What Happens When a Wheaton Grad Runs for Congress as a Democrat

by Matthew Soerens 11-13-2009

Last weekend, as a group of religiously-committed pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives found themselves at odds with the majority of their party over an abortion-related amendment in the health-care reform bill, campaign veteran Kevin Spidel posted a thoughtful question on a few well-read progressive blogs: does the evangelical movement belong in the Democratic Party? Within a few hours, there were scores of responses: while there was of course a diversity of opinions, the median opinion was decidedly unenthusiastic. Within the progressive online community, many folks presumed that an evangelical would necessarily be “anti-choice,” as well as pro-war, anti-immigrant, pro-hate crimes, and committed to abolishing the teaching of evolution from public schools.

Spidel’s post was written in response to a local melodrama around the recently announced candidacy of Ben Lowe, who is the sole Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress in Illinois’ 6^th District, running against Republican incumbent Peter Roskam. Ben, who studied with me at Wheaton College several years ago and who is a good friend of mine, has spent the past several years helping to organize students on Christian college campuses around issues of environmental stewardship. A member of the Wheaton Chinese Alliance Church, Ben’s concern for environmental conservation and justice are rooted in his Christian faith. That faith has also led him to advocate for health care for all Americans, for comprehensive immigration reform, for peaceful ends to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a more judicious approach toward foreign policy, and for fiscal policies that ensure that a few greedy individuals cannot derail our entire economy.

Despite that progressive agenda, the local Democratic Party has been split on their views on Ben’s candidacy. While many are excited about Ben’s campaign (and the energy it has stirred in this conservative district, especially among younger voters), some have expressed their preference that the Republican incumbent run unopposed, rather than having an evangelical candidate whom they consider anti-choice. Ben is unabashedly pro-life, but by that he means not only that we should be concerned with unborn life, but also with the quality of that child’s life after birth, with the life and livelihood of the child’s mother, with a penal system that takes life in the name of criminal justice, and with unjust wars that claim the lives of tens of thousands of civilians. While the vast majority of his views place him well within the Democratic National Party platform, which pledges to be “the party of inclusion” that respects differences of belief, not all progressive Democrats seem to think that inclusion should include people of particular faith traditions.

I’m certainly biased here, because Ben is a good friend and I trust his genuine commitment to seeking justice in the political realm. But I cannot help but think that the Democratic Party needs to learn a few lessons from President Obama and recognize the important role that faith plays in guiding so many Americans. I expect I am not the only person of faith — especially among evangelicals and Catholics — who has occasionally felt like a political orphan, not entirely comfortable in either party. Ben’s candidacy does a lot to draw me toward the Democratic Party, but the livid comments online make me wonder if I’m invited.

Non-religious progressives have some reason to resent and be wary of evangelical believers: some espousing the name of Christ have supported public policies that have ravished the environment, dehumanized immigrants, spurned justice for the poor, and resulted in large-scale loss of human life. And while we may view these policymakers as poor representatives — even hijackers — of biblical faith, we cannot expect outsiders to understand the nuances. That said, there needs to be space in both parties for people of faith seeking justice to be welcomed. And whether Democrats, Republicans, independents or non-partisans, we who seek to follow Christ need to represent him as salt and light both in the policy ends and the political means that are involved in representative government.

Matthew Soerens is the co-author of Welcoming the Stranger: Justice, Compassion, & Truth in the Immigration Debate (InterVarsity Press, 2009). He lives in suburban Chicago in an intentional community called Parkside.

Categories: Abortion, Faith and Politics

j_robert

typo!

j_robert

Tony Perkins wrote very forcefully and cogently about the so-called "social justice" folks, noting today: "The Bible speaks consistently and forcefully about the need for justice throughout society. But the term "social justice" has become a code-term used by the Religious Left to mean everything from socialized medicine to redistribution of income. Their argument goes like this: Since God wants Christians to show compassion to the poor, government should work to meet the needs of everyone. But this argument is, oddly, a form of merging the roles of the church and state--something the Left says it opposes--and thoughtful conservatives should oppose. Faith and policy are closely linked but the institutional roles of church and state are, as our Founders recognized, distinct.

