Pro-life Voters and Pro-Choice Politicians

 Roy Moore, GOP Senate candidate and former chief justice on the Alabama Supreme Court speaks during the annual Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit at the Omni Shorham Hotel on Oct. 13, 2017 in Washington, D.C. Mark Wilson—Getty Images

Roy Moore, GOP Senate candidate and former chief justice on the Alabama Supreme Court speaks during the annual Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit at the Omni Shorham Hotel on Oct. 13, 2017 in Washington, D.C. Mark Wilson—Getty Images

In the wake of another tension-filled election for pro-life voters--one in which I, as a pro-life person, advocated for supporting a pro-choice candidate in Doug Jones--I thought it would be helpful to explore why and how a pro-life voter might choose to support a pro-choice candidate. This post is meant to be of help to both pro-life Christians and Democratic advocates and leaders who are befuddled by the notion (in the case of the latter, they are sometimes confused not just about why people are pro-life, but why they would even “waste time” reaching out to people who are pro-life in the first place).

The first point I would make is that the problem for many Americans is not that they take politics seriously, but that they take politics seriously in all the wrong ways. Voting and civic participation, like most everything else, is considered primarily as an individualistic and consumeristic enterprise, rather than a primarily social endeavor that ought to be directed toward the social welfare, not just one’s own personal good. I have extensive thoughts on this matter, and it serves as the central subject of the new afterword for Reclaiming Hope that will be published on January 8 (you can pre-order now!).

As an outflow of our individualistic and consumeristic attitudes toward politics, the moral focus of our political participation is placed primarily on politics as an expression of our identity. How this expresses itself in some pro-life voters is actually, and ironically, an equivalent of the very kind of fusion of the personal and the political that conservatives critique on the left. For the pro-life voter of this kind, a vote for a pro-choice politician is indistinguishable from support for abortion. For the pro-life voter of this kind, voting is primarily an expression of conscience.

There are several things wrong with this view of politics and political participation. First, as I argue in Reclaiming Hope, politics is a forum for loving your neighbor. A Christian’s vote should not be motivated primarily by self-expression, but by love of God and neighbor. The question a Christian should be asking as they enter the voting booth is “how can I best use my vote for the peace and prosperity of the political community in which God has placed me?” When we vote, we do not think only of what we have at stake, but what our neighbors have at stake.

Second, political choices are imperfect. Always. If the voter is morally responsible—in a way that is indistinguishable from the moral responsibility of direct action—for every vote a politician takes, how could one ever morally vote apart from making their intellect and conscience subservient to a political ideology? In what political election is there a perfect moral choice? So, you might respond, that is the answer: we should never vote! But this kind of moral reasoning reminds me of those who accused Jesus of sin because he broke the Sabbath in order to heal the sick. One can keep their hands clean while letting their heart rot.

Also, at a time when many white evangelicals are raising rhetorical support for a politics that combats racism, misogyny, xenophobia and other social ills, it is a fair question as to why their morally charged rhetoric does not lead them to the same kind of moral reasoning on those issues as it does on abortion. In other words, why does a politician's support for pro-choice policies prohibit one's support, but a politician's support for racist policies does not? 

Fortunately, pro-life and conservative intellectuals themselves have provided the answer to this question by refuting themselves that voting is an act of total endorsement. In the same way that many have rightly explained that a vote for Donald Trump--who they would acknowledge ran a campaign that drew on the social, cultural and political capital of racism--did not necessarily mean that every Trump voter was racist, one can vote for a pro-choice candidate without being pro-choice themselves. The fact that pro-lifers are willing to grant this for voters who support a campaign that traffics in racism, but not those who support a pro-choice candidate is one of those unquestioned assumptions that reflects the vicious circle created by a public theology that has been infected by partisan motives and a political tribalism that has been facilitated by shallow public theology.  

