A Vote for the Other Side?

This is an honest non-partisan question: Why does each side in the U.S. Presidential election claim that a vote for a 3rd-party or independent candidate is actually a vote for the other side? I recall hearing this same refrain in previous elections. I have no particular agenda here, and I look forward to learning from your comments. Thank you!

“Americanism” vs. “Globalism”: An Additional Theological Consideration

[Summary: God is the God of the whole universe. He is no respecter of persons or of nations. God must therefore not be co-opted by any partisan agenda, be it “Americanism” or “Globalism,” nor by any national agenda, including an unexamined and ultimate allegiance to the United States of America (at the dismissal of other peoples). Nor must God the universal Creator-Redeemer be unwittingly stiff-armed out of Christians’ political reasoning by appeals to individual conscience and character. U.S. Christians’ faith in the God who created, rules, and redeems the entire world should somehow overshadow all other political concerns – even if what that looks like may not appear clearly or exactly the same in different people’s political decisions.]

    This is an attempt to offer a non-partisan, Christian theological viewpoint that I do not see evidenced nearly enough in the exploding commentary on what some see as the fundamental issue in the current U.S. Presidential election campaign: Donald Trump’s “Americanism” vs. Hillary Clinton’s “Globalism.”[1] My central concern here is not political per se. Rather, I wish to buttress Christians against either being unjustifiably co-opted by narrower agendas, be they current political ones or otherwise, or unwittingly self-excluding themselves from important processes. I also hope that what I will more explicitly lay out toward the end of this brief essay will prove helpful for approaching other issues besides the current U.S. political crisis.

    To summarize the political issue at hand, “Americanism” – labeled by its critics as isolationist, nationalistic, or even racist – stresses restoring various U.S. manufacturing jobs that have been lost due to offshoring by large U.S. corporations and a corresponding U.S. market invasion by foreign companies.[2; 3] The offshoring and foreign invasion have both been fostered by NAFTA, TPP, and other maneuvers of “Globalism” – which, according to its critics, is not only unpatriotic but has also served to line the pockets of the elite and wealthy at the expense of the U.S. middle class and of their decimated communities.[4] Note that the twin categories are primarily economic, and (this latter observation intends no partisan preference) they have been framed as such by the Trump campaign. The fact that Trump the businessman would use primarily economic categories is understandable, as is the reality that Clinton would not create such a construct and risk being categorized as “Anti-Americanist.” Parsing the “Americanism-Globalism” framework any further would take us beyond our scope here, so we will address it as is, especially since that is what others are discussing so widely and vociferously.

    As with any multifaceted, passionately-discussed matter as this year’s bewildering U.S. political process, there has been a wide spectrum of commentary – by “experts,” “pundits,” and obscure folks posting on Facebook – in terms of carefulness, contentiousness, constructiveness, competence, and clarity. With specific regard to the “Americanism-Globalism” issue, there are intertwined economic, social, historical, political, ethical, psychological, and other factors at work.(While not for the faint of heart or those in a hurry, the following piece by Jürgen Habermas, “The European Nation-State: On the Past and Future of Sovereignty and Citizenship,” is a historical analysis of the modern nation-state worthy of attention. This kind of perspective also helps for parsing the following recent, multifaceted statement made by Donald Trump: "The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony." [5]) I am definitely not competent to address the economic aspect of this discussion – which often takes center stage either explicitly or more subtly. Nor do I naively think that my or others’ theological views have somehow developed independently from other factors, interests, assumptions, and personal experiences – be they political, linguistic, racial, financial, or otherwise.

    Even so, I am daring to offer here a specifically Christian theological point. To clear the underbrush further for clarity’s sake, allow me to explain that the point I am offering is not the same as either of two other Christian-related arguments I have seen in specific relation to the “Americanism-Globalism” issue. One is an eschatological view that interprets “Globalism” as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.[6; 7] I am among those who understands the Bible to teach literally, i.e., within its various literary forms, that the “End Times” began long before the twentieth century, namely with Jesus’s life, death, resurrection, and ascended reign. Another is a more multifaceted argument that criticizes “Globalism” as a continuance of a U.S. Neocon world vision that was implemented during Bill Clinton’s second term as President and is theologically (and financially-politically) supported by Christian Zionism.[7a] While I would distance myself from both Neo-Conservatism and Christian Zionism, the theological consideration I am adding here to the “Americanism” vs. “Globalism” discussion has its own integrity and unique contribution to make.

    The theological consideration I wish to add to Christians’ thinking – in this case, to U.S. Christians’ thinking regarding the U.S. Presidential election process, both generally and specifically regarding the “Americanism” vs. “Globalism” issue – is this: God is the God of the whole universe, including the galaxies, sub-atomic particles, mighty angels, and all peoples past, present, and future throughout the world. Moreover, there is no ethnic-national difference among peoples he envelops in his redemptive purposes. This great, intimate, and universal Creator-Redeemer is just, holy, loving, and absolutely no respecter of persons and nations. He is God, and there is no other.