He goes on to cite Jim Wallis - who has endorsed Mr. Soeren's book at "the Left's main proponent of merging the biblical idea of justice with the liberal agenda to transform America into a place where the government orchestrates all facets of the economy. The Bible teaches that the state has a very limited role, a view reflected in the Constitution. One of those roles is not mandating coercive charity- taking from some people to give to others, in the name of "compassion." That's not compassion--it's theft. And as the failed social programs of the past 40 years have shown, when Big Government usurps the role of churches, private charities, and voluntary associations, it creates dependence on programs that just don't work. So we support true social justice: a transcendent understanding that all human life is sacred, that our liberty is granted by God, and that happiness is ours to pursue. It leads us to seek policies that establish: fair tax policy, economic freedom, greater opportunity for all, and protections for the weak from criminals. But to those who wish to cloak political liberalism in the guise of biblical language, beware. Being a wolf in sheep's clothing is something Scripture strongly condemns."

Mr. Soerens needs to consider the above. His redistributionist philosophy always has, and will continue to, impoverish society, and hurt the poor the worst.

j_robert

Justice" Poverty? Peruvian Hernando de Soto Pilar on what causes poverty:

There is a “tremendous conceptual error.. . that in an urban society swamped by migration a ruler can know everything that is going on in the country and that a new social order can be built on this presumed knowledge… In such a society, with millions of people whose specialization makes them interdependent, with a complex systems of communication between producers and buyers, creditors and debtors, employers and employees, with a constantly evolving technology, with competition and a daily flow of information from other countries, it is physically impossible to be familiar with and directly run even a small fraction of national activities…. It is not rulers who produce wealth: they sit behind desks, give speeches, draft resolutions and supreme decrees, process documents, inspect, monitor, levy, but they never produce. It is the population that produces.”

He continues that we must beware of accepting “a society in which opportunities, property and power are distributed arbitrarily,” and critiques Peru’s rulers of the 1980s who saw government as “a mechanism for sharing a fixed stock of wealth among the different interest groups that demand it.” Of course, these redistributionists never realize that “wealth and resources can grow… and that even the humblest members of the population can generate wealth.” It is not a zero sum game!

Unfortunately, in the Obama/Pelosi world big government, as Olasky writes, redistributes wealth to bureaucrats (can only one say “platinum covered healthcare, but for Congress only?!) and hurts the poor. Olasky continues “People get rich not by investing labor or capital in productive enterprises but by gaining political influence. Businesses begin competing not to serve customers but to build ties with bureaucrats. Political efficiency becomes more important than economic efficiency.” De Soto concludes by noting that “In the redistributist state, the enviable capacity to be generous with other people’s money is an invitation to corruption.

Mr. Wallis and Mr. Soerens, despite probable good intentions, are ultimately creating - sadly - more misery and more poverty by their misunderstandings. Very sad, and very unfortunate.

Ngchen

You're correct in that actual medical malpractice awards are a small fraction of the total medical costs. But what's much harder to quantify is the level of "defensive medicine" that doctors report practicing all the time in a bid to avoid said suits. After all, there is a perverse incentive here. Doctor ordering questionable test X protects doctor from being successfully sued; yet it's the PATIENT that pays for said test. A rational doctor would order said test. As for defendants winning 70% of the cases filed, the problem with the current system is that once someone is sued, the person *already* has lost. Defense attorneys aren't cheap; in addition, there is the need to hire experts and such to defend against even a marginal case. The issue with punitive damages and so forth is that the situation becomes a lottery. Person A gets X dollars for something, and A' gets something vastly different from X for no apparent reason. The British system is certainly not perfect; however, the example you bring up about companies stalling and dragging cases out with legions of people is unlikely to occur because well, the legions of people cost money. And if the company loses anyway, the *company* pays for the little guy's attorney - so if there is a meritorious case, the little guy does have an incentive to seek out a good lawyer. Surely the fact that many OB/GYN practitioners have been driven from the field due to sky-high premiums isn't a good thing, right? Other proposed reforms are to have medical courts akin to bankruptcy courts, and/or making it a matter of law that if a medical practitioner follows nationally accepted protocols, said practitioner is immune from suit. But yes, medical costs are certainly *not* being driven solely or even mainly through malpractice.

