Hilton Head Island, SC – September 6, 2015
The Chapel Without Walls
Proverbs 13-5-13; Mathew 5:33-42
A Sermon by John M. Miller
Text – “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.” – Matthew 5:37 (RSV)
Ethical Questions for Politicians
You probably are not aware of this, but we are in the midst of a political campaign by a number of candidates in both parties. They are trying to win their party’s nomination for President of the United States. At the current time there are seventeen candidates running for the Republican nomination and four for the Democratic nomination.
Never in our lifetime have we had a primary season like this one. It isn’t that it will turn out to be longer than any previous primary election. In one sense, every presidential primary has turned into a four-year marathon. As soon as a President is sworn into office on January 20 of whatever year, the parties and the party candidates start gearing up to run for the nomination in the presidential election four years from then. The first two years are relatively laid back, but by mid-term in any presidency, either that President or other candidates from his party and candidates from the other party start jockeying for position in what consistently proves to be a brutal and costly process. But the process itself shall be really no longer or more dismaying in 2015 and 2016 than it has been in previous presidential primary or general elections.
However, there are two factors which are unique in what is going on right now. The first is that far, far, far more money is being spent in the election of the next US President than has ever been spent before. By the time the dust settles on Nov. 1, 2016, several billion dollars will have been expended in the lengthy and painful process to elect one person as our next President. Secondly, there are far, far, far more candidates from both parties who will run for their party’s presidential nomination far longer than has ever occurred before in our nation’s history. And why? It is because of a judicial decision made by five men in black robes in January of 2010. Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commission is the worst Supreme Court decision since the infamous Dred Scott decision prior to the Civil War. It has virtually guaranteed that, in nearly all elections at any level of government, whichever candidates are able to entice and to spend the most money shall be elected. In summary, O to be in England, now that autumn’s here!
This sermon shall be like none other I have ever preached. It shall consist mainly of ethical questions with respect to politics for which I shall provide no answers. You should not deduce from that that I have no answers to these questions for myself. Quite the contrary, I can answer each of them very quickly to my own satisfaction. Furthermore, you may deduce by some of my follow-up questions how I would answer them. But I want you to think about how you would answer these questions. These inquiries are, I believe, important issues, and we as voters should give them much thought as we listen to the candidates when they attempt to gain our votes. God wants us to be as honest and truthful in our politics as in all other aspects of our lives.
In light of what I have just said, the first ethical question I shall ask is this: Was the Ctiizens United decision ethically valid? Was it right? Is it good for our electoral process, is it healthy, is it wise? How should all politicians answer those questions? The 5-4 decision said that money contributed to political campaigns, virtually any amount given by anybody, equates to free speech, and that the US Constitution supports free speech in almost all circumstances. There is certainly much more to it than that, but we don’t have time to go into it in more detail.
The net result is this: individuals, corporations, or labor unions can give enormous amounts of money to Super Political Action Committees, so long as the Super-PACs do not divulge prior to election campaigns whom they will support with their multiple millions of dollars. Is that ethical? Is it fair? On the basis of previous elections (and as of now we have had post-Citizens United elections in November of 2010, 2012, and 2014), it is widely known by those who study politics which Super-PACs are likely to give millions of dollars to which particular candidates or to which particular-type of candidates. Is it ethical to allow enormous funds to flow into anyone’s campaign, and is it ethical to allow anyone to contribute to any Super-PAC, knowing what candidates they shall probably support with their obscene amounts of money?
(On the basis of the nouns, verbs, and adjectives I shall use in this sermon, it will not be difficult to discern what I think about these issues. Or am I incorrect in this assumption?)
So, setting aside the matter of money and how it might or might not corrupt the political process, let us address what the political process is ultimately all about. Should politicians’ first priority be to produce legislation that they believe most of their constituents want, or should they attempt to convince the electorate what are the best and the most moral policies for the greatest number of citizens, but especially those who are most disadvantaged by class, race, social status, location, or other such factors? Think about the Hebrew prophets and about Jesus. They did not speak on behalf of the wealthy and well-born, but on behalf of the poor and outcast.
Democracy is unquestionably the best system of government when it operates at its best. The problem is that it never operates at its best, because there are too many conflicting constituencies represented in the electorate. These people want this, but those people want that. For example, for much of its history since the beginning, the American South has had a majority of white citizens in all southern states. Early on a majority of that majority were very happy with a system which allowed black people (who were not considered citizens) to be enslaved. The Civil War settled that issue, at the cost of 620,000 lives, mainly whites, but also many blacks. However, for the next century laws allowed blacks to be prevented from voting, to be prevented from living in certain sections of most cities, South or North, and to be prevented from marrying white people.
The legislative and the judicial efforts to overcome that kind of racial discrimination were enormous and painful, but justice was eventually established, even if imperfectly. In most of these kinds of disputes, courts did more than laws enacted by Congress or the various state legislatures to bring ethical victory to many American moral quandaries. For example, the Supreme Court several months ago struck down all state laws which forbade same-sex marriages. Was that right? Was it ethical? Was it moral? Many American think one way about that, and many others think the opposite way. But if it had been left up to the individual states to determine the ethics of same-sex marriage, many states would have continued to allow it for the indefinite future while many others would continue to forbid it. So what is the more ethical: a nation governed basically by states’ rights or a nation governed by a strong federal government?
Does democracy work best where politicians do what they think the majority of their constituents want, or where they, the politicians, do their best to convince the people what is best? Should politicians reflect the public will, or should they seek to guide the public will? And is the current anti-politician sentiment that is so apparent among many Americans generated because they think the politicians are doing too much or too little to guide the public will? IS there a public will on most political issues, or are the politicians doing so little because they can’t discern what “the people” want? Do we deserve the politicians we have, or do we deserve better?
