Ted Grimsrud—September 16, 2024
I have always been interested in American politics and presidential elections. One of my oldest political memories is a dinner time conversation with my best friend’s family sixty years ago when we were lamenting that it looked like Barry Goldwater was going to win the Republican nomination over our more moderate favorites Nelson Rockefeller or William Scranton. I was ten years old. That was only the first of many disappointments for me about presidential politics.
Still, I feel like this current election is the worst in my lifetime. On the one hand, we have Donald Trump. Even with a long list of morally corrupt and warist predecessors, Trump seems to me to stand clearly as the worst person and worst leader ever to be president of this country. Yet, on the other hand we who cannot support Trump are given the major party alternative of a candidate who is up to her elbows in the administration of an overt and on-going genocide in Gaza and a US-initiated proxy war in Ukraine that is edging ever closer to a nuclear End Game.
The terrible irony for a peace-oriented citizen is that while we are being taught by the media that we live in a hyper-partisan age with extreme polarities between blue and red politics, on the issues that matter the most we face an implacable wall of bipartisan agreement. We don’t have the option of voting for peace. Both sides are all war, all the time. Probably the most disillusioning element of the consequences of Joe Biden’s 2020 victory over Trump has been the almost utter silencing of any kind of anti-war sentiment in the Democratic Party—certainly in relation to the proxy war in Ukraine and also largely in relation to the genocide in Gaza. The Democrats couldn’t even bring themselves to allow a short, innocuous, fully vetted speech from a pro-Palestinian speaker at their recent nominating convention.
I haven’t decided how to vote (or whether to vote) in the presidential election. It makes my decision less fraught to learn that Harris seems to have a sizeable lead in Virginia. If she is going to win my state anyhow, my vote will scarcely be decisive. The dilemma is heightened, though, by the failure of Jill Stein and Cornel West to unite in the pro-peace third-party arena; that both insist on running renders their miniscule combined potential vote even more insignificant. But it does look like the Democrats were not able this time to keep them off the ballot in Virginia—in 2020, I ended up voting for Biden because the Greens had been foiled in seeking ballot access.
I am drawn to the conclusion that the presidential election is mainly a sham, perpetrated by the Powers that benefit from the warist consensus of our current system—a consensus that I believe would not hold had we an actual democracy. The energy people of good will put into the American presidential election could likely be better spent working harder to imagine such an actual democracy—where people would more easily recognize the corruption of our current bi-partisan warist consensus for the abomination it is. But our society, and our churches, do not seem to want to allow such imaginings.
When I read the ever-present ad that accompanies articles from one of the pro-Democratic Party sites that I often look at: “WE’RE IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIMES”—I find myself responding with a great deal of skepticism. This election can only be important if somehow it can be a catalyst for a genuine peace movement. Simply voting for Kamala Harris will not move us even an inch in that direction.
Thinking Pacifism 
What, in your assessment, might spark a genuine peace movement?
That’s a difficult question, Kathleen. We seem such a long way from having the kind of potential for change that the anti-Vietnam War and anti-nuclear movements had in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. All I can realistically imagine are small groups of resisters “creating space to be human” by explicitly denouncing the warism and cultivating ways of peace however they can.
There are several factors here. One is that it is almost impossible to have a massive antiwar demonstration that is really a peace demonstration. Marxist groups, organized as UNAC, jump on such opportunities with their ideological baggage, which includes being no more opposed to war than the U.S. ruling class. They just stand with different states and non-state actors. They tend to dominate large demonstrations against U.S. involvement in wars with a spirit not at all aligned with the believers in peace. I don’t know how to get around that problem. I long ago decided to no longer particpated in mass “antiwar” demonstrations because of the ugly atmosphere created by these activists committed to military action by those they agree with.
Thank you for being a light in my life. Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil. The kingdom of peace is totally antithetical to the world we live in.
Peace
The OG
Cornel West was originally a candidate for the Green Party nomination. The Green Party was excited to have a candidate of that stature and standing. Former Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein signed on as his campaign manager. But West wanted to make all the decisions about the campaign and didn’t want to consult with Party leadership, so he decided to drop out of the Green Party nomination process and run as an independent. Stein realized this almost surely meant he would only be on the ballot in a limited number of states. She gave him her good wishes, but felt the Green Party was the only viable option to get a candidate with their views on most state ballots. With West out, she was the most promising Green candidate and decided to run, which met widespread approval within the Party. Just as Stein thought, West didn’t get on many ballots but the Green Party has gotten on most ballots giving peace and social justice voters an on-ballot option. Both she and the Green Party would have preferred West had stayed within the Green Party.