Honestly, the big debates that have sprung up recently about the need or lack thereof for annual mammograms for women over 40 have shown that a big issue may be the demand and de facto mandate for "Cadillac" quality health-care. IMHO it's foolish to mandate that people get either Cadillac quality care, or no care at all; however that's apparently what we've been saddled with.

nvvv

The Hyde Amendment is still alive & well - and would apply to the pending healthcare legislation, so there is no need for the Stupak amendment in the first place. The proposed tort "reform" would adopt the British system - the trouble with this is that a huge corporation (i.e. the insurance company) would use its legions of laywers to delay and paper the opposition to death - then the plaintiff (likely suffering from substantial damage due to physician, hospital, medical device or drug injury), and without money to continue the case would now be obligated to pay for not only his own lawyer's fees but the entire legion of lawyers from the Huge Corp, as well as court costs. That would likely end in bankruptcy for the plaintiff and encourage Huge Corp & like minded corps to continue their unsafe practices, and discourage anyone else from filing suit when they are injured. One of the only protections to consumers are the punitive damages awarded to plaintiffs harmed by corporate & medical incompetance and/or negligence, tort "reform" would reduce awards to what would be to the huge corps a minor fine. As to how much lawsuit "abuse" there is out there, according to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. The best data on medical errors come from three major epidemiological studies on medical malpractice in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Each found about one serious injury per 100 hospitalizations. There hasn’t been an epidemiological study since then, because people were really persuaded by the data and it’s also very expensive to do a study of that sort. These data were the basis of the 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, “To Err Is Human.” Those same studies looked at the rate of claims and found that only 4 to 7 percent of those injured brought a case. That’s a small percentage. And because the actual number of injuries has gone up since those studies were done — while claims have remained steady — the rate of claims is actually going down. The medical malpractice system only works for serious injuries. What it doesn’t work for is more moderate ones. Lawyers discourage people from bringing suits if their injuries are not serious in monetary terms — a poor person or an older person who can’t claim a lot in lost wages. That’s why obstetrician-gynecologists pay such high premiums. If you injure a baby, you’re talking about a lifetime-care injury. Gerontologists’ premiums are exceedingly low. Most malpractice cases--more than 70%--are won by the caregivers sued. According to a 2001 study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, medical malpractice plaintiffs win only 27% of trial cases – compared to 52% for all other plaintiff-won tort trials. Over 225,000 deaths occur every year do to physician-induced errors according to the esteemed Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Of these deaths, only 10-percent are investigated by a medical malpractice lawyer due to confusion on the part of the remaining family members and the complexities in investigating medical malpractice cases. Medical malpractice tort "reform" is a red herring.

nvvv

The comment in this article about a preference for some in the Democratic Party of Dupage County (DPDC) that we would rather let the Republican (Roskam) run unopposed rather than having an evangelical Christian run as the Democratic candidate is inaccurate. The decision not to run a candidate against Roskam was made after the previous candidate, Col. Jill Morgenthaler, decided not to run. The decision of the DPDC was to focus more on local races (county board, forest preserve, townships & etc) rather than waste valuable time & resources on a candidate that is likely to be a DINO (as many in the DPDC viewed Morgenthaler). Lowe's enrty into the race was stealthy - hardly anyone at the DPDC knew who he was, nor did they know what his position on the issues were. If anyone here remembers Wheaton College Professor Lindy Scott's disasterous 2006 run, a pro-life Democrat would have had no chance in a Democratic primary (Scott got 16% in that race). Lowe entered the race after Morgenthaler decided not to run - had he faced her in a primary there's no doubt Jill would have beat him (even though many see her as a DINO). Ever since the 2006 race where Maj. Tammy Duckworth was recruited to run for Henry Hyde's open seat - even though we had a very credible candidate in Christine Cegelis - Democrats in the 6th have felt we have been saddled with less than desirable conservative leaning candidates foisted on us from the national party, after having been ignored for decades. I admit that Lowe's evangelical religion, his anti-choice stance and lack of experience - and even presence - in the 6th all work against him getting acceptance by the Democrats who live here. Let's just say that while I'm not looking forward to having Roskam as my rep for the next 2 yrs, I'm accepting the inevitable.