The Book of Proverbs is a collection of many one-line or two-line gems. We are familiar with a few of them. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (22:6). “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (1:7). In our Old Testament reading, we heard these Proverbs: “A righteous man hates falsehood, but a wicked man acts shamefully and disgracefully” (13:5). Have any candidates sounded righteous to you, or have any sounded wicked? “The light of the righteous rejoices, but the lamp of the wicked will be put out” (13:9). Whose light seems to be shining more brightly among our candidates, those who seem to be righteous or those who seem to be wicked? “By insolence the heedless make strife, but with those who take advice is wisdom” (13:10). Have you observed any political insolence lately, or have you observed any candidates who appear to have taken good advice, and what they say seems to come across as wisdom?
Do the current candidates for the presidential nominations take clearly explained stands on various political issues, or do they deliberately avoid taking stands in order to maintain their personal popularity? If they refuse to state their positions clearly, is that ethical? Is it fair to voters, in the vernacular, to have to “take a pig in a poke,” to select someone without knowing what that person truly thinks?
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was addressing the way that some people try to enhance what they say by “swearing” it to be true. That is, they promise it is true by invoking God to validate it. Jesus said, “Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is His footstool” (Mt. 5:34-5). Then Jesus concluded by saying, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”
Have you heard any candidates in effect swear to the American people that if they are elected President, on their first day in office they will do such-and-such? Have you heard anyone proudly declare that their first day on the job they will rescind Obamacare or the Iran nuclear agreement, or that they will improve Obamacare and the Iran agreement? There is so much fraudulence in political campaigning! Whether these are good ideas or not, it would take many months or a few years to undo Obamacare or to change it, and as for Iran or other such matters, it would be disastrous instantly to overturn policies that have taken a long time to put in place. Nevertheless, many candidates speak as though executive authority is the only real factor in American government, and that they shall fix things overnight that need fixing. “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘no.” Don’t try to fool the electorate with promises you can’t deliver.
The purpose of politicians is to make good, ethical, and sensible policies. But are politicians more interested in the policies, or in the politics necessary to transform proposed policies into legislation or regulations? Do politicians spend more time at politicking or at policy-production? And which is better for democracy and for “the people”? Politics is important, but making effective policies is more important. But which is more important to our politicians?
Is it more ethical to have strong state governments and a weak federal government, or to have a strong federal government and weak state governments? In 1787 two factions were trying to win the greatest concessions for their position in the Constitution. On the one side were the states’ rights people (those from the southern states, and especially James Madison) and those who wanted a strong federal government (Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and those in the middle and New England states). Which is better and more equitable and more just in 2015 for the greatest number of our citizens: states’ rights or federal authority? Which kinds of laws are more likely to be ethical for the greatest number of the people, state laws or federal laws? Are parochial interests more likely to curtail justice and fairness than national interests?
Should federal election costs be paid for solely from federal public funds? The five men in their black robes have determined that anyone is free to contribute anything to anybody to win any election, but is that right, or just, or ethical? And apart from that, is it ethical for politicians to spend so much of their time in office trying to get the amount of money they think is necessary to win the next election? Would term limits help to neutralize that question? Would it improve our political system if more politicians took stands they knew might cause them to lose the next election but they also knew those positions are the ethically correct ones to take? Should anyone perceive politics to be a lifetime profession? Is it good for America to have many Members of Congress who serve for twenty or thirty or forty years?
It is distressingly obvious that there is much dissatisfaction in the American populace about the current state of politics in Washington. Antipathy seems to be growing almost daily. It is reflected in the polls about who is doing well among the candidates for both parties. The anti-politician outsiders are thriving, and the readily recognized long-time insiders are sinking. Are American politicians ignoring Americans, or are they simply reflecting the serious divisions which exist among Americans? Is it the politicians who have failed, or is it the people who have failed to elect courageous politicians? American federal politics is in gridlock; is that morally acceptable? Can a people who truly care about right and wrong continue to allow a growing political impasse by not holding their elected officials accountable?
The Bible declares in many places and in many ways that God is radically committed to justice and equity. That is especially true in the laws which are claimed to have been given to Moses by God, in the teachings of the Hebrew prophets, and especially in the ethical injunctions of Jesus of Nazareth. Politics is one of the most important means of creating an ethical society. Therefore God is surely concerned with how we conduct our politics. The United States Constitution established a republican form of government. We elect our representatives, and they govern on our behalf. The United States is not a gigantic New England town meeting where everyone votes on everything. That is a pure democracy, and no modern nation-state could possibly operate as a pure democracy. It would simply be administratively untenable.
So we have no other choice than to continue electing representatives and a President whom we think will serve us well in office. In a republican democracy (which is what the US and many other nations actually are), it seems to me it is unethical not to vote. Anyone who doesn’t vote in essence it saying this: “I am not to blame for any political mistakes in my country; they are the guilty ones, those who cast ballots and the ones they elect. As long as I do not vote, I am not responsible for any errors of government.” But simply because we are alive, and because we are citizens, we are all responsible for all the good and the bad policies of our government.
For the next fifteen months we shall have more than enough opportunities to discern what candidates say and what we infer candidates might actually mean by what they say. For the next six months it will be various presidential candidates who dominate the airwaves and the Internet. Then we shall start to hear what candidates for Congress shall be saying. Listen carefully. Try as best you can to discern the truth from what is said. Then, on November 1, 2016, let your yes be “yes” and your no “no.” And may God bless the United States of America to the greatest degree it deserves to be blessed.