Monday, October 22, 2012

I'm Voting for _________!


Jess: Wes and I are not particularly politically-minded people. We know that there is an election happening, and we know who we’re going to vote for. But beyond that, we just don’t get that involved. There are some pretty good reasons for this attitude.

First of all, I get super sick of the attitudes that the candidates have toward each other. These men (and hopefully someday women) have worked in politics for a good part of their lives. They are not idiots, they are not incompetent, and they have already made an impact on the history of the US and possibly the world. In fact, even the loser in the race will have made a significant impact. Yet here we are watching them throw insults at one another, acting like little children. They lie, they cheat, and generally look stupid because of their actions toward one another. Why would I want to vote for either one of you? What are we showing the rest of the world if the only way to get to “the top” is to lower ourselves to slinging mud at others?

My next issue with the election is somewhat new: the Facebook bashing back and forth. People on both sides are saying things like “You’re an idiot if you vote for ____,” or “If you’re a ______ there’s no way that you could vote for ______.” I’ve seen fights about abortion, gay marriage, women’s rights, why Democrats suck, why Republicans suck, the poor, and so much more. No one is convincing anyone else with this discussion. Rather, they are just making me want to unfriend them and move on with my life.

What especially disturbs me is my Christian friends who are acting like this. Obviously, we have certain values that matter. I could spend an entire blog post talking about why I’m voting for the candidate I’m voting for based on my faith. And someone else could do an equally good job from the opposite standpoint. But what do we lose when we are just arguing about these men? Who is winning and losing here? Christians have a bad enough reputation in the world today—why would we want to perpetuate this with silly fights.

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the issues involved are silly. These are important, life-changing issues. Yet is Facebook—that anonymous place where people aren’t much more than a photo—the place to talk about these issues? We’ve lost sight of the fact that real people have real opinions about these things. And that just makes the candidates’ constant mudslinging all the worse. We forget that being president, that voting, that having this opportunity are all rare in the world. We forget that we are free in so many ways, and through this freedom we are not supposed to bind others, but to help them be more free, as well.  

Wes: It’s that time again! Voting season. It’s not near as exciting for me as football season, or baseball season. It’s not near as delicious for me as dove season or deer season. It’s also not near as magical for me as Christmas season.

I have to admit something to y’all: I’ve never voted before. I know that this is a big surprise, and honestly it’s not something that I’m very proud of. I’ve missed six years of voting, and one opportunity to let my voice be heard in the election of the president of our nation. My thoughts were always that it was a lot of work for a little impact, and, honestly, I couldn’t stand the way that all of these candidates were selling themselves to the masses. The political commercials on TV, the online ads and mass emails, the giant billboards and tiny-sized signs plastered all over highways, buildings, and peoples’ front yards all drove me crazy. Nothing ever seemed to speak to issues; they always seemed to either just shout the candidate’s name or tell me why the opposing candidate was the devil. I couldn’t take it, so I refused to give in to it.

Then one of my friends told me that the only way to do something about that was to change the system by voting. Otherwise I’m just complaining, and that’s annoying. I decided that he was right, so I decided this year to try to wade through all of the bull honky, find out who the actual candidates were, and make an informed vote based on issues.

Wow. That’s a lot harder than it seems.

And it doesn’t help that—as Jess points out above—our society is extremely opinionated and certain outlets such as Facebook allow anyone to say (and share) anything they want without first making sure that what they are saying is based on truth and without thinking about how their words will come across to others. The first part is just funny. Obama is a terrorist from Mars sent here to steal our children and turn them gay. Romney is really a dog-demonizing, promiscuous reincarnation of the Sheriff of Nottingham and Hitler. Really people? get your facts straight.

This second part, though, really bugs me. I think that the faceless and disassociated aspect of social media has worked to remove peoples’ filters when it comes to thinking about the impact that they have on others. Whether I am a Republican or a Democrat has no impact on my eternal salvation, so when someone’s post tells me that if I’m going to vote for a certain person, I might as well go to hell, it can be a very hurtful thing. When my intelligence is questioned based on my presidential vote, it can be a hurtful thing. I think that we forget that when we say these things, real people with real feelings and just as valid opinions will be reading them.

When you post something on Facebook or Twitter or any of these other social media outlets—especially if you claim to be a Christian and are supposed to care about these things—think about whether or not you would say this to someone’s face, and whether or not you are willing to deal with the real emotions and reactions of this. Think about who you are representing through your actions and through your words, because we’re supposed to be representing Christ.

