As the 2008 election season is under way, with the Democrat and Republican conventions just behind us and the elections just around the corner, it’s time for the last two frenzied months of campaigning. The Vice Presidential candidates were announced not long ago and already they are on the campaign trail, traveling from state to state, giving speeches, and promoting their ticket. The public buildup and political maneuvering to determine this election year’s candidates began four years ago, as soon as the last election ballot of 2004 was cast.

For some candidates, plans were laid in place long before even the 2004 election. However, the campaigning prior to now is relatively insignificant compared to these last two months, which are the most crucial because of undecided voters. The effect of previously released headlines and resulting damage to the candidates’ reputations has little consequence now and has largely been forgotten. Any harmful press now will have triple the effect on the candidate’s campaign. It’s an exciting time in the United States, as we are on the brink of some drastic changes in the administration of this country.

Two years ago, big changes were afoot in the little state of Vermont. Of its three national representatives, two seats were open and up for grabs and I had the opportunity to be a part of the action. As a senior in high school, I was required to complete a graduation challenge project – completing 60 hours of volunteer work and writing an analysis paper. To a senior already half checked out of high school it seemed like a ton of pointless work. I had always had a strong interest in politics and, though it was tempting to do something uninteresting just to obtain the required credit, I decided to try something that I had never done before to see where it led.

I volunteered for the Victory Office in my town. This Victory Office was one of many in an effort called the Victory Program across the nation launched by the GOP. President Bush began the program and Karl Rove began implementing it in 2000 and greatly expanded it for the 2004 election. The Victory Program’s goal is to reach potential voters and get them out to the polls on Election Day. It accomplishes this objective using many techniques, such as door-to-door canvassing, phone calls, absentee ballots, and other means, but mainly by its overarching focus on voters and candidates up for election, not necessarily the individual candidates themselves.

My primary job as an intern in the Victory Office was to work the phone banks and make calls to voters. To some this might sound exceedingly boring, but I never had a dull night. The survey questions were exactly the same from one call to the next, but the conversations went a little different way each time. I met quite a few interesting characters through the calls. And when I needed a break from the phone calls, there were all the fellow volunteers and staffers that occupied the office.

In a little town of less than eight thousand people, there were forty phone lines in one room and on any given night all forty lines were being used. As a then-seventeen-year-old senior in high school I was always the youngest one there. A few college students worked at the Victory Office as well, but mainly the phones were occupied by middle-aged to elderly volunteers. They all had interesting stories of previous elections to tell and were thrilled to have younger volunteers there. I also had the opportunity to meet almost all of the local state senators and representatives.

On the eve of the election, every single one of the forty phone lines was occupied. An additional office was opened up across the hall for an additional twenty people to use cell phones for long distance calls to all counties in Vermont. By the end of the evening, many of us were making calls on the cell phones clustered around power outlets because the batteries had lost their charge. Vermont Governor Douglas and Lieutenant Governor Dubie showed up at the very end to thank us for our support and hard work. In the small office space packed with volunteers and staffers, people were pumped and the air was energized. It was one of the most exhilarating moments of the entire campaign season for me.

Even though the election of 2006 didn’t go especially well for Republicans in general, it was an exciting time to be involved. If you ever have the chance to get involved with a campaign, be certain to take advantage of the opportunity. It’s bound to be a rewarding experience and you will learn more than you ever could from the news about candidates and their campaigns. You will meet so many new people, both voters and volunteers working alongside you for the same goal. The 2008 elections are sure to be eventful and have an interesting outcome.

This was a tough call for me. I do like McCain — really. He’s a nice guy, I’m sure, but I can’t help but wonder if he is too confident he has the Christian vote simply because of his Republican status. Sadly it is the case that, all too often, Republicans pretend to have the moral high ground on everything. The word Christian and the word Republican have somehow merged to have the same meaning. What Democrats say about helping those in poverty is a vital part of Jesus’ teachings.¹ Democrats just quit trying, and gave up on ever garnering the Christian vote. When Democrats see the word “Christian,” more often than not they see the words “political opponent” or “enemy.” Personally, I see the world in a different light. I quit being a “Republican” around the same time I started being a Christian, as ironic as that sounds. Of course, I’m no Democrat either; I dislike both parties (the two-party system really has to go). I guess you could call me an independent, but in actuality I hope to ally myself with only one party: God’s.