The way some invoke conscience in politics reflects an odd morality that puts one’s conscience at risk for supporting a candidate who opposes Roe v. Wade, but rationalizes away moral responsibility for a candidate who intentionally seeks to disenfranchise African-Americans or restrict the right of worship for Muslims or wantonly breaks up families through deportation or mass incarceration. Perhaps abortion as a political issue carries greater moral weight than these other issues—an idea some pro-lifers seem a bit too eager to accept, I have to say—but is there no confluence of evil that can affect the voting calculation of the pro-life person who believes their conscience requires them to vote for whoever the pro-life candidate happens to be? If there are only pro-choice candidates in an election, is voting itself then impermissible? As I have argued here already, to argue about which issue(s) carry enough moral weight to determine one's vote is to misunderstand the purpose and meaning of voting. The idea is not to suggest that abortion is an unworthy issue of such an emphasis, but that that the act of voting does not demand that kind of emphasis. Voting in a representative democracy is a different kind of thing. 

My aim here is not to add to the moral burden of our vote. Instead, I want to promote greater grace and deference when it comes to how we vote. Politicians and advocacy groups increasingly resort to moral manipulation to raise the stakes of politics and thus drive the financial and other support they receive. If political positions are not just political positions, but the highest expression of one’s very being and morality, then we will tithe to their coffers and worship at their altar. Politics is not detached from morality or faith—they are related—but political judgments are ultimately prudential. We should have great humility in our own positions, and great humility in casting moral judgments on others’ politics. Political discourse is intrinsically one of debate, of trying to convince your fellow citizens that your ideas are worthy of being taken up by broader society, but that discourse must be leavened by the awareness that we might be wrong, that our opponent might have a moral insight that is valuable and true.

Personally, while I will get into political disagreements with fellow Christians, I try to keep from questioning their motives or their ultimate commitments. I am not perfect in this regard. I have failed at this at times, and I regret those failures. In discussions with Christians, my concerns lie not so much with their arriving at a different policy position, but if and when they introduce a break in their logical train of thought. By this I mean that sometimes I will be talking to a Christian who will say something like “God would not approve of X, but I think X is politically necessary.” I recently heard a sermon given after the Las Vegas shooting that referenced a survey in which Christians responded that while they support the use of a firearm to defend one’s property or life, they did not think God would approve of the same. This kind of thinking deserves to be interrogated, not principally for a desired political outcome, but out of desire to see one’s heart and mind more greatly conformed to the intention of their Creator.

Allow me to conclude then with a direct response to the question that I opened with: how and why would a pro-life Christian support a pro-choice politician? My answer, in short, is that a pro-life Christian would support a pro-choice politician if they believed that in spite of the candidate’s position on abortion, a vote for that candidate is the best way to intend their vote for the good of their neighbor.

Again, this is ultimately a prudential decision, and we must come to terms with the fact that because it is prudential, different Christians may come to equally faithful, yet different, conclusions. There are many valid factors Christians might consider when deciding which candidate will better serve the good of their neighbor, but let me briefly raise two.

First, one’s vote can, and perhaps should be, mediated through the experiences and passions God has given them. So, as an example, I believe it is reasonable for a voter whose career is focused on combatting international poverty, for instance, to provide additional weight to a candidate’s position on policies that affect international poverty. Personally, civil rights, particularly for African-Americans, has been a driving motivation for my life for reasons rooted in my faith and my personal affections and experiences. I believe and understand human dignity to be implicated in a wide range of policies, but racial injustice is an area where I put additional weight. I am personally convicted in this regard, and believe my reasons are compelling, but I try not to make my prioritization of this sacrosanct even while I argue for the validity of my positions in a political context. My support for a pro-family agenda is rooted in ideas about human flourishing, but I also understand my passion for these policies is driven both by the prioritization of family in my Italian cultural heritage, as well as the brokenness in my immediate family’s history. I am pro-life because I believe it is an issue of human dignity, but my personal experience as an adoptee plays a role in the nature and priority of my position on the issue as well. The fact that Christian’s political priorities are filtered through their experience is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I believe that God wishes to use our diversity in experiences to strengthen his church, enrich our public discourse and soften our hearts. We can allow others’ passions and experiences to shape and motivate our politics as well!

