Ron Paul at CPAC 2011 in Washington, DC. Image courtesy of Gage Skidmore on Flickr.

Thunderous applause and raucous cheers rise up each time Ron Paul makes a statement at one of the debates between the Republican presidential candidates. The response seems so disproportionate with that of the other candidates, I’ve heard several people comment about it. Even so, Ron Paul doesn’t seem to exist as far as the mainstream media is concerned.

Ron Paul finished a close second in Saturday’s straw poll in Ames, Iowa. He was just 152 votes short of Michelle Bachmann’s winning tally. But Sunday’s headlines tended to focus on Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, who came in third, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney, who finished sixth and seventh, respectively.

Ron Paul did finally make the news today. The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart was talking about how the media seem to be ignoring Ron Paul. At least someone noticed.

But seriously, why the media blackout? Presumably, the media ignore Congressman Paul because they think he’s a fringe candidate, a long shot. But the enthusiastic applause in those early debates and–even more–his strong showing in the Iowa straw poll demonstrate that Ron Paul is more than just another face in the Republican candidate crowd. The media have made the wrong call. Ron Paul can’t be ignored any longer.

Of the top 10 candidates in the straw poll, including Perry’s write-in votes, nine of them have relatively similar platforms. Most of them have indicated that they are in favor of torturing prisoners if it serves America’s interests. Most of them are in favor of continuing our wars and military presence all over the world. Most of them are in favor of expanding the powers of the federal government over the lives of individuals in America and around the world in one way or another. They all represent various similar-but-different shades of the Republican establishment. That establishment received 12,003 votes in Ames on Saturday.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, stands for individual liberty, sound money, and a small, Constitutional government that is accountable to the people it serves. His ideas resonated with 4,671 straw poll voters. Among those who cast ballots for the top ten candidates in the straw poll, one quarter saw that Ron Paul is something different. That’s more than a fringe. That’s a number that can’t be ignored.

So, to make sure I have this straight:

• The auto makers get bailouts because the overpaid workers need government subsidies so they can continue manufacturing crummy, low-quality products that no one seems to want anymore.
• The financial sector gets bailouts with the proviso that they can’t use the money to subsidize their executives’ salaries.

Believers should neither withdraw from society,  nor mount some political “Jesus revolution” and establish a strict theocracy. We are given the unique privilege of choosing our leaders in the United States. I believe we should use that privilege to the glory of God.

I think the “evangelical establishment” (as I call it) has sort of fallen into this erroneous notion that America was once a Christian nation and that’s been stolen from us by atheists and agnostics and secular humanists and all the “other” religious groups. We feel that it’s our God-ordained duty to take back what we had and “put down” the rebellion of anyone who dares to challenge the sovereignty of this America-Kingdom of God hybrid idea that we’ve created.

Listening to agnostics, atheists, and their ilk, often their biggest beef with “Christianity” is all the evil it has purported over the centuries in the name of “doing God’s work.” I’m not going to address the egregious and unavoidable errors in this argument here, but the point is this: these people are pissed off for a reason.

Christianity has long been the de facto “official” religion of Western civilization. This idea took root during the Holy Roman Empire, and continued as Rome’s influence spread over the globe (ultimately via the British Empire in the modern age). The Inquisition, the Crusades, witch burnings, and other events in the development of Western Civilization and Christianity, in addition to the contemporary issues surrounding civil rights are points against Christianity in the mind of an atheist (or agnostic).

I think the problem through the ages is simply this: Christians, as a whole, have failed to abide by the Law of Love.

For example, the Federal Marriage Amendment is touted by many evangelicals as a critical issue in preserving America as the godly nation it was designed to be. I think that’s a mistake. I think there are other solutions to that semantic puzzle that don’t alienate homosexuals and those who support them. I think if it was up to me, I’d broaden whatever Federal incentives are currently provided to man-woman marriages to include every taxpayer, married or unmarried. I don’t need the Federal government to legitimize my marriage or anyone else’s. that way the wind is taken from the sails of the groups saying “what about us?” (Feel free to insert the slippery slope argument of your choice here.)