In your post, you identified as a “peace-oriented citizen”.
I asked myself two questions, both strictly from a scriptural perspective: Why are you “peace-oriented”? and, Where is your citizenship? I think the answers to these questions would be clarifying, and I think provide a direction to channel that skepticism of yours.
As I read it, Jesus and his apostles teach that the citizenship of authentic disciples is in the coming kingdom of heaven, and not here. Thus, prior to our Lord’s wrath-filled, violent second coming, out of which God establishes the enduring blessed peace of the promised kingdom on a renewed earth, his disciples are Jesus’ ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:17-21), ministers of reconciliation posted to foreign embassies (the churches, as these as scripturally defined). We know that in the land to which they have been posted, foreign ambassadors do not vote or stand for election, enlist in the military, hire on as civil servants or take oaths of loyalty; after all, they are foreigners, three to faithfully represent their soon-coming king, to whom they owe all allegiance.
With respect to Jesus’ disciples, I don’t think God takes the dual-citizenship view. Therefore the presidential election does not personally concern me, since as a disciple of Jesus, I see myself not as a citizen of the world but of God’s coming kingdom.
Paul told Timothy that as an enlisted man in his Lord’s military service, he was not to involve himself in civilian affairs, but rather to please his commanding officer.
In John, we read that Jesus told Pilate that since his kingdom is not (yet) of this world, his disciples do not (yet) fight. I find this to be, by far, the primary basis for Christian pacifism: a pacifism that is not intrinsic to the Lord’s teachings but rather operationally appropriate for the church age, until the timing is right for the promised outpouring of the wrath of God upon the enemies of God, surely a violent event that seems scripturally necessary for the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, for which Jesus instructed us to pray. (I do think that Revelation does continue the ancient Hebraic prophetic theme of an authentically violent coming wrath of God.)
In the scriptures we are repeatedly given the negative example of those who cry “Peace! Peace!” when there is no peace. I take this to mean that since God has not yet established his peace on earth, his disciples ought not to think that God’s peace will nevertheless be established now by his disciples (consider Peter’s “You will never die!” zeal-apart-from-knowledge blunder recorded in Matthew 16). And those who claim to be his disciples hardly have peace between one another!
Jesus’ disciples ought to be firmly declining to enter the fray, and as faithful foreign ambassadors publicly preaching the coming wrath against ungodliness (consider the example provided in Jude’s letter) and also the good news of reconciliation with God available through the finished work of Jesus, the (yet) coming king.
We might ask ourselves, Does Jesus even authorize his disciples to vote at all, in any of the world’s elections?
I conclude my comment by summarizing that I think Jesus instructs his disciples to pursue excellence in service to him as his ambassadors and ministers of reconciliation, and to trust God for fixing the world (its civilian affairs, its political machinations and ungodliness in general, and its violent conflicts); not trying to front-run God’s timing by attempting to reform the world (of which his disciples are not citizens) but rather, by the Godly example of Godly living among believers, loving one another as Jesus commanded (a high bar… again, how are we doing?) and working diligently in the world warning the world of God’s wrath to come, so that the fear of God (the beginning of wisdom) might motivate others to the repentance that leads to salvation.
I certainly don’t think Jesus ever wants those bearing his name to choose the lesser of evils.
Ted this is indeed a hard question. I’m not sure about the alternatives to Ukraine. I don’t see that wars will stop after Russia conquers Ukraine. As a peace maker would you suggest the US not fight when Russia attacked the US?
As a follower of Jesus, loving our enemy would not involve fighting, Matt. 5 lists some alternatives for a follower of Jesus, and elsewhere the expectation is that following Jesus can lead to our own cross. However this is not my expectation of what the state of Rome, the Jewish kingdom at Jesus time or today the democratic majority of the US nation would choose to do. I’ll admit, I don’t see how the Matt. 5 love your enemies will get to a world of peace, there is still something more that I don’t know.
But today, as a citizen of the US nation, I get to try to influence the choice of president and congress in a way I hope will be better for the long term help for the poor of the world. I prefer the candidate that is not demonizing immigrants, knowingly lying about them doing damage, eating pets and ducks and geese. I think we as a nation will need to welcome the poor and help them both by charity and government.
How would you see the US government create a policy to have the warring parties embrace peace in Ukraine and Gaza?
God bless us all!!