The second factor I will raise here is that a Christian might choose to vote differently when given the same or a similar choice of candidates based on their reading of the times and what God is doing in the world. What is the principle challenge of our time? Who is in power? Who is particularly vulnerable? A Christian might vote differently in a time of war than a time of peace. A Christian might vote one way if a certain issue is particularly salient, and a different way if another issue is particularly salient.

To move from the abstract to the topic at hand, while making clear that I deeply disagreed with Doug Jones’ position on abortion, I advocated for supporting him with a vote because of my view on what was most salient in the campaign; my understanding of the levers available to a Senator to influence abortion policy relative to the president; the broader political context (namely, that Donald Trump is in The White House); the egregious misuse of faith and Christian rhetoric by Roy Moore; Moore’s deeply questionable moral character and the existence of deeply disturbing criminal allegations of sexual assault; Moore’s explicit, disturbing record of both rhetoric and policy approaches that undermine the dignity of African-Americans and Muslims, in particular, among several other prudential considerations.

Finally, I do want to just address the idea that was advanced in recent weeks for Alabama Christians to either not vote or write-in a candidate. I was relatively forceful in my rejection of such an approach, but I hope it was clear then--and I want to make it clear now--that this was a prudential argument. My justification for making this argument in this election, when I did not make such an argument in the 2016 presidential election, for instance, was a conviction that the danger of having Roy Moore in the Senate justified not just a refusal to support him, but the use of one’s vote to maximize its power to ensure he did not become Senator—which was a vote for Doug Jones. I can understand, intellectually, the possibility that some voters looked at the candidates, and believed the allegations of sexual assault against Moore and Jones’ seemingly flippant yet strident pro-choice stance were equally disqualifying. And yet, I would argue, again, that this is not the best way to think about voting. 

I had a conversation with one voter recently who told me that his conscience would not allow him to vote for Jones or Moore. I asked if he truly thought there was no difference between Moore and Jones in how well they would serve Alabama, and if Alabamans truly had as much to lose with Jones as they would with Moore? He replied that no, he was relatively certain that Jones would serve Alabama better than Moore, but that did not change the fact that his conscience would not allow him to vote for either candidate.

Because of the vote tally, and because Jones won voters who held this rationale are actually in a great position. They protected their conscience, and they are not to blame for Moore winning. Jones won. Even more, Jones won by a margin of victory that is exceeded by the number of write-in votes, potentially indicating that conservatives who could vote for neither candidate played a pivotal role in Jones’ victory. But what if Moore had won? What would have been the culpability of those who knew Jones would better serve his neighbors, but chose to prioritize following their conscience, as they understood it, instead?

I added the qualifier “as he understood it,” because I would argue that this kind of argument actually relies on an ignorant God. God has numbered the hairs on our heads, and yet we act as if our hearts are hidden to God in the voting booth. Jesus understands our politics. Really. To argue that you can vote for a flawed candidate if you judge that they will better serve your neighbors is not to make an argument for relativism. It is to acknowledge that politics is, inherently, relative. It is the very nature of our system of government, which is at least as comprehensible to God as it is to us, that our choices are not entirely our own, but shaped by our fellow citizens. Sometimes, the choice that is offered will truly leave us with no option but to sit out an election, or “throw away” our vote as a statement of holy discontent with the state of things. I do not put myself forward as a perfect judge for all people of where that line is to be drawn. I feel confident that the Alabama special election was not such a case, that Doug Jones was clearly the best candidate for Alabama despite his flaws, and I am glad that he won. I am grateful for the 26% of pro-life voters in Alabama who made the same judgment. I hope that Senator Doug Jones remembers that the coalition that elected him was not thoroughly pro-choice, and that he represents a state with millions of pro-life constituents.

I have discussed humility, and I want to return to it here only to add that it does not require a lack of conviction to have a healthy dose of humility. I suggested humility is important above mainly because we “might be wrong,” but I can imagine someone responding that they know they are right about this: abortion is wrong. However, humility does not require a lack of conviction. In addition to the concern that one might be wrong on the substance, we should also have humility because we may be wrong on the strategy. While I share a conviction with pro-lifers on the issue of abortion, I am humbled by the fact that so many seem to look at this issue of voting in a different way than I do. Maybe they are right?

