If a bright young candidate runs for Congress, will anybody hear?
If he's an Evangelical not courting the Tea Party? If he's a graduate of Wheaton College, running in Wheaton's own congressional district? If he's a published author and an environmentalist? If he's consistently pro-life but not interested in fighting Roe v Wade? If he grew up in Asia and has done community organizing?
How about if he's all these things and a Democrat?
Why isn't anybody noticing Ben Lowe's audacious campaign against incumbent Peter Roskam?
I think there are at least three reasons, all of them interesting.
First, Ben isn't a millionaire, so he's trying to run a campaign based on good ideas rather than big money. Second, although the Republican machine is humming in support of Roskam, for some reason the Democratic machinery hasn't turned on for Ben -- at least not yet. Third, Ben's voice is constructive, civil, and reasonable rather than sensational, strident, and alarmist. (If he speaks at a Tea Party, it will be herbal tea!)
Idea-based rather than money-based; independent and courageous enough to move forward even if the party isn't forthcoming with support; constructive and civil rather than alarmist and strident, Ben strikes me as exactly the kind of candidate folks around the nation -- and especially in Illinois' 6th District -- would want to get behind.
On top of that, Ben represents a new generation whose civic engagement is desperately needed. With a young start in the political process, Ben could be a rising star with a positive and growing influence for decades to come.
In my days as a teacher and pastor, it was always tempting to focus nearly all my attention on the few students or parishioners who disruptively and consistently misbehaved. In so doing, I unintentionally rewarded their attention-getting devices exactly as they had hoped, and I unintentionally punished all the students who were quietly and consistently doing good work. That misguided reward-punishment system seems to be playing a part in some of our best politicians deciding to leave the profession early. And it could keep young political leaders, like Ben -- so full of potential and quietly doing good political work "the old fashioned way" -- at the margins or squeezed out of public service entirely.
That's why more and more of us need to start paying intentional attention to every politician in every party who doesn't choose to misbehave to get noticed. If you're looking for an example, I'd suggest Ben Lowe.
Lisa Sharon Harper: A Christian Response to Arizona's Government-Sponsored Evil
Jonathan D. Fitzgerald: Is There a Future for Evangelicalism?
The sad truth is that evangelicals have a far greater potential for political harm than even out and out crooks in that their religious beliefs have absolutely NO place in legislation in these United States.
The first amendment of the Constitution forbids the establishment of any religion, something evangelicals have traditionally had a problem with respecting everywhere.
Nice boy, maybe. Potential violator of the First Amendment, absolutely. Why take the chance?
Miles "Bottom Line" Long
I've had enough of people who think they're theologically compelled to control other people's personal decisions.
I myself am a 22 year old conservative (at least theologically) evangelical. I am pro-life but I still vote Democrat because I agree with them on most other things. I think the tea-party is stupid and embarrasing. I think many on the religious right commit idolatry through their flag waving and commitment to non-biblical "conservatism."
Having said all of this, I still don't particularly like you or what you stand for. You're still a heretic in my book. You distort the word of God and use it for your own leftist agenda, much like the religious right does for their conservative agenda. You are hardly the voice of "young evangelicals."
For the record I don't know how someone can be "consistently pro-life" without wanting to challenge Roe V. Wade. That's like saying that someone is "consistently pro-same sex marriage" without wanting to challenge Prop 8.
As for your last point, the difference between the two legal issues is that Roe v. Wade doesn't force people who are pro-life to get an abortion, but Prop 8 does prevent people who are gay from getting married. So Roe v. Wade allows adults to make a decision to do something or not, while Prop 8 prevents adults from making a decision to do something or not.
Here you go - if you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. It's none of your business if somebody else does. There. You're pro-life!
"Pro-life" is broadly defined by the idea that abortion is the killing of innocent life, and that these lives, as with all others, should be protected by law. McClaren is content to see a politician pay lip-service to the moral implications of abortion, while ignoring the critical legislation on the topic. Most pro-lifers are bold enough to point out the staggering inconsistency.