If you vote for the very hawkish Kamala Harris, you are voting for genocide and endless wars. And she may not be lying about what immigrants eat, but her policies are anti-immigrant. The two parties of the oligarchy have each been trying to say they have the most effective anti-immigrant policies.
If you want a better world and a better USA, if you vote, vote for an alternative.
Rubbish.
The two most genocidal people on the planet at this moment are Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu. They (along with Trump) very much want you to vote for Jill Stein over Harris if you choose not to vote for their preferred candidate Trump. That is why they invented her and why they are funding her and fighting to get her on the ballot in various states.
Are you going to do their bidding and be a lackey for genocide? The choice is yours.
But don’t lie to yourself and say that a vote for Stein (or the ridiculous Cornel West) is anything else.
Ted, I couldn’t agree more on your latter points, especially re. the grave need for people to invest more energy to “imagine such an actual democracy….” (one that’s not almost entirely dysfunctional in a rigged two-party plutocracy, largely unresponsive to its “represented” constituents).
If one digs below the surface some, it’s apparent that the imagining part actually has been done pretty well. But it doesn’t mean much without that getting deeper to “grass roots”, broadly, such that people gain hope and take action. Solutions, and a peace orientation will not come from the top down!
I could site some encouraging examples like ranked choice voting, but it alone or just a couple of the needed ingredients won’t make for a baked, edible loaf. But the range of ingredients to create an actual functional and wiser democracy has been laid out. One good place to see a great description of the problems you identify as well as an outline for solutions is the very readable book, “Forward” by Andrew Yang.
He, as a Dem, Christine Todd Whitman, as a Rep, and several others a couple years ago started the Forward Party (.com). Its purpose and function is not to run candidates as another unviable 3rd party, but to endorse and support those rare candidates who are willing to actually be accountable to their constituents… to be actually transpartisan, not just bipartisan, which doesn’t reform the systems enough. (The Forward Party has other important functions, as well.)
Getting to such a place will not be easy, but there are doable steps to get us there. And a good number of growing efforts, and their organizations. Several of them are summarized at the website of my colleague, Norlyn Dimmit and me, https://CompassionateCitizens.us.
I looked at some of this, including still working links at the site you mention, which does not seem to be maintained. There is a lot of good stuff here, some of which relates closely to various things in which I have been involved to some degree. It is a mix of things with an approach that challenges the fundamental values of our culture, much as Jesus did, and attempts to lower the political temperature within those values, which doesn’t address the basic issues and may explicitly reject consideration of views not considered “major” as I saw in one thing I looked at, when it is those major values that are destroying our society and the whole ecosystem.
Much of it involves doing things that basically only work in small settings, and so they don’t directly address questions such as how we vote in November, and indeed that is relatively unimportant. It gets at a basic truth that restoration and transformation normally starts at a small level. It doesn’t start as a mass movement.
In my own faith community, there has been a lot of interest in the refugia movement, which has been articulated in a book, Refugia Faith, by Debra Rienstra. It holds up the surprising story in nature of Mount St. Helens, whose volcanic eruption had the experts thinking it would take eons for nature to recover. In fact, life began blooming only years after the eruption. They discovered that there were refugia, little places sheltered from the devastation, that were the basis of the regrowth of life. The book extends the concept to the world of faith and values and transformation of the whole society.
I am blessed to live at Dayspring, 208 acres of forest, meadows, and bodies of water bought more than 7 decades ago by The Church of the Saviour primarily as a place of retreat. In addition to the Silent Retreat Center which is at the heart of it, there are other ministries and the tiny congregation to which I belong which maintains responsibility for it all. When people come on to Dayspring land, they often remark on how they feel something different here from what is in the larger world. We are coming to see Dayspring as a refugia, a place where life can grow and with the power, along with other refugia, to renew and transform society. We are a Christian movement, but people of all different faith backgrounds and of no affiliation all feel the same thing here. This fits into our concept of us as an ecumenical church which has one dimension covering the breadth of the Christian community and another dimension called by our founder, Gordon Cosby, deep ecumenicism which extends beyond any particular tradition.
This is a deeper and longer range view than an election seen as a choice between two parties both representing a domination system which is inherently destructive of life, not just human life but life of the whole ecosystem God has blessed us with. It is deeper than a nation state founded on genocide and slavery.
Another note on the small and personal and the large and political. In dialogue among diverse people centered on how we personally relate, it is often easy to find common ground. However, it is generally believed that what is right and true in that realm is not relevant to the large and political. It is commonly accepted that what is regarded as evil in the personal realm is only practical in the larger realm. This is part of what undergirds the vitriol directed at those of us that say we must vote our values rather than choose between different approaches to running a domination system.