On the other hand, maybe they are wrong? Politics provides a history of unintended consequences. The reason why we have to consider the moral burden of our politics differently, is because if we do not, we are just as responsible for political outcomes as we are for our personal political actions. Let me again return to the Roy Moore race as a concrete example. Some pro-life advocates were making the case that it was every pro-lifers responsibility to vote for Roy Moore because he would cast pro-life votes and advocate for the pro-life position. They made the same case for Donald Trump. It was even suggested that there was a “special place in hell” for Christians who did not support Moore. This argument was sometimes made with explicit disregard for the act of voting for Roy Moore (“this is not about Roy Moore,” they would say, “this is about ensuring the pro-life cause advances in the Senate”).

Thankfully—in my view—because Doug Jones won, we will never find out what Roy Moore would have done in the Senate. But if there is, in fact, a special place in hell for people who did not support Roy Moore (by the way, there’s not), we should consider a hypothetical: what would the moral responsibility of pro-lifers who support a pro-life candidate be if that candidate ended up harming the pro-life cause? There is a very good argument to make that Roy Moore, for instance, would have harmed the Republican brand so profoundly if he had been elected to the Senate that it would have been a drag on other pro-life candidates in the 2018 mid-terms. If there was a special place in hell for people who do not take the right position in an election (reminder: there’s not), would those who supported Roy Moore find themselves a spot in it if their vote ended up harming the pro-life cause? Many pieces of legislation are found to have negative consequences or even exacerbate the problem they were intended to correct after the law has been enacted. The 1994 crime bill looks much different today to many of the people who supported it. What if defunding Planned Parenthood resulted in a drastic increase in the abortion rate? Would they find themselves in hell too? I could imagine some liberal friends saying “yes,” which should indicate to us once again the danger of putting such great moral authority into prudential political decision-making. It has become habitual to us to take God's name in vain in order to advance our personal politics.

There is so much I have not discussed here, and I know that what is I have covered insufficiently. You might have noticed I have not raised the actual issue of abortion at length. I have discussed neither the difference between opposing the legality of abortion and actually reducing abortion—the misdirecting wordplay that those who only want to do the latter are often guilty of or the deep incoherence of those who take the position of opposing the legality of abortion but seem to care little for what would reduce abortion in the meantime. I have not shared that the abortion rate is now the lowest it has been since Roe v. Wade, and explored what it might mean for pro-lifers that this happened under a Democratic president. These are all important issues, and people like Charles Camosy have contributed great thoughts on them, but they are not the focus of this argument.

To summarize: I have responded here to the question “Can a pro-life Christian support a pro-choice candidate?” not by exploring the moral weight of abortion (which I think is great), but of urging a correction of how we think about voting. Our vote is not just, or even primarily, an individualistic act of self-expression, but an act of neighbor love. You can think, as I do, that the pro-life stance is one that is motivated by love of neighbor. This can and should play a role in your vote. Yet, a pro-life Christian who believes their stance is an act of neighbor love, might also be motivated in the voting booth to support a pro-choice candidate because given the choice presented to them, that vote is the option available to them that best advances their reasoned intent to love their neighbor well through their politics in the circumstances of that historical moment. This would have been my decision had I voted in Alabama this past Tuesday.   

These are serious issues, and I offer my thoughts humbly with an open invitation to test and challenge these ideas. But let’s be wary of those who pretend the future we hope for can be realized if only our politics was more dogmatic, who wish to load onto politics the expectation that we might perfectly express ourselves through it, and instead consider politics as a penultimate forum where we can love our neighbors, pursuing justice where we can, until the God of justice comes in His perfect glory to set all wrongs to right.


Note from Michael: This post has been edited for clarity.

America's New Export

America's New Export

Michael reflects on his recent trip to Luton, England, the possibilities of interfaith partnership, and Donald Trump's unhelpful contribution to the fight against violent extremism.

Reviews of Reclaiming Hope

After my post last week in response to the Comment Magazine review of Reclaiming Hope, I thought I would share  some of the other reviews that have come out since the book's release. 

