Justin Amash and the Evangelical Vote
Is a vote for a third-party candidate responsible in today's political atmosphere?
Monday, May 4th, 2020
After months of deliberation, Republican-turned-independent US Representative Justin Amash officially joined the presidential race and the Libertarian Party, announcing his historic decision in a tweet.
Swept into the House of Representatives on the Tea Party wave of 2010, the forty year old lawmaker from Michigan co-founded the House Freedom Caucus, a collection of fierce GOP hard-liner congressmen committed to conservative values and constitutionally limited government.
Amash, who is now the only Libertarian in Congress, quickly developed a well-earned reputation of rebellion against his own side of the aisle. He successfully led the charge to essentially oust fellow Republican John Boehner from the Speaker’s office, and more recently, split from his beloved Freedom Caucus in frustration with their unyielding support of President Trump.
During the 2016 presidential election, the Freedom Caucus divided over the only issue that matters anymore: Donald J. Trump. Most of the caucus members jumped on the Trump train early, but Amash and a few others were suspicious of Trump’s conservative convictions and competency to lead. “Will conservatives in Congress put up a fight?” he wondered in a foreshadow to impeachment, “or will they go along with violations of the Constitution just because it’s a Republican president and because Trump has a lot of popular support?”
For years, Amash has been vocal about his disagreements and growing disillusionment with the Republican party establishment and even with some of his Tea Party colleagues. Most, if not all, had shifted their focus from promoting conservative principles to attacking the left, increasing government spending and debt, and stirring the steaming pot of the ‘culture war.’ Amash’s patience with raging partisanship was finally cut short last July when he announced that he was leaving the Republican party for good in a “declaration of independence,” asserting that “modern politics is trapped in a partisan death spiral.” Within hours of Amash’s exit, President Trump whipped out his phone and attacked the congressman as “one of the dumbest & most disloyal men in Congress,” further proving Amash’s point on partisanship:
Amash was an early advocate for impeachment, and he later voted in favor of both articles during the final House vote. Over thirty House Democrats actually lobbied for him to be one of the impeachment managers during the Senate trial.
Most of these actions are typically associated with today’s progressive politicians. But there is a key difference between Amash and Democrats: Amash’s disagreements with the Trumpian Republicans are not necessarily based on policy. Rather, as Amash told Politico, his disdain for the new GOP lies in the “revolution of tone” that has swept through the party under Trump.
There are Republicans who agree with me on the principles—many, many Republicans. But even among many of those Republicans, when you go online—I’m talking about talking heads and politicians, for example—you find that they have adopted the president’s style. And style and tone are very much a part of who you are. I don’t think you can separate them from your politics and say, ‘Well, my policies are good, but I’m going to be a jerk to everyone and be rude to everyone and harass people and ridicule people,’ which is largely the style under Trump. I think you’re stuck with that for a while. And that’s not me. Everyone says some things in their life that they regret, but it has become a culture in the Republican Party. And it’s very dangerous.
The culture war rhetoric and fighting mentality of the new GOP simply does not fit with the character of Justin Amash. As he often muses, he didn’t leave the Republican party. The Republican party left him.
Ideologically, Amash is a libertarian in the mold of classical liberalism, with limited government, check and balances, economic freedom, and Constitutionally-protected individual liberty serving as the foundational framework for his policies. The congressman’s approach to economic and social policy is best compared to Milton Friedman or the Austrian economist F.A. Hayek, considering his focus on limited government and lack of social regulations. Amash promotes a lightly regulated laissez-faire market, opposes government bailouts, and had advocated for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This balanced budget idea would mandate the decrease of government spending and taxation rates, achieving the pipe dream of libertarians and Reagan-devotee conservatives: a truly limited government that is directed and controlled by the people, not vice versa.
For the most part, Amash toes the libertarian line in terms of social policy. He cosponsored a bill with democratic socialist Ayanna Pressley to ban the death penalty, and he ardently opposes excessive military spending and intervention. In addition to voting against multiple attempts by President Trump to fund the wall, Amash has presented multiple immigration reform bills focused on improving pathways to legal citizenship. Amash supported the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision on Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized gay marriage, arguing that the government should not be involved in marriage.