People should be asking me right now, “Aren’t you Christian? Aren’t you anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-secularist, pro-school prayer, pro-intelligent design?” To answer them, I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am against abortion in all senses. I do not feel I could fully promote homosexuality, but that doesn’t stop me from loving them. I do want God to continue to be discussed in this nation, not erased. I don’t really see how prayer in school is a threat to anyone, provided it is voluntary. Intelligent design doesn’t make sense to anyone who hasn’t read, or doesn’t believe in, the Bible. I’m not alone either; Obama feels the same way.

Heads should be doing a double take right now, as people frantically Google for Obama’s stance on the issues to confirm that he is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Do not worry; he is. But his personal views, because of his faith, are like mine. This is hypocrisy, right? How can you be against abortions, but pro-choice? The answer is simple; he and I share a common higher value: freedom. It is wrong to have an abortion, but you can’t force someone to stop it with a law. Homosexual marriage does go against the institution of marriage set up by God, but it is wrong to outright ban it. Of course, with this same logic, you could say that, although it is wrong to murder and rape, it would also be wrong to restrict someone from doing it, as that would infringe on freedoms. Indeed it would, but these are different in that they are rather cut and dry issues. Society agrees in general (except for murderers and rapists) that these things are wrong (and so does God for that matter). It’s the morally grey issues to society that divide us, and, although I know where I stand on these issues, I can’t try to force this on others through a law. I look at what prohibition was back in the day and how that was an utter failure, even though it was strongly backed by many Christians at the time. We see the result of forcing our beliefs on others, and it is doomed.

Instead, as a Christian, I believe the focus should not be on treating the symptoms of society by force, but on changing the hearts. It’s like wiping the blood off of your shirt without caring for your bloody nose. If we could learn anything from Jesus, it’s that you cannot force someone to do anything.² Even if you do, you need to provide a way for it to happen. We are called to restore the world back to a place where discrimination, hatred, sexism, racism, suffering, violence, fear, shame, and oppression are gone. Utopian, indeed, but it is completely possible. Restoration begins with the individual, not with a mandate for the masses. I can rant and rave, call you a sinner, or condemn you to hell, or I can become the change I wish to see. Also, if our perceptions are different, if we see and hear different things, we can only act according to what is real to us, causing the divide. What looks like murder to one person could be a life-saving act to another. We lack objectivity, the ability to see from all perspectives at once. Christians often forget that people do not see the world as we do and are often not understanding of that fact, and the same goes the other way around.

I believe Obama sees this too, from what I read of his “Call to Renewal” keynote address, in which he stated that faith should be discussed by both Democrats and Republicans alike. Many of the great social revolutions of history (public education, health care, human rights, children’s rights, women’s suffrage, civil rights, literacy education, rights for the disabled, even fair trade coffee) were started by Christians. Even Gandhi, though not Christian, borrowed ideas from the teachings of Jesus about loving your enemies, and turning the other cheek. I believe Obama can be the instrument of change he says he is. If I may quote from his speech:

“…What I am suggesting is this – secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

I see Obama as being the next Lincoln, a nameless politician from Illinois who was never expected to win the Presidency, changed it for the better, and unified a country in civil war. I’m also sad to say that today we stand as a country divided. We appear weak, stupid, bickering amongst ourselves while troops die in Iraq. The one place where we should be standing unified is foreign affairs and that is in pieces. The world seems to have left us behind, our education is in shambles, our currency is European toilet paper, and our credibility and respect in the world is on its way down. Perhaps it’s time we focus on our own needs, fixing ourselves before we fix the problems of the world.

This is why I state that I feel Obama is the Christian candidate of choice. He has the right (meaning the ones I have, naturally) ideas to restore our education, our credibility, our country, our economy, our environment, our peace, our equality, and, most importantly, our faith. That is the world I wish to live in, so I cast my vote for the one I feel best espouses these Christian desires of mine, Barack Obama.

References

Obama, Barack H. “Barack Obama| Change We Can Believe In.” http://www.barackobama.com/index.php. 28 June 2006. 1 June 2008 .

1 Matthew 19:21

2 Mark 6:11