats have Spanish versions of the websites; Romney is the only Republican with a Spanish version.

Specific comments:

Barack Obama      Site: barackobama.com Color: Blue Thoughts: I like this design the best, though my view of the website may be biased by my view of the candidate. This is the only website with an inspirational quote at the top.

Hillary Clinton      Site: hillaryclinton.com Color: Blue Thoughts: Not too much to say, it’s a pretty generic candidate site. Anyone see anything unique?

John Edwards      Site: johnedwards.com Color: Yellow? Brown? Thoughts: Edwards gets credit for not using blue as the main color, though I’m not really sure about the star…. Interestingly, Edwards is using a Creative Commons license for the website.

Bill Richardson      Site: richardsonforpresident.com Color: Blue Thoughts: Richardson loses points for demanding a full 1024 resolution; that doesn’t jive with those of us on smaller monitors.

Mitt Romney      Site: mittromney.com Color: Blue/Black Thoughts: Romney faces the same resolution complaint; I don’t like horizontal scroll bars. Interestingly, there’s no obvious picture of Romney in this screenshot, though the flash animation in the center does change to include him. Unlike the other websites, there is no form on the front page to submit your email.

Mike Huckabee      Site: mikehuckabee.com Color: Red Thoughts: Huckabee decided to go for the Republican red over the Democrat blue. It provides variety, but it’s not exactly original.

Rudy Guliani      Site: joinrudy2008.com Color: Blue Thoughts: That domain name just isn’t working for me. Of course, seeing as rudyguliani.com is a gambling website, he had to choose something else. I guess I object to the “join.” It’s too personal for me.

John McCain      Site: johnmccain.com Color: Black/Blue Thoughts: McCain gets points for using a color other than blue, but… black? I suppose it’s dignified, but it’s also somewhat somber.

Ron Paul      Site: ronpaul2008.com Color: Blue/Black Thoughts: Without being able to get ronpaul.com (somebody should be selling that website for a sweet profit right now), this was a good choice. Another website that demands a full 1024 pixels wide. Some of Ron Paul’s pictures around the site, like that one in the top right, are kind of goofy looking, but he likes to go by Dr. Ron Paul. Finally, major points for being the only website to validate.

Fred Thompson      Site: fred08.com Color: Blue Thoughts: The design on Thompson’s website seems very primitive to me, almost like a child’s drawing. That may just be me, though. Also, why don’t the fans at fredthompson.com just give him the domain? And, like McCain, no big picture on the front. I wonder if it says something about those two candidates…?

Of course a lot of this, like the pictures or code validating, will probably change, so pardon me if it appears inaccurate later.

That’s all I noticed for now. What do you see that I missed?

Update (1/8/07): I later found this comparison, which is focuses more on the technical details and actually attempts to be objective. My comparison, on the other hand, was more interested in design choices by the candidates.