Post 33: Political Affiliation Uncertainty

In my atheist years I was basically liberal. I felt that everyone should do as they wished, respecting authority when necessary. I also felt that it was good for the government to help those who needed it. At times that included my own family, since we never really were all that rich.

Conversion to Christianity resulted in a change in political affiliation. Since I had begun to believe there were in fact concrete morals, I went from social liberal to social conservative. This means that I felt the government should help support traditional (i.e., Christian) values and morals. I remained economically liberal, thinking the government should help the needy as appropriate. This sort of separates me from the high-profile Christians, who are strongly conservative through-and-through.

I didn't think that there was an actual term for my political affiliation. I called myself a centrist because I was fairly evenly divided between Republican and Democratic ideologies. Then during a government class in college I realized that my orientation was called "populist," apparently more common historically in the northwestern, mountain states. Its polar opposite is libertarian. So for the past few years I have been a strong populist. I believed that people should honor Christian values, and the government should help in giving economic assistance to those who need it. I sort of support the Occupy movement in that people making tons of money don't really need all that cash, especially since they will never use a lot of it and thus it could be better used elsewhere.

Recently while browsing on my preferred Christian forum, someone asked for people to explain their political views. Surprisingly, a lot of Christians are not conservative. I cited Acts 2 and 4, where the early church is shown to be very communal. In modern parlance, socialistic. Indeed, in my high school years I had socialistic leanings in my political beliefs, and to this day I still do.

However, in that same thread, a few others said things that got my brain churning. The next person to respond was a libertarian - my polar opposite! His argument was essentially this: We are made with free will, so we have the right to choose what we do. Jesus did not force anyone to follow him. Instead he let them decide for themselves. Therefore trying to force a society that is not godly to follow God's standard is not the example Jesus set for us and indeed, it's futile.

Another person, who has since that time become the chief administrator of the forum, pointed out another flaw in my thinking. The early church that I base my political belief upon is drastically different from American society in a crucial way. The early church was very oriented to God. The Holy Spirit was working strongly in them, making it natural for them to share with each other and be communal. American society, on the other hand, is anything but that. Capitalism has created a culture that says "Mine! Mine!" and it certainly lacks the Spirit's power.

While contemplating these things, I realized something about myself. As I said before, I have now begun to believe there is a concrete moral system that exists. And I have generally felt that everyone should follow this moral system. But guess what? Trying to get non-Christians to follow the Christian moral system is next to impossible to do!

So now I see that wanting a communal society, as nice as it may be, is day dreaming at best. Indeed, social conservatism seems like something that doesn't work to well. It's trying to force a set of values on a group of people who are unwilling to accept it.

Now the question may arise. Do I have the right to force my opinions on others? I certainly have the right to state my opinions. That's a fundamental of freedom. This results in an interesting dichotomy. Some of you will say, "No, you don't have the right to force your opinion on me." But is that not what you're attempting to do with me? Forcing your liberalism on me? Clearly, I would say, trying to get others to believe as you do is right. We do it all the time. But should we? As I said before, Jesus did not force people to come to him. He let them choose. What does this mean in the arena of politics? Surprisingly enough, let them do what they will. In the social sphere today, things like gay marriage and abortion are causing tons of conflict between non-Christian and Christian. Believers are attempting to cram Christian values down the throats of those who do not wish to accept those morals. Fine. They want these things? Let them have what they want. For me, it feels wrong to vote yes on a law that would permit abortion. Those are lives that are being killed, and I'm not doing anything to stop it. But as I've shown, trying to prevent it does no good. In ancient times, and even the days of Rome, it wasn't unheard of to get rid of babies. Did the church rally against it? No. Why should we now?

As much as I may be socially conservative myself, it's impractical to be that way in terms of law. So it almost seems logically superior to be liberal in this regard.

Now, for the economic side of things. I still contend that the government should help those who need it. But with a condition: people who can work should seek it. If you don't work, you don't eat. That's still economically liberal. I think it's practical. So all of this leaves me thinking that instead of being an ideological populist, it may indeed be more practical and even akin to what Jesus's life was like to be a liberal, even libertarian!