If these reviews spark your interest, you can buy Reclaiming Hope at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Hearts & Minds, IndieBound or your favorite local bookstore. 


Hearts & Minds Bookstore/Byron Borger

I absolutely loved Michael Wear's brand new book, Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned in the Obama White House About the Future of America (Nelson Books; $25.99; see our 20% off sale price at the order link below.)  I think many readers will enjoy it, will learn much, and that regardless of one's affiliation (or non-affiliation) with a political party, it will be a valuable, even important read.  The book is graced with bunches of rave reviews from significant political leaders from across the political spectrum (from several countries, no less) and many respected Christian leaders - from Tim Keller to Russell Moore, pundits, (from Kirsten Powers to E. J. Dionne) and writers as different as J.D. Vance and Ann Voskamp, all insisting this is an important, graceful book.  You see, I'm not alone in highly recommending it although it really is a "Hearts & Minds" kind of book. We think our customers and friends will really appreciate it.

Let's get this said right away: Yes, Michael is a life-long Democrat and, yes, he worked for the Obama campaign and landed a job as one of the youngest White House staffers ever.  And, yes, he finished his job well but didn't seek another season of service - not exactly in protest, but certainly with great sadness and inner conflict - before the 44th President finished his final term.   Which is to say that if you loved, sort of liked, or significantly disliked President Obama, you will find something interesting and helpful in these reflections from this insider.


THIS IS A PRE-TRUMP book with serious questions for our politics in the age of Trump.

A political memoir from Michael Wear, a young evangelical strategist who worked in Obama’s faith office, it tells stories from the fights of those years and offers a vision of a future faith-in-politics.

I’m a sucker for this kind of memoir: a chastened idealist tells how people worked well together. His ideals have met reality, but Wear still believes politics can help people.

More than merely telling old war stories, Reclaiming Hope makes a sustained case for public service. It argues well that Christian love should motivate us to become active within existing political institutions. Wear highlights specifically race and religious freedom as fields needing further work (a great combination, designed to irritate people all across the ideological spectrum). We need to figure out how to live together and build cultures that respect people and enable them to live without fear.

The Gospel Coalition

If you asked me what the American republic needs most right now, at least at the human level, I would say: “more Democrats like Michael Wear.” And if you asked me what the American church needs most right now, on the human level, I would say: “more Democrats like Michael Wear.” Wear’s Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned in the Obama White House About the Future of Faith in America is more than just another good political memoir; it’s a window into how Christianity can find its way back toward a faithful and responsible participation in American public life.

I’m an unlikely candidate to say that what we really need is more progressive Democrats. I was a Republican from my 18th birthday until the day they nominated America’s answer to Silvio Berlusconi. I was a diehard conservative right up until the moment, sometime last year, when the word “conservative” ceased to mean much.

But there are thousands who can say the same; the church and the nation don’t need more of them. Wear—who worked for Barack Obama as a White House staffer and re-election campaign official—is what we need more of.

Publisher's Weekly (Starred Review)

Wear, founder of Public Square Strategies and former White House staffer for the Obama administration, argues for voters—especially young adults—to take a less cynical and apathetic approach to politics, especially the intersection of politics and religion. After a chance meeting with then-Senator Obama as a college freshman, Wear signed on to assist with his campaign in 2008, eventually landing a position in the White House doing outreach to evangelicals and helping to manage the Obama administration’s engagement on issues important to religious communities, such as adoption and efforts to stop human trafficking. While Wear witnessed the dark underbelly of politics at times, he is able to maintain a balanced and nuanced approach to writing about it, even offering critiques of Democratic strategies when appropriate. It takes a mature observer to understand the ambiguities involved in ethical and religious issues, and Wear is savvy enough to comprehend and cogently explain some complex and thorny policies, such as the ACA contraception mandate. This is not a political tell-all; instead, Wear’s book provides clear, actionable ways to rethink political engagement within the frame of fostering healthy religious communities.