    So does recognizing that universal reality about God tip one towards “Globalism”? Perhaps at first glance it does. However, the “Americanism” vs. “Globalism” framework is a partisan construct cast within a U.S. political process. Even while portrayed as unpatriotic and economically unjust, “Globalism” is one U.S.-centered approach to serving U.S. interests (at least per its defenders). God as universal Creator-Redeemer cannot be confined to “Globalism” as the only legitimate option within a U.S.-centered political process. Indeed, one could argue (and many do) that “Americanism” is just as good for the entire world, if not better, than “Globalism” in terms of all peoples’ political and economic well-being. In either case, God must not be co-opted by any partisan agenda – even if proponents of such agendas sincerely believe that God’s favor clearly rests on such a political program.

    Along with the two theological approaches to the “Americanism” vs. “Globalism” issue mentioned earlier, there are several other theological approaches being circulated for U.S. Christians to consider regarding how, or whether, to cast their votes for President this year. These thoughtful approaches, that are worthy of careful consideration, include guarding one’s conscience [8] or character [9], why to vote for neither Trump nor Clinton (and, possibly, for another candidate) [10], as well as giving wider reasons for why one candidate’s presidency would carry less damaging consequences than the other’s [11; 12].

    What I do not see being circulated – and thus the effort to articulate and offer these remarks for your consideration – is a view of God as universal Creator-Redeemer that correspondingly relativizes myself as an individual, or the United States of America as a modern nation-state, in a manner that prioritizes God’s interests and, in subservient fashion, those of the entire world. In other words, how is this year’s U.S. Presidential election, including my and others’ particular votes, affected by God being the universal Creator-Redeemer who is always intent on preserving the world, working worldwide for the sake of his Kingdom, and redeeming his people from among the world that he has created?

    Asking that question will not necessarily clarify how, or if, one should vote this year. It is, however, a question whose silence in the current discussions is deafening. Speaking as a U.S. Christian myself, I think that many of us are plagued by both a fundamentally individualistic Christian identity as well as an unexamined allegiance to the ultimacy of the United States of America. U.S. Christians’ fundamental identity as citizens of God’s universal Kingdom must trump (no pun intended) these secondary identities. I hope to see more evidence of our fundamentally corporate, universal Christian identity – as servants of the universal Creator-Redeemer – evidenced in upcoming commentaries about the U.S. political process.

Rectifying Metanarratives

U.S. Independence Day, July 4, provides an annual opportunity for observing a national metanarrative on display. Patriotic tunes and fireworks that reenact “The rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air” celebrate gallant patriots who fought off the mighty British Red Coats over two centuries ago. The fanfare also salutes today’s armed forces and their global defense of U.S.-Americans’ freedoms. Not on display, of course, are the displacement-annihilation generations earlier of indigenous North Americans by settlers of Western European descent, or the forced relocation-enslavement of millions of West Africans. The latter’s unresolved history showed itself yet again in this past week’s events in Baton Rouge, St. Paul, and Dallas.

 Another region with acute pain from conflicting metanarratives is modern East Asia. On the one hand, as a U.S.-American that has lived much of his adult life in Japan, I resonate deeply with Japanese instincts and sensibilities. That goes for interpersonal relationships, how language and communication work, cuisine, sports, beauty, sounds, seasonal changes, and any number of other aspects of life in Japan. At the same time, various atrocities that the Japanese imperial military committed over the several years up through 1945, coupled with the degrading Japanese occupation of Korea (and in a different way Taiwan), bear a dark reproach upon Japanese standing before the Divine as well as before the peoples of Asia and beyond. Deep pain and anger persist over the unresolved wrongs that took place.

 Within such lingering darkness in East Asia, there is encouragement to be found. Over recent years some Korean, Chinese, and Japanese private individuals who have been engaged with modern issues - as activists, teachers, historians, for example - have taken cooperative initiatives to compose common East Asian historical accounts covering modern times. One particular initiative was in reaction to the 2001 approval by the Japanese Ministry of Education of a middle school textbook that glossed over the 1937 Nanjing Massacre and other Japanese military atrocities. The participants shared a common concern that young people in all their countries learn history in a fair and truthful way. Through their numerous meetings over four years the collaborative team encountered all sorts of seemingly  insurmountable barriers: hostile subconscious notions, sweeping prejudices, contrasting labels for the same events, differing frameworks for historical outlines, and linguistic misunderstandings. Remarkably the group was able to work through many of those challenges and achieve much empathy, crystallized understandings of remaining differences, and a common East Asian history written in their respective languages (and translated into English as A History to Open the Future) for wide educational use.

 The example of similar post-World War II European projects have helped to encourage this East Asian initiative to persevere in tackling its seemingly more intractable challenges. Other contexts demand similar ongoing efforts, including between Turkish and Armenian and, perhaps most internationally crucial of all, Israeli and Palestinian. Such ventures are not easy and are fraught with all sorts of unforeseen mine fields. Local initiatives are also essential, including in the complex U.S. milieu, as Anthony Bradley has so aptly pointed out. But justice, peace, and integrity demand the efforts.

 Past wrongs cannot be made right, nor can past deeds and their effects be undone, However, empathy and common understandings can increase. Moreover, just restitution - be it financial, legal, emotional, or otherwise - can take place.

In the end, God will have the final say at Judgment Day. Until then, common efforts by people divided by previous wrong and harmful actions are worth the struggle for just peace and for turning enemies into friends. Working at understanding history together, as well as collaborating locally, are particularly important. May God’s Spirit give strength to those who embark on such ventures.