I thank you for this comment which I had not noticed before because it brought me into thinking about a larger perspective.
Bill, I appreciate your evaluation overall. But I’m convinced there are more effective things to do than “vote for an alternative”. If things like ranked choice voting or open primaries are on a person’s ballot, yes! But currently, as to President, it’s important to vote Harris, much as I attempt to change the two-party dysfunctional system. That’s longer term, to institute productive reforms that CAN change the entire “game”.
But for this cycle, a vote for Trump MIGHT help keep us out of a war, though I see no good evidence of that… despite his and others’ appeal to a super weak historical record claim .. not considering world affairs fluctuations — changing circumstances, etc.
On the other hand, Trump is super HIGH risk as to taking the “conservative” unitary executive concept to authoritarian extremes, amounting to potential BAD changes that could take many, many years to reverse, if they even could be. Don’t oppose him half-way. If he needs opposing (as he does), make it a vote for the only viable alternative, thus a “full” vote.
(And see my direct reply comment.)
Keeping *US* out of a war is a pretty narrow and limited criteria. Neither Trump nor Harris are clamoring for policies that would result in US troops deployed overseas in a fighting war.
The better question is whether a world order under Trump’s leadership, or a world order under Harris’ leadership will result in a more peaceful and just world.
It isn’t just US citizens who are affected by the actions of our leaders.
Much agreed, Kent.
I think the safer/wiser choice is clearly Harris. And that’s without buying into POTUS as “leader of the free world”.
It’s super hard to see how folks can disconnect Trump’s continual rhetoric AND behavior well before, during and since his presidency (which most Christians agree is ungodly, unethical, immoral, etc.) from the way he did and would again govern… although almost certainly worse this time, based on many things he’s said, the support of Project 2025 plans and allies, etc.
The U.S. is mostly waging war without U.S. combat soldiers. That’s not a good criterion. We are bombing all over the world. Mostly, we are sending arms being used in a variety of cruel wars where the soldiers are from other countries. The victims are just as much victims no matter the nationality of who killed them. More than half of U.S. general funds are spent for war-related purposes. Harris clearly favors continuation of the global domination priority of the U.S. government, which is not only reflected in the military wars, but also the economic wars that wind up hurting Americans and the environment – like the punishing tariff on Chinese environmental (and only environmental!) goods that means the U.S. will keep not meeting global climate change goals (our emissions are increasing under Biden-Harris policies, not decreasing, and that is projected to continue at least through 2030) and that Americans of modest means will not be able to buy EVs or install solar panels. Another effect of the global domination ideology is that they insist we be first in fossil fuel production, which is rocketing under Biden-Harris policies. People don’t realize just how disastrous the Democratic policies are.
Trump is harder to figure. He favors some aspects of the global domination ideology, but has consistently opposed the NATO proxy war on Russia and promised we would not get involved in any more wars under his Administration.
The two other candidates – Libertarian and Green – on enough ballots to win oppose both current wars and future wars. They are not driven by the global domination ideology which has been the top priority of U.S. governments for a very long time. The Greens are far better on domestic issues, as well.
For the Greens to be better on anything, they would actually have to have a viable plan for implementing something. They don’t. Without an actual strategy to pass legislation their platform is nothing more than toilet paper. It takes more than one perennial vanity candidate to make a party and accomplish something. The ridiculous Jill Stein, like RFJ Jr. and Cornel West are nothing more than fronts for Trump and his allies Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu. Why do you think Republican operatives are funding their campaigns and trying to get them on the ballot? They are counting on siphoning off a few delusional nitwits.
The next president will either be Harris or Trump. That is the choice. You can choose to participate in that choice or not. Anything else is just self-indulgent naval gazing.
Nothing happens in this country or any other democracy without building a voting majority for legislation. No proposal has ever became law anywhere on the planet with 2% of the vote. That either means building a broad coalition to reach 50%+1 within a single party as we do in the US. Or building a coalition of parties to reach 50%+1 as happens in parliamentary systems. Arguably the 2-party majority rule system we have in the US keeps that coalition-building process closer to the voters than in parliamentary systems where parties cut back-room deals to form legislative coalitions without the input of voters.
If we never vote against the evil represented by the two duopoly parties, we will continue to get that evil. I don’t believe in supporting evil. I know that is an unpopular position in this country, but I think conscience is important.