Please?

But even after all of these posts, shared photos, bashings, ads, etc… I’m still going to vote this year. I’ve come to believe that it is extremely important to stretch our democratic muscles and to allow our voices to be heard through our votes. I would urge everyone to learn about the issues, learn about the candidates, and go vote.

That’s all for now! Thanks for reading! You stay classy, World Wide Web!

-jess and wes

4 comments:

  1. Jessica and Wes, I was going to separate this response out into a section for each of you, but since things each of you said overlap, I just lumped it all together. It is also going to have to be broken into two parts.

    First, I agree that saying you're voting for someone based on your values is a good thing. The catch that often gets overlooked is, everyone is doing that. The Christian at church every week and the atheist who is somewhere else on Sunday mornings. Everyone's faith in a candidate, faith in a higher being, and their values is what determines who they vote for. It is just easy for many people to forget the fact that not everyone has the same values as them. Even the person sitting next to you in the pew might have values that are different. It doesn't make them wrong, just different. What really makes it worse is when those values are internalized and morphed with a political ideology that then becomes manifest as an integral part of who you are that you are unable to differentiate between disagreeing with an ideology from a personal attack on you as a person. When people can separate their ideologies from their core as a human, and realize that everyone else also has values and ideologies that they use to make decisions, then I believe most of the pointless bickering amongst people when it comes to politics will stop.

    Could you elaborate more on the candidates attitudes towards each other and what insults they have hurled at each other as well as how they have cheated? Just curious. I have seen all the debates to this point as well as excerpts from both of their stump speeches but I have seen no campaign ads for either candidate. I've read about a few, but have not seen any. I'm wondering if these things come more from ads than they do debates and speeches and if so, are they ads from the candidate themselves or from interest groups and SuperPACs? This actually leads into a nice segue to my next point: SuperPACs are far more anonymous than Facebook. Other than who started the SuperPAC, the people in charge of them don't have to disclose anything else like their donors or how much they donated. Facebook isn't really anonymous since people sign up as themselves and their name is attached to everything they post.

    I actually do think Facebook is a great place to have a discussion about things. Look at the Arab Spring from earlier this year and how important a roll Facebook and especially Twitter played in those events. In many ways they were the catalyst for much of what happend. That is Facebook and Twitter at their finest and I don't think it's unrealistic or utopian to think that these amazing tools can be used for good. For example, in the past when there were incidents of gun violence there was no real discussion about guns. The NRA would issue a statement saying more control isn't the answer and the Brady Campaign saying this is proof something needs to be done. Both statements were filtered through whoever was anchoring the news desks on each station. People might call their representatives but there was no real discussion since candidates don't want to talk about that issue. Both sides would give statements to a middle man who would in turn repeat them to the masses. End of story. With Facebook people can actually have discussions with each other about the issue. Go back and check my wall from this summer. I talked a lot about gun control and tried to set an example on how to have the discussion. Interest groups and candidates can post questions on Facebook and get quick, immediate responses. You don't have to put pen to paper. You don't have to find an email address, think about what to title it, and spend time crafting the perfect response. On Facebook it's ok if answers are short and stream of conscious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is a lot of misinformation that gets passed around, especially on Facebook. It speaks to an uninformed electorate that don't know how or don't take the time to look things up after they hear something. A statement is parroted and if a link is included, give it the guise of having authority no matter how outlandish. I believe that part of stopping that is (when possible, use judgement) to point out that something isn't true. This could be me, but I don't understand how finding out who candidates are and where they stand on the issues is something difficult to do. It might take more than a minute or two, but I don't see it as a Herculean task either.

    Also out of curiosity, what makes our ability to vote in an election so rare? I agree that in 1788 and 1789 it was, but now there are only 53 countries in the world that are listed as authoritarian regiemes. The other 114 countries all have some form of democracy and elections. Not all are perfect and some do have major flaws, but every year more countries are moving towards a democracy.

