HomeGood Morning!
The title of my sermon this morning refers to the fact that in my opinion we too often judge our political leaders on lesser grounds (small fidelities) and ignore the greater principles.
We are in the midst of an election campaign which will include voting n a presidential election and also the selection of candidates for local, state and federal offices such as the entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate. I say that because this is not just about what is often referred to as “the top of the ticket”.
Note that this is a non-partisan sermon and I expect a non-partisan response. What I say applies to candidates at every level and of every party. I will also say that in the past I have voted for candidates of at least five different political parties, including candidates of each of the two major parties. I have also voted by “write in”.
I have been thinking about the reasons we vote as we do and the reason we actually should vote for someone. I need to begin by saying that when an American citizen steps into the voting booth and faces the pleasurable duty of making a choice between candidates, they are absolutely free to cast their ballot based upon any criteria they choose. And many Americans seem to vote on the basis of some intangible feeling about the candidates. That is sometimes summarized as, “voting for the best man”, or person.
In the 2004 Presidential campaign we heard that may voters made their choice for President based upon the question, “Who would I rather go out for a beer with?”. And in 1992, one of the questions asked by journalists at a Presidential debate was whether the candidates knew what the price of a quart of milk was. Both of those are irrelevant to whether or not someone would make a good President. I am much more concerned with which candidate’s policies will keep milk affordable.
Growing up in New York City, I remember when a balanced ticket meant that candidates for the top three offices both in the City and at the state level, were almost always an Italian American, a Jewish American and an Irish American because people tended to vote with some level of ethnic allegiance. That tied, I think, to that sense of a feeling about someone. People have a sense that “someone like me” will understand me. It also is a bad reason to vote for a candidate. We should not vote for someone because they are or are not black or white, male or female, Irish or Italian, Christian or Jew. We ought to vote for someone based upon the government programs they will put into place.
And so, while we may use any standards we wish when it comes to voting for a candidate, some criteria are better, and some are lesser; and a vague feeling about a candidate or the sense that one could have a jovial conversation with them, is not enough.
Something else that should not matter, in my humble opinion: whether a candidate is married or divorced, straight or gay, celibate or sexually indiscriminate. These are character issues that I feel have no relevance to selecting a President. Having a President, for example, who would never cheat on a spouse but who would mislead the country into a war is not a good trade off of ideals.
There are issues of personal character that are important. I do not want a President who steals; I do not want a President, a commander in chief, who has a violent personality, who believes that violence is the solution to problems.
But it is primarily policies that should matter. Now I have to say that I am not a purist when it comes to voting on the basis of policy. I begin with the policies I believe in, but in primaries especially I sometimes bypass the candidate most in accord with those and choose a candidate who I believe is more likely to win the general election. But the basic criteria of policy as primary evaluation tool still stands.
I am also going to concentrate on those policies that I believe cohere with Unitarian Universalist principles.
My views may not be yours. My interpretation of the Principles may not be how you would interpret them and my application of the principles, what I think they imply, may not be yours. My purpose is to provoke your own deep thinking about the principles and policies you will apply to choosing the people you vote for.
I am going to select just a few of our Principles, remembering that these are not creedal requirements but are statements of agreement among Unitarian Universalists. And thought they are not binding, we do declare that these are religious principles.
Of the seven principles of Unitarian Universalism, I am going to pick three--numbers two, six and seven--as they are the ones that most directly apply:
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations,
The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all,
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
The first of these is justice, equity and compassion in human relations. Just what does that mean?
On the “small” level, the personal level, I take it to mean that each of us should treat each individual as an equal person; for example, life partnerships should be equal partnerships. On the social level, I believe that equity means that every person should have their minimum needs met (food clothing, shelter and medical care). Every person should have equal access to social resources like education, meaning that no matter where they grow up, no matter what neighborhood they live in, what their parents do for a living, every child should attend a school with full educational services, up to date books, and well trained and well paid teachers. It should not matter what school you attend, the education offered to you should be as good as the education offered to every other child in this country. All too often we look for the cause of failure in the teachers or the administrators, in the students or their parents. But until all schools are fully funded, we should assume that any failure is due to a lack of resources. The schools that are in trouble, that are failing their students, are almost always the schools that are under funded. Wealthy towns do not have failing schools. Since some neighborhoods are wealthy and some are poor, that means we need to use state and federal money to lift up the schools that are less well funded. Let’s fully fund our schools and also make it true that a good education leads to a good job and only then, if there are still some failing schools, should we look for other reasons. I will try to discern which candidates will be most likely to guarantee equal education for all.
When seeking employment, every person should an equal chance to be hired, by which I mean that factors such as race, gender or religion should not be barriers to employment as they all to often are. When such barriers exist we need to counteract them with programs like mandatory affirmative action.
As for compassion, I will say again that I believe our national, communal sense of compassion is expressed by what we do as a nation, as a people. If I do good works, that is a credit to me; as a community we gain credit only for what we do communally. I was quite irked a few years ago in the aftermath of the tsunami in Asia. You will recall that when criticized for the lack of response on the part of the American government, the administration pointed to the generous donations by individuals and corporations. My donation should be credited to me, not to we; for the government to claim credit for my personal donation is a form of identity theft. I give what I give idividually; we give only what we together give. Our national compassion for the poor, for the sick, for the despairing, is judged by what we do together, not by what individuals among us do. I will support those candidates who are most likely to hold that same view.
The second Principle is “The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all”. A world community can be either a community of nations or a community of people. I believe that our ultimate “this world” loyalty must be to the totality, to humanity as a whole, not to some subset of humanity. But at the very least a real community of nations is important. I said a few weeks ago that I believe that in order for a community to thrive, its members must ultimately feel a sense of loyalty to it and a sense of belonging to it. It must in some sense become a “we”. That means that America must see itself as part of something greater, as having responsibilities both with and to. In order for there to be a world community of peace and justice, nations and peoples must act like good citizens, treating each other with respect. That means that nations must forgo any doctrine of preemptive military attacks.
In genuine community, one does not use one’s power for selfish reasons but promotes instead the well being of all. But it is not just other nations that one treats with fairness; our principle calls for liberty and justice for all. “All” is every individual. One does not treat people as expendable, one does not engage in torture of anyone, one does not engage in summary executions; one does intervene to end genocide, one does uphold full equality for every person: for women in Afghanistan, for Bahai’s in Iran for Tibetans in China. I will vote for those candidates who are most likely to promote those practices. That does not mean invading countries to achieve equality, but it does mean that one at least speaks-and speaks publicly—to issues of human rights.
Finally: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
We face major environmental problems; which candidates will make the environment a priority? Which candidates will find ways to grow the economy and provide the energy we need and want while also protecting the environment from the disastrous effects of carbon emissions, degradation of our forests and loss of species?
And so, the primary questions by which I judge candidates are: What are the effects this person will have on the life of this planet, on human rights and on the quality of human life, that is, on the conditions in which human beings live.
If there is a divine being, would these not be among his or her criteria?
Return to
Home
Return to Sermons Index