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

Lord_Voldemort

Let's see:

Evangelical runs as Democrat. Is pro-life but otherwise progressive. Liberals freak, contemplate allowing hideous conservative to run unopposed rather than allowing pro-life progressive to claim mantle of Democratic Party.

But it's the GOP that's rigid and liable to be torn apart by internal divisions. Uh-huh.

LV

BlueDeacon

The former is news. The latter isn't.

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.

BlueDeacon

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

bstryd

I see this happening all over the Progressive movement. Particularly noticeable is the negative reaction Ariana Huffington gets from her own crew when she goes a bit Christian rather than just spiritual with her comments. But for me, the progressive movement has WAY MORE stuff Jesus cares about than any other political section of our political system. So I totally applaud Mr. Lowe's candidacy and effort. We evangelicals concerned with justice need to pick up that particular cross and get busy being Jesus followers in the political arena - with, you know, actual Jesus stuff being our guide.

AG_DC

What ever happened to 'give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and give to God what is God's'? To use politics to further the ideals espoused by our Savior is dishonest and an affront to the separation of Church and state. I say dishonest because in politics you are forced to address different issues with a set amount of resources. If you try to legislate with Christian goals in mind, rather than having your Christian formation influence your legislating, at some point you will have to decide what deserves priority. When you do that you will be favoring some of Jesus' message over another, effectively having man decide for God. Not to mention the many mistakes throughout history by leaders who genuinely tried to pursue Christian goals and ended up creating much worse social problems.

By this I do not mean to speak ill of citizens of faith serving in public posts. I encourage Christians to run whenever possible, but mostly because of a self-interested trust in their judgment and composition (by self-interest I do not mean personal interest, but rather policies I care about). I regret to admit that I do take into account their denominational background when voting, but I do this because in an election I have the civic duty to judge character and pick the better leader.

I don't think many people agree 100% with their parties. Unfortunately in a two party system there will always be a huge portion of the people who will feel relatively poorly represented. That is why I believe Christians should consider voting on a race by race basis rather than throwing their support behind one party.

Now to my criticism of the piece (if there's anyone left still reading): Because I have worked in politics, this piece struck me immediately as more of a political piece. I mean no disrespect to the author since I have the utmost respect for Mr. Wallis or anyone he associates himself with, but trying to raise a serious discussion so interlocked in the piece with the current race led me to no other conclusion. Being a life-long catholic, Wheaton grad, and Latin American, I sympathize with the orphan feeling in politics. However, as a Latin American I am also well aware of the hypocrisy and damage to both Church and state that comes with liberation theology. To quote President Obama in magnanimity over recognition of faith in guidance is dangerously suggesting he is expected to further some of the resentment-driven tenants of black liberation theology.

Ngchen

It is precisely this type of reaction by the extreme secular wing of the Democratic Party that drives people toward the Republicans. Their secular at all cost, pro-abortion views are a loser, and rightfully so. They fail to realize that abortion is the 600 lb invisible gorilla in the Democratic Party - even mainstream media is picking up on the fact that Democrats have tended to hee and haw on the issue, rather than having the guts to clearly articulate their views. Why? Because it's repugnant, and a vote loser?

Hopefully the recent successes of the Stupak Amendment will force the issue into the open. Good luck to Ben Lowe's campaign, which has a good chance of succeeding (IL-6 has a PVI of ZERO) so the district is skewed toward neither party.

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.

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

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

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.

facebook-573435616

Last Tuesday evening, my wife and I hosted Ben in our home for an informal dinner and discussion. What a bright and dedicated young man.

Ben is precisely the kind of choice our district needs. His prolife stance will appeal to many who are looking for more progressive options in areas such as immigration and health care than the incumbent is willing to offer.

ford49

*

facebook-509785929

When you meet a bunch of people advocating for social justice it's good and even better when they are willing to act with courage in the face of opposition from their own party. As opposed to cradle-to-grave Dems, the campaign team and supporters have given a lot of thought and reflection to the decision to run as Democrats--a choice of conscience. Consistent life ethic has history in Chicago where Cardinal Joseph Bernardin wrote and advocated for it. No better place for this candidate than the Chicago suburbs. Go Ben!

--An Irish Catholic Democrat

elisebryson

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

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?

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

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.

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.

letjusticerolldown

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