Ngchen

I admit I have not researched Lowe's campaign much at all, since I don't live in his district. Now, as to the other issues, you bring up the excellent point on enforcement, and the alleged impossibility of doing so.

Let's not straw-man the situation by suggesting that we'd need to have the PD in every OB/GYN office. Mugging is illegal, yet we don't need police standing on every street corner to enforce (albeit imperfectly) the laws against mugging. To be honest, abortion bans would be difficult to enforce, even imperfectly. And yes, the fiasco with prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's serves as a big warning as to what happens when people outlaw activities that even a significant minority believe in. Honestly, unless and until there is a substantial changing of hearts on this issue, a ban in unrealistic. Enforcement would probably revolve around people reporting alleged abortions.

Now, in terms of the numbers here, you write that 80% of Americans are "religious," and that "over 60%" are "pro-choice" when the problem is fairly framed. Can you please point to the poll and the phrasing? I remember reading in Christianity Today that the numbers are more like 50/50, and that's taking the country as a whole. There are many people who take more nuanced positions on the issue such as no abortion past 3 mo, everything else OK; no abortion except for fatal abnormalities; no abortion except for rape or incest, etc. etc. Should such people be classified as pro-choice or pro-life? One of the biggest ironies I see is that being "pro-choice" is seen as being "pro-woman," yet the people are strangely silent when it's pointed out that in much of the world abortion is used to eliminate millions of girl fetuses for being female. Is that really pro-woman?

Tort reform is certainly not a cure-all. And you're correct, in that states like Texas have tried it (in terms of a damage cap) and it has not cut health-care costs there. Other types of reforms have been proposed such as sending all such cases to a "Medical Court" analogous to bankruptcy court. I personally am thinking about how maybe adopting the British tort system (the loser pays the attorneys for BOTH sides) would reduce the overall number of lawsuits filed, which would jive nicely with the Biblical command to try to avoid using the secular courts when possible. Some sort of legislated guidance chart as to what injuries should get what damages would be helpful too; the current system often has plaintiff A getting X dollars, and plaintiff A' with circumstances very similar to A getting vastly different damages. And I've heard from lawyers about how a common abuse of the current system (be it medical or otherwise) is to have plaintiff threaten to sue, offer a settlement, and then the plaintiff's attorney *drops* the plaintiff if the defendant fights! (The plaintiff is then in trouble with no representation to continue the case - even with a meritorious case the plaintiff may well end up losing - the original attorney's goal was to get paid for little work.) Honestly, probably only outlawing contingency agreements can put an end to this type of abuse. But unless outlawing contingency is coupled with the British tort system, the poor will be out of luck, and such is very unjust too.