Unlike many modern libertarians, the former Republican also shares quite a few social and economic convictions with conservatives. Amash is firmly against government surveillance of citizens without warrants, and he has spoken out against excessive interpretations of legislation like the PATRIOT Act. He is quite proud of his impeccable pro-life voting record, which is rare among libertarians.
Amash’s core base of voters other than libertarians is still unclear, but many of his policies are attractive to people on both the right and the left. Both Trump-skeptic conservatives and disaffected progressives can find much in common with Amash, and he truly has a wide variety of voters to pull into his coalition.
Unfortunately for Amash, the two-party system that he longs to disrupt has stacked the odds against him. A third-party candidates hasn’t seen sustainable national success since Ross Perot, and he still finished in third place with just under twenty percent of the national vote. In addition, Amash has low, as in very low, name recognition among Americans unfamiliar with politics.
Currently, conventional Washington wisdom says that Amash will not have an major impact on the race. But 2020 is a different election than those in years past, although it parallels a bit to 2016. Many Americans deeply distrust both Trump and Biden. If Amash is seen as a viable alternative to the two, like the much better version of Gary Johnson that he is, could he make a larger impact? Amash may not have a chance of winning the race, but I believe that his presence has the potential to change the conversation surrounding third party candidates.
In a Gallup poll published two weeks ago, thirty-nine percent of Americans identify as independents, compared to the two major parties at about thirty percent each. Typically, the two-party power structure presents two candidates, and the independents begrudgingly resign their vote to the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument. “It’s a binary choice,” they claim, and “voting third-party is a basically a vote for the other side.”
We must break America of this fundamentally broken assumption that politics is a binary choice. The entrenched political structure will never change if we continue to portray each election as the most important election of our time, requiring a vote for the lesser of two evils to ‘save our nation.’ Fear-mongering politicos and pundits have been waging political war for years, and according to many of the partisan commentators and legislators, losing one battle will lead to losing the whole war. In that view, victory is the only option. Amash himself satirically quipped, “If you don’t vote for our party nominee, you are selling out your family, your friends, your country to these people who want to destroy it.” Essentially, if you don’t vote the way that you are supposed to, you are a traitor and will bring on the collapse of America as we know it.
When we stop seeing politics through the distorted lens of the reactionary ‘culture war,’ we can instead vote on both principle and policy. If enough Americans decide to exercise their Frenchism veto of the two-party system and vote for Justin Amash or another third-party candidate, future voters will have good reason to put their vote towards a candidate that both aligns with their values and has a legitimate chance to win.
As Christians, we do have to carefully consider the consequences of our vote. Will voting for Amash give Biden a boost or will it help Trump? To be honest, no one really knows, and it won’t be easy to tell based on post-election data.
When it comes down to it, voting for Justin Amash is not a vote for Joe Biden or Donald Trump. It is a vote for Amash and the principles of limited government, Constitutional accountability, and civility.
Voting third-party is not a cop-out, a morally pious judgment, or a sly way to escape voting for the mainstream. Voting for a strong third-party candidate is simply choosing to walk another way, by saying no to partisan division and misguided visions of one-party utopia while saying yes to solid, bipartisan leadership. Evangelicals are one of the most powerful interest groups in America and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. We have the numbers to affect policy and elections in a very significant way. As disciples of Christ, we don’t need to lend our voice and support to someone that doesn’t represent Jesus if that is how God is leading us. Moral compromise in our vote is not necessary when there is a better candidate available. Instead, we can affirm the truth and grace of the Bible by voting for someone who can bring both to the table. Steady biblical leadership is important and solid policy is just as vital, so why not choose both instead of just one?
Evangelicals, consider your vote carefully. The foundational principles of America will not crumble because of the outcome of one election. If the Republicans stay in power or if the Democrats ascend to the White House, our constitutional republic will not disappear. But it certainly won’t get any better.
Government can only serve the people well if Christians intentionally break the cycle of voter moral compromise, hateful partisan discourse, and the political slam-dunk culture. We must begin to forge a different path.
Crossing partisan lines with a sense of Christ-like unity and direction is necessary for right relationship between the government and the people. There is a truly a third way, and it does not have to be for just conservative, progressives, or moderates. Unity is desirable and achievable.
Evangelicals’ hands have been forced. We have a decision to make: do we keep our focus on the ground and jump in the mud of partisan politics, or do we make the difficult decision to lift our eyes up and find a different path to blