Special Election Post-Mortem

Alabama had a special senatorial election yesterday.   The underdog Democrat candidate Doug Jones won by approximately 20,000 votes.  Since I’m sure no one else has thought to do this (ha!), I figured I would jot down my thoughts…

Thought 1: I did not vote.   Politically, I’m quite conservative, and Jones seems quite liberal (in spite of his radio ads which did nothing but tout his conservative bona fides), so I’m not thrilled about having him as our Senator for the next 2 years, but the Republican candidate was terrible.

  

Roy Moore has well-earned reputation as a controversial figure, and several allegations arose in the last month or so which cast some dark shadows on his character.  He and his handlers are very clumsy with their statements (if one is feeling charitable), which doesn’t mix well with his predilection for stirring up controversy.  

This may be a bit of sophistry on my part, but I decided not to vote, in spite of hoping that Moore won.

Thought 2: My hopes for a Moore victory were somewhat complicated.   Ideologically, I do think Moore would better represent my interests than Jones would when it comes to legislative deliberation, but that’s not the only reason I was pulling for him.   The recent allegations against him are quite serious but somewhat specious.  I have a feeling that if he had been elected, a thorough investigation would have occurred, and, hopefully, the truth would have outed.   As it stands, I have a feeling these allegations will quickly fade into the background.   If the accusers are, indeed, victims of Moore, then they will have to resign to the fact that a close, and controversial election will be the extent of the justice they receive in this world.   If the accusations were a political hit-job, well, then, they worked swimmingly.

Thought 2a: The people who are convinced the election was stolen by nasty Democrats and their dirty tricks will find sufficient confirmation for their beliefs if the spotlight fades from these unresolved accusations.  Our nation already seems quite divisive, and factions are already paranoid.   Regardless of whether this was a political hack-job or not, if the issue drops from the limelight now, I think it will cause similar damage to perceptions of irreconcilable divides.

Thought 3: People need to be careful and accurate with their language.   It’s rumored that Roy Moore clumsily courted younger women while in his 30’s.    From what I’ve gathered, these rumors seem to be fairly-well substantiated.  They are also rather innocuous.   Some might find it creepy, but from what I’ve heard, they weren’t really outside the pale, either historically or even contemporaneously (See: Jerry Seinfeld, per example).

I may be mistaken (more on that in a bit), but from what I understand Moore has also been accused of two cases of sexual assault.   I believe one of them is against a minor.  These are serious allegations, and I think we should get to the bottom of things.

We don’t do the justice process or rational discourse any favors, though, when we exaggerate crimes.

People are often sloppy with the term “alleged,” but additionally, I’ve seen Moore referred to as “pedophile” (which is not supported by the allegations), a “child predator” (also, not supported by evidence or accusations), and, informally, a “baby raper” by one zealous on-line comment-maker (although, to be fair, several fellow commentators took her to task for that one).

Thought 3a: Part of my suspicions over the accusations is the timing, magnitude, and seemingly-intentional conflation of it all.  Too much unrelated stuff was brought to light in a sudden “October Surprise,” for people to have much time to sort through it all.   Insinuations over the anodyne are poisoning the well along-side the serious accusations, and, if anything, clumsy language, seems to have been deliberately used to further confusion rather than clarity.   I understand that politics is hard-ball, but I’d like to think, people can still be honorable in their pursuits.

This doesn’t seem to have been the case.   If the accusers are victims, then I feel like they’re received a raw deal, because the perception I gathered from the mud-slinging is that people didn’t want justice so much as a scalp to add to their wall.   Now that they have Moore’s scalp, I think the women’s mob of “supporters” are going to go along their merry way.    I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

Thought 4: People of all stripes – and Christians, in particular (and also: of all stripes) -- need to be very careful about turning worldly things (people, institutions, etc.) into idols.   From what I’ve gathered, several pastors across our state co-opted their usual sermon times to host informal Moore rallies from the pulpit.  Others have spoken of the unjust persecution of Moore and drawn lofty comparisons between him and other Christian martyrs.

Thought 4a: As a follow-up to point 3 above, Christians, in particular, need to be careful of poisoning their own well.   There are most definitely some Christians behaving badly in the name of politics, but I think it’s as clumsy to say “Evangelicals have turned the party of Roy Moore into an idol” as it would be to say “Evangelicals are following Joel Osteen’s advice and striving to achieve their best life now.”     A Venn-Diagram would show neither of those statements to be patently false, but those same overlapping circles would show that there’s some unfair generalizations being made as well.  I think most of the Evangelicals I know would bristle at the generalization of the second, but would, nod bemusedly at the first.    Maybe I’m wrong, but I think there’s some unfortunate sanctimony at play in the different reactions.

Thought 5:I didn’t read the article, but several of my friends (Facebook and/or IRL) alluded to a supposedly good one on voting in faith as opposed to fear.    I think that’s a very a good antidote to the thought above

….BUT…

Thought 5a: Some of those same friends then lost sleep over the doomsday tidings a Moore victory would hold for the reputations and political efficacy of various institutions (the state of Alabama, the GOP, evangelical coalitions, Pro-Life groups, etc.).   

Thought 6:Self-awareness and consistency can be difficult, but they are vital to rational and persuasive arguments.    One of my Facebook friends tried to encourage his friends of rivaling political leanings to vote for his guy, in spite of the views that were considered rather extreme, because, the nature of the US government system is such that extreme views of individuals are softened by the aggregated voice of the entire body politic.  In the very next paragraph of the same post, though, he, then discouraged people from voting for the other guy, because his political views are just TOO. DAMN. EXTREME. (!!!1!)

You’re free to adopt either line of reasoning, and a compelling case could probably be crafted from either one; but you can’t really have it both ways.

I’m not trying to single this guy out to pick on him particularly, because I think this is a very common foible.   See above: people using “vote faith, not fear” to persuade people to vote how you would, while appealing to apocalyptic scenarios to dissuade them from voting the other way.

Thought 6a: This is also, likely, a condemnation of me and my ambivalence.  I can talk a good game about how I hoped for a particular outcome, but couldn’t bring myself to actively support a candidate as flawed as Roy Moore.  I can even appeal to the fact that my inaction was a demonstration of faith rather than a vote I might have made out of fearful motivations, but, if I’m honest, I think the crowds and hassle simply appealed to the worser angels of my apathy.