The Public Discourse

In a hyper-politicized age like our own, intellectual honesty is one of the first casualties. Hewing to the ideological line prevents otherwise honest people from admitting error when things go wrong. Inevitably, every side falls prey to this. So when a book comes on the scene that reminds readers what an honest critique of one’s own tribe looks like, we’re surprised by such honesty and we find it refreshing—because something about self-assessment reminds us of our own predilection to myopia.

Intellectual honesty is the theme I came away with after reading Michael Wear’s Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned in the Obama White House about the Future of Faith in America. Wear does not shy away from issuing honest, blunt critiques of the modern Democratic Party’s foreignness to faith and of the tension inherent in being an evangelical in a party whose platform flatly contradicts biblical teaching at many irreconcilable points. For conservatives who believe that the modern Democratic Party is uncompromisingly hostile to evangelical and conservative Catholic beliefs, Wear’s book in large part confirms this angst.

The National Review

Conservatives will have a hard time finding a more like-minded guide to the decision-making inside the Obama White House than Michael Wear. Wear served in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships during Obama’s first term, and then directed faith outreach for the president’s reelection campaign. His memoir of his time in the administration, Reclaiming Hope, is a spectacularly readable portrait of a unique niche in Obama-world to which many progressives grew hostile over time, representing as it did faith in general and Christianity in particular.

Opportunity Lives

You won’t find Donald Trump in the index of Michael Wear’s new book, Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned in the Obama White House About the Future of Faith in America. Yet Wear recently told me he thinks that part of why our country has seen so much social division during the bruising 2016 election was in part because the Left hadn’t spent enough time understanding America’s religious conservatives, many of whom supported Trump. 

With polling showing deep divides in American culture, Wear offers a new book with ideas on how to repair these fissures. Reclaiming Hope acknowledges that Obama’s remarks degrading religious people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” were damaging for outreach to people of faith. Yet Wear said he believes that the next four years offer a time of reconciliation between people of faith on the Right and secular people on the Left.

President Obama Nominates Rabbi David Saperstein to Advance Religious Freedom as Ambassador

Yesterday, President Obama nominated Rabbi David Saperstein to serve as the United States' Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom. Saperstein would be the first non-Christian to serve in the role.

Today, Joshua DuBois really lays out in The Daily Beast why this appointment is so important, and why Saperstein is such a great pick for the job:

Saperstein, a lawyer by training, is known as a political powerhouse, someone who has the ears of top White House officials and a fair number of members of Congress as well. (Republican Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia called Saperstein’s nod “a good nomination” and urged quick Senate confirmation, and Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida, the leading Democrat on the House’s Mid-East Subcommittee, tweeted his congratulations). Saperstein helped pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, was founding chair of the Congressionally-chartered U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in 1999, and Newsweek named him the country’s most influential rabbi in 2009. As one of the Jewish community’s top policy advocates on Capitol Hill, his hands have been in debates from immigration to Obamacare.

But what’s perhaps most interesting about Saperstein is the depth of support for him from diverse leaders across the American faith spectrum, outside of his own progressive Jewish community.
— Joshua DuBois for The Daily Beast

DuBois' full piece is well worth your time.

These are perilous times for religious freedom. The threats to religious freedom are widespread, and represent a crushing blow to human dignity everywhere. The displacement of religious people and communities is at an all-time high. Religious minorities in various parts of the world live in fear of unjust economic punishment, violence and even death.

What is perhaps ironic, is that the faith of the aggressor in religious freedom abuses in one part of the world is often the faith of the victim of abuses in another.  Religious oppression begets religious oppression. This fact is in our newspapers and on our television screens even today.

What should also be clear to us is that religious freedom only works if it is for everyone--including those of no faith at all. Religious freedom for all must be the cause of all.

It is a testament to America's commitment to religious freedom that no matter the faith of our Ambassador, he or she advocates for the religious freedom of all.

David Saperstein has spent his life doing this. He will make America proud by bringing this lifelong commitment of his to this new role, in service of his country and of all people who seek to live according to their beliefs.

The Senate should move to confirm Rabbi Saperstein immediately.

Dispatches from Europe #3 (UK): My Remarks on Faith, Government and Society

Michael Wear third blog post related to his trip to UK/France. This post includes his remarks from events with government and religious leaders in the UK.