nvvv

Yes, I do indeed prefer "Pro-Choice", as I guess you would rather prefer "pro-life" as opposed to "anti-choice", but because many - if not most - people in the "pro-life" camp are also pro-death penalty & pro-war, the "anti-choice" label is more accurate. There's poll after poll that show - when the question is fairly framed as opposed to loading it - most Americans (over 60% in most polls) are pro-choice. Couple that with polls showing that the US is the most religious of the industrialized nations (about 80% consider themselves religious) then you can draw your own conclusions. Just a thought - if you really want to outlaw abortions, what to do with women who seek them? if indeed an unborn fetus has identical rights as all other citizens, then wouldn't women who seek an abortion be lumped in w/those who pay someone (contract) to kill another person? Will we put a policeman (pardon me, policewoman) in every OB/GYN office & reproductive health clinic? Will we as a nation do what Virgina is already doing, which is to launch a criminal investigation into every miscarriage? If you agree with all that - which is the logical progression from the "fetus as person" argument - and you get your way - then I'll have to start buying stock in Corrections Corporation of America (CCA on the exchange) because our prison population will explode. There are many issues I consider while choosing a candidate to back, even though a candidate may be pro-choice but have positions on other issues that I don't agree with I probably would not back him/her. On the other hand, if a candidate was anti-choice but had positions on most other issues I agreed with, I would probably back them if the opposing candidate was less agreeable to me. However, from what i've seen of Mr. Lowe's positions (very shallow on details) and seeing that one of his "fixes" for health care reform is so-called tort "reform" (which has consistently shown in the states where enacted not to reduce healthcare costs, but really increases insurance companies' profit margins) which is also one of Roskam's approaches, I really have to wonder if he has researched the issue at all.

Ngchen

Actually, when I refer to "heeing and hawing," what I mean is that Democratic politicians are typically reluctant to say anything on abortion, and try to duck the question when asked. Why? Because (1) they don't want to alienate their base, but at the same time (2) they don't want to come across as being strongly "pro-choice," if you prefer that term.

And no, I doubt that *most* religious people are "pro-choice." Please show me evidence that I'm wrong, if it exists. As to who's being a single issue voter, might I suggest taking a look at oneself? Finally, no, it's not that all "pro-choice" voters are in the extreme secular wing; rather, it's that the Kos/Huffpo radicals (granted, there are moderates there too) are extremely secular.

nvvv

Democrats do not 'hee and haw' on the choice issue, it's right there in the party platform - page 50 if you care to look. The type of name calling you resort to: "pro-abortion, extreme secular wing" is precisely why your candidate will lose - big time - in 2010. You've already lost many of your footsoldiers like me - precinct committemen & women, with this type of single issue stuff. We will be asked by our voters why they should vote for "Roskam Lite" in this election - what answer will we give? Most religious people also believe that a woman should have access to legal, safe abortions - lumping all pro-choice voters into the 'extreme secular wing' is both counterproductive and disingenuous.

BlueDeacon

No. The left is still pretty much on the fringe of the Democratic Party; by
contrast the right literally runs the GOP.

Common Loon

So we've now established that both parties are ideologically rigid and disproportionately affected by voices on the extremes?

That's not news. That's standard procedure in 21st-century American politics.

mrhodes

I find it totally reprehensible that any one would describe anyone, much less an evangelical, as "pro hate crimes." Nobody stupid enough to do so can reasonably be called a "progressive" anything. I've been lectured too many times about how nobody is really "pro-abortion" when much evidence is to the contrary. I voted for Obama, am an independent, and am totally thrilled by an evangelical democrat, and I hope those who believe such garbage about evangelicals will start actually listening to some.

mrhodes

"as well as pro-war, anti-immigrant, pro-hate crimes, and committed to abolishing the teaching of evolution from public schools."

I'm sorry, but as an independent voter who voted for Obama and who has followed this blog, I find this terrible double speak. I've been forced to listen to how nobody is "pro-abortion" and that this is a defamation from the right, and then the "progressive" bloggers believe that there are people out there who are actually "Pro hate crime?" Come on people! Listen to yourselves! I agree that the Moral Majority super conservative comandeering of politics has been terrible, and that there are plenty of political liberals who are serious about their faith. But the folks on the Left need to remember that of their brothers on the Right as well.

letjusticerolldown

What do you find to undergird "movements?"
Have you ever heard of the 1960's and that grand mass of Baby Boomers who rejected the status quo structures of oppression--who have been quite a movement that has not gone away and are just around the corner (as they have been for 40 years) from entering adulthood. Movements have no more integrity than the ground on which they stand and the integrity of the leaders and the folks. I don't think it really makes sense to get in arguments about whether it is movements, politicians, leaders, ideas, money or whatever that is most important. It is all important. I guess my comment most reacts to you hopes for a serious progressive movement. If your hope is that such a movement might be strategic in the advance of shalom--then I could affirm the hope. If you think there is some inherent hope in a progressive movement for political change I think you will be severely disappointed. I would encourage the continuous "seeking first God's rule"--the seeking of a Jesus that far exceeds the bounds of our politics, nation, or religions.

letjusticerolldown

Can you spell J-i-m-m-y-C-a-r-t-e-r

christopherbernard

Thank you so much for bring this to my attention. My curiosity of the possibility of an evangelical democrat has been growing for some time and I am happy to hear that Ben is running for Congress. As a left-wing evangelical, who also graduated from Wheaton College, I am deeply encouraged by (what I hope is) a growing movement within evangelicals that associate with the Millennial generation towards a more holistic politic.

Thank you again for blogging about this and I'll make sure to financially support his campaign.

francesyasmeenmotiwalla

As one who was literally chased down my Fischer 3W hallway by Republican sophmores, and had my Clinton signs defaced....It's really nice to hear more Wheaties are waking up.

Back then, I didn't even know half what I know now. I see myself on the bridge between progressive democrats and socialism. It's hard not to look at the effects of American capitalism, militarism, and imperialism and the neo-conservative belief that it is okay for a small group of elites to control the masses... and not shudder.

Yet, as a grassroots organizer, I have meet "Christians" who do not question the discord between America's actions and God's commandment "Thou shalt not kill." And, well, many just generally have no clue that the Right wing co-opted Conservative Christians in the 80s and made Abortion and Homosexuality political issues to mobilize their votes.

I work for Peace Action West, and put forward the vision of a Nuclear Weapons Free World - and foreign policy changes that could make that dream a reality. I've had a couple Christians tell me they don't believe that it's possible...and I've asked them if they believe that someday everyone could believe in Jesus. The response both times is a quick "No, people are just not like that... there's bad people out there." Strikes me as a severely limited belief in God's power. Also, egocentric - the notion that God could transform them, but not certain others. Ugh.

I have become un-religious since Wheaton, but these 9 years later, feel very comfortable saying I'm doing God's work, raising people's consciousness of our political history and mobilizing grassroots momentum for reform.

Politicians come and go, but it's movements that endure. Politicians represent ideals of movements, but I think it's important to not get too hung up just on elections - paraphrasing the wise words of Eugene Jarecki - No one politician, or even group of politicians will ever be able to change the system unless they are backed by a clear and irrefutable public mandate.

Also, if elected, I hope Ben Lowe will consider joining the Progressive Caucus! Mainstream Democrats are just as guilty for maintaining the status quo, we need a serious progressive movement to start addressing real solutions to the problems we are living with daily.

letjusticerolldown

I believe we conceive of political parties entirely wrong. We believe there is a political continuum and near the ends of the continuum are where two political parties (in their purest form) reside.

I believe there is a mainstream of American political life. The vast (about 95%) of issues, principles, ideologies, strategies, tactics, etc. fall within this mainstream. There are very few extremists--and not truly embraced by either party.

BOTH parties essentially span the mainstream. They are more like Ford and General Motors fighting out the US auto market rather than BMW vs Kia.

They have distinctive flavors and styles. They employ different kinds of language and marketing. They have different conceptions of how the puzzle pieces of a society and politics fit together. They may carve out different policy positions in response to different questions and priorities.

But at the end of the day, we are largely talking about two different ways to decorate the room.

A national political party for history's most diverse nation--wielding history's greatest global influence--must by definition be a broad and diverse entity that spans the mainstream of political life. If either party conceives of itself as some pure ideology that somehow attracts 51% of voters and excludes the rest--it positions itself to be unable to govern.

From the standpoint of Evangelicals--of course we belong in both parties. Progressives and conservatives. Who cares is someone looks at us funny. What's the point of living if we don't bring something unique to the table?

elisebryson

his website is www.loweforcongress.com. Check it out!