Ranked choice voting will have exactly zero effect on making it easier to reach 50% +1 which is what is required if you want to actually accomplish anything in a democracy rather than just posturing. That involves the very hard and grueling work of persuading people and building coalitions. Getting people elected is the start of the process not the end.
Talk is cheap. Trump is currently talking about cutting all energy prices in half and deporting 23 million people. Also building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it. As well as replacing the ACA with something cheaper and better for everyone. Do you believe him? Honestly anything he says is infinitely more plausible than anything the Green Party says or promises because at least Trump has a plausible path to power and a party behind him in Congress ready to rubber stamp his agenda.
If the Green Party was actually interested in governance they would be doing the hard work of building up a party from the ground up starting with local city councils, state legislatures, school boards, and that sort of then. Instead all they do is recycle the same multi-millionaire candidate every 4 years who makes a very tidy living pocketing the campaign contributions naive people give her. They don’t even have a real convention. Just a zoom call of cronies to renominate her “virtually”
Why such vitriol at those trying to provide decent alternatives? In my state, a Green Party candidate for City Council got 40% of the vote in our largest city, Baltimore. What you say about them is just not true.
The Green Party has been around for 40 years. Can you name a single legislative accomplishment they have made during that time? A single policy proposal that they have accomplished and gotten into law? A single legislative proposal they are likely to achieve in the next 40 years? In a democracy, people who get 40% of the vote are called losers.
Getting anything done in any democracy requires electing majorities of legislators. If the Green Party were ever able to build a governing majority in the US it would need to be just as broad as the current Democratic party. And would end up being just as “compromised” from the point of view of purists as the Democratic part is today. That is 100% inevitable. Outside of the Civil War, change in this country has only come incrementally and through democratic processes like legislation. Which requires governing majorities.
When a government takes power in the US (or anywhere) they don’t start with a blank slate. They jump right into the stream of world events, most of which are outside their control. And are faced with endless tough decisions and compromises. Do you push for X and get nothing? Or do you accept Y knowing it is a compromise. In any given legislative session you might have the political time and capital to accomplish 2 or 3 big things. Which of our 25 priorities do you put to the front of the line?
As for vitriol? What do you call claiming that Kamala Harris favors genocide and endless war? What is your plan for achieving peace in Gaza? Sending a couple of American infantry divisions to serve as “peacekeepers” and enforce martial law? Washing our hands of the place and watching it descend into a wider war? Bearing in mind that Israel is a nuclear state and can vaporize Arab cities at will if its survival is at stake. Instigating an American-led coup against Netanyahu who is driving the conflict along with Hamas and Iran? When you have intractable conflicts there are no easy answers. Sometimes you only have the least bad solution and even that isn’t always obvious.
Bill, as to your September 22 comment, I can’t tell if you are responding to my super brief summary of transpartisan and deliberative democracy principles and strategies, which are actually worked out in detail, and slowly gaining traction here and there, and hopefully will continue expanding.
Over a good length of time now, I see no indication that ANY “third party”, including the Green Party, has made significant progress. All such have NO viable path, that I can see or imagine, to reforming (or leading us to reform of) our dysfunctional and self-perpetuating two-party system, nor its militaristic ways.
The transpartisan “movement”, small though it yet is, is quite purposely not about policy positions except in the sense of policies/structures to, in fact, move us toward meaningful candidate choices, mechanisms to “force” representatives to be accountable to their constituents, etc.
So, have you followed up on my topics and/or visited the site linked which leads to numerous detailed sites with plans, strategies, mechanisms, etc.?Some of these are tested and are working and expanding, others not as much, and have been proven only on limited scales so far, if at all, but are well thought through.
I see now that you, Bill, as well as Kent, posted again on 9-22 while I was writing and referring to your first 9-22 post.
One addition: Bill, I agree with Kent as to the value of a vote for POTUS currently. But your reason for voting 3rd party does make some sense, too. So if you’re in a definite Harris state, I’ll not criticize your voting that way.
Ranked choice voting/open primary is one small step toward creating viable “third” (or 4th, etc.) or actual independent candidates/reps. So I’m hoping you support that reform, at least.
I had missed that comment, but have now posted a long comment on it. Your earlier comment prompted thinking in larger and broader terms than most of what is in this thread.
Good as to that agreement, and thanks for the comments, Bill. Your story about your community and the property, etc., is inspiring and encouraging.
I do agree that measures such as rank choice voting are important in moving our political system in the direction of democracy.
Every election matters