    Christians as a voting block are a very interesting thing. The "religious right" as they were dubbed were brought into the spectrum by Ronald Reagan against the wishes of some of his advisors. Prior to that Christians had taken part in politics like in the early 1960's when it came to equality and they did vote, but they were never seen as a demographic that one party could mobilize at a moments notice. The reason they were brought into the spectrum by Reagan and kept there by Bush 41 and many others at all levels since is because they were seen as an important demographic to win what was later dubbed the "culture wars." This meant passing laws that would limit access to or ban outright things that were not seen as wholesome or beneficial to mankind. The standout issues from this era in the 80's & 90's are abortion and homosexuality. These things were presented as the most important political issues and as being the things that would lead to our downfall as a society; a values system under attack by another values system. In more recent years, some Christians have tried to step out and say maybe these things aren't the most important political issues to believers and I don't want to be lumped in with people who think they are. Some have done it very politely and calmly while others have responded with the same hatred and vitriol that became associated with the people they no longer want to be associated with because of their hatred and vitriol. Needless to say if you are going to be a Christian and vocal about an issue, no matter what it is, be Christ-like in doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dylan, you have a lot here, and I'm a little pressed for time, so I'm gonna try to hit on a few of your points/questions. Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly!

    I agree completely that everyone has their own values and ideals and that they can be attached to the same faith. I tried to say that (not as clearly as you did I'll admit) in my part of the post, and I actually celebrate this fact. I am glad that our faith is one that can include different interpretations, because I think that it shows how even those who hold divergent views can come together over faith--the overarching truth of Christ holds us together even when partisan lines, hermeneutical stances, and so many other identifiers would divide us. I love that Democrat, Republican, Bull Mouse, and everyone else can raise hands together under God.

    I agree also that it is detrimental when we let our political alliances define us, and that we should not see disagreement as personal attacks against our character. That being said, though, much of what I have seen (mainly on Facebook) that relates to political issues have been personal attacks, not disagreements. It is one thing to state one's case or even spell out why one thinks a certain candidate is not right for election. It is another to speak down to those who hold differing opinions, or (in some cases) lash out against them. I've seen both, and it is quite upsetting.

    I've seen a few mudslinging ads and such, but since Jess spoke on that, I'll let her respond more about it. I will give two examples of ads that I've seen, though, one that I think does a good job and one that was a little ridiculous. The first was a billboard that stated something like "Obama supports gay marriage and abortion. Should you support Obama?" I honestly thought this was a great campaign ad, because it actually dealt with issues and asked a pointed question. Now, you know my opinion and how I'd answer, and you know that I already knew this about BO, but for those who might be uninformed about the issues, this sign did a good job of speaking to specific issues. The second was a radio commercial sponsored by a pro-choice group. They painted MR as untrusting of women and highly patriarchal, playing spooky background music as they talked about how he would take our country back into the Middle Ages. Then, they changed to upbeat, fun music as they shared how BO trust women, and how he was moving us into the future. I felt like it was trying to play with emotions and subliminally change political stances. It was weird and intrusive. Now, neither of these ads were approved by either candidate, but they were obviously political ads nonetheless.

    Facebook isn't anonymous, but I think that many people treat it like it is. Many post divisive statements that I am convinced that they would never say in person when they would have to confront peoples' emotions and reactions about these issues, when they do not have to look the people they are condemning in the face while they condemn them. My point was simply that we should remember that our posts are read by real people and their responses are real as well. I think that Facebook and other social media can be used for discussion, even debate, and that they can be catalysts for change as well (as you rightly point out). But when they are attacking and offensive to others, it is not good that is being done.

    You're right, it's not a herculean task to become an informed voter, but it seems like there is quite a lot of crud to wade through in finding it. That was my only point in that.

    ReplyDelete

  4. I think I should also qualify that my part of the post (and I'm guessing Jess' as well, though I will not speak for her) are written with a specific audience in mind and therefore might not apply to everyone. We started this blog as way to share our thoughts and feelings and experiences as two soon-to-be pastors in two different denominations, and when I write here of how I think people should act or portray themselves through social media, I am writing with this pastoral lens in mind. I am, in a way I guess, preaching a mini-sermon, and the people I am speaking to are those who have professed to be disciples of Christ and who are supposed to be working to live holy lives. This does not mean that others cannot read my words and take them to heart, but I also do not want to come across as trying to police the world on Facebooking protocol. I am simply trying to remind my brothers and sisters of our call to love one another, because many are acting as if their online interactions are outside this purview.

    Also, I love your last sentence. I'm about to tweet it.

    Hope this clarified some issues. I know that you are much more informed on everything than I am, and I really appreciate your thoughts and your response. I need to learn more about superPACs, and I need to pay better attention to things like the debates and the candidates' past legislative works and such, and I learn a lot about these from your posts. Thanks for being a great example of how I think we should act through our social media outlets!

    Peace!

    -wes

    ReplyDelete