To bring this ramble full circle, I think we, as followers of Christ, should let God’s Love be our guide in relating to the world. This should include choosing our leaders. We are so eager to throw our support to the person who promises us some little glimmer of hope that we’ll be able to re-establish the “city on a hill” and put all these non-believers in their proper place. I don’t think that’s the proper way to “go into all the world and preach the gospel.”

Believers need to stop playing political catch up, trying to hang on to the illusion that America was ordained by God so that we, God’s children, can have our way all the time. I do believe that America is God-ordained, as are all earthly dominions. I think the onus is on us to embrace the freedoms we have to express the love and grace of God.

As an epilogue, I’d like to mention my intense distaste for the abject fear that many believers seem to have for the notion of postmodernism. Postmodernism is the paradigm that follows modernism. Postmodernism’s main “theme”, if you will, is re-evaluating the constructs embraced during the modern age. Postmodernism is not the scourge of Christianity. Christianity was born in a social-religious climate much like our postmodernism. It grew at that time like it has never grown since, and I wonder sometimes whether Christians can get their heads out of the sand and forge ahead instead of pining for the aged modern paradigm.

… but that’s another post, I think.

That’s what most “orthodox” evangelicals will tell you. That’s why the evangelical establishment is willing to back any political candidate who promises that he or she is “pro-life.” It seems to me, however, that by choosing leaders by this relatively narrow test of character, we often make the wrong choice. We’ve duped ourselves into believing that it’s OK to choose the “lesser evil” as long as at least our most important political appetites are sated.

I generally agreed with this notion, until I really started thinking about the ramifications. We’re given relatively few choices when it comes to choosing our leaders in this country, and recently (at least for the past 30 years or so) the choices have (often) included two proponents of big-government: a welfare statist, or a military statist.

This election is no different. On the one hand, we have a candidate who wants to nationalize health care, among other “entitlements;” on the other hand, we have a candidate who’s all for expanding the United States’ military presence around the world. Given their voting records and comments over the past month or so, both candidates are also in favor of expanding the Federal government’s role in the economy.

I was interested to learn that the Constitution Party’s candidate for president is a graduate of my alma mater, yet despite his political, economic, and social views being in line with many of mine, and, I would assume, many of my evangelical brothers and sisters, I haven’t heard a word about this candidate through traditional evangelical “channels.”

I pondered this, and realized that the reason for the hush regarding someone who will stand up for what is right (not only in the eyes of the Lord, but also in terms of common sense), was that the present-day evangelical establishment is all but married to neo-conservative Republicanism. Exactly why this is, I don’t know. But, as I thought about it, I realized that whatever the reasons, I think we’ve taken a wrong turn in choosing our political allies.

If every life is sacred, that’s all well and good when we’re talking about unborn babies, the elderly, and those who are unable to care for themselves. But here’s the disconnect that I see: what about the lives that end at the hands of the U.S. military overseas as they “police the world?” What about the life that ends as a result of the Federal justice system determining that that life is best put to an end because it’s a “menace to society?”

Please don’t get me wrong, the U.S. should use its military to defend its borders and to protect itself from overseas threats, but sending troops–standing armies–to all points of the globe to “protect America’s interests,” or because some entangling supra-national organization decides we should, is not the same thing. Also, although I believe that the criminal justice system is broken (and the Federal system terminally so), I still think there is a place for such a system in our society.

My urgent plea to my evangelical brothers and sisters is to carefully research and pray about who you choose to lead us.

The lesser evil is still evil. Vote for the “right” person. Don’t let religious leaders or society as a whole pigeon-hole you and make you think that you won’t have a voice if you do the right thing.

Take a look at this teaser headline from Slate Magazine: