Contexting

Turnout

Traditionally, low voter turnout is blamed on apathy, laziness, or ignorance. We decide that young people (we typically blame them) are too disengaged to take part in the process. The moral pronouncement usually goes something like this: "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain."

But more and more people are disenfranchised with the system. It's not that they don't like any of the candidates; they genuinely disagree with the premise of American democracy. They look at the influence of money on the process, racial and class incongruities, and the unfilled promise of change, and they decide that the system is corrupt. Refusing to perpetuate the myth  of democratic consensus and “majority rule, their non-vote is their vote against American representative democracy.

For many non-voters, not voting is a moral issue. They see participating in a corrupt system as evil. They choose not to take part. Unfortunately, few of these voters propose a viable alternative to the system they reject.

Today's election has generated more interest and (hopefully) participation than any in recent history. Could this be a sign of renewed faith in the American political system? Or will millions of voters leave the voting booth more ready than ever for a new paradigm?

Donald Miller Is A Liberal

I've spent the last couple of minutes reading through Donald Miller's blog. In case you've been under a rock for the last couple of years, Don is the author of  four books (that I know of) including Blue Like Jazz, Searching For God Knows What, and To Own A Dragon. He's intelligent, articulate, and eloquent, and a generation of Christians across the country are finding their post-evangelical voice in him.

Miller didn't grow up in the evangelical subculture, and therefore doesn't (can't or won't) speak the language of modern Christianity. Because of his willingness to question even the established basics of religion, he (and a crop of wannabes) are viewed with suspicion by many Church leaders who hear echoes of Christian liberalism in Miller's postmodern "Christian Spirituality." Don further convolutes things for the traditionalists by wading into the realm of politics and social issues.

Don Miller led a prayer at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in August, and has spent the last few weeks on the campaign trail with Barack Obama. He is open about the concerns many conservatives have with Obama's political positions. He takes a lot of criticism from conservatives who have love to call him names. (In evangelical circles, "liberal" is worse than "heretic.")

I hear that Don lives in Portland, which is my new home town. I'd love to meet him for coffee. He seems like an interesting person that I might be able to relate to. I respect him for doing what he feels is right, even when it isn't the popular thing.

Don, if you read this, drop me a line.

Socialism

Practically speaking, I'm no socialist. Maybe it's my youthful angst, but I prefer small government, and I think that (limited) competition is a great motivator. That said, I've heard a lot about socialism lately. The flailing economy and a close presidential race has everyone posturing on solutions that will allow Americans to spend carelessly once again, and socialism is a recurring theme.

Socialism. Republicans use the term as a "truth-be-told" kind of slur ("Universal health care?' they say, "It's more like 'socialist' health care!") Democrats glorify the many socialisms of Europe as the models to which the U.S. should aspire, but rarely demonstrate an understanding of how different the European and American worldviews are (seriously, unless you've been treated in a European hospital, could you guys quit beginning every statement on the economy with, "You know in Europe..."? Please?).

For the most part, it was our Cold War stand against communism that soured us on socialism (no, the two are not the same thing- "socialism" isn't "communism lite"). We don't respond well to anything that seems to threaten our freedom and independence. But socialism is wildly misunderstood.

My time living in Europe was a learning experience; especially in terms of politics. Where else could one accidentally stumble upon a family-friendly public meeting of the National Anarchist Party? One thing I learned is that socialism isn't a political system, it's a worldview.

For my European friends, socialism means paying half of their income in taxes that fund public health care, schools, infrastructure, and social programs. Most of them aren't the least bit upset by that. They see taxes as their contrinution to society. There are some things, the reasoning goes, that are better left to an institution that doesn't have profit as it's bottom line.

Are there abuses? Sure. But socialist systems can still be democratic. If people don't like a government program, they can vote to stop it. If the system is being abused, controls are put in place.

For the most part, people are happy with national healthcare. The best health care system in the world is the French Social system. (By the way, in socialized medicine, it's doctors, not the government, that make medical decisions. Accountability is handled by a physician's peers.) Same thing with public schools, where both academic standards and test scores are higher than in the U.S.

Consider a complete privatization of every sector of American life: schools, fine. Military? Not so much. We don't mind paying tolls for smooth highways and bridges, but what about the street in front of your house? A private police force would have to either treat some people better than others or cover their uniforms in NASCAR-like sponser logos. In a completely free-market capitalist system, it isn't the majority who decides, it's the rich.

John McCain Picks Sarah Palin For VP Spot

Presidential candidate John McCain has selected Alaska governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Picking a young, conservative, woman is a shrewd move by the aging republican who has been cast as "more of the same" by the Obama campaign.

The choice was an important one because neither candidate is playing well with his respective party- McCain isn't wholeheartedly endorsed by the conservatives, and Obama has (intentionally or otherwise) struggled to win the confidence of jilted Hilary supporters. It's unclear whether the announcement of the VP selections will help either candidate. McCain needed someone to help his ticket appear more "conservative," "Christian," and "young" while reminding people of his  reputation (i.e.: "McCain's so forward thinking that he picked a woman!").

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is trying to ease concerns about his inexperience and youth by selecting Delaware senator Joe Biden. Choosing s long-time Washington insider may actually work against Obama's message of change, but it is certain to help him with the more liberal and blue-collar democrats.

The selection of VP running mates matters because both candidates are trying to get your vote. Elections are about image as much (or more than) they are about issues. Vice Presidents are not usually very influential (notwithstanding current Vice President Dick Cheney), so much of the hype here is about apealing to disaffected voters looking for a ticket they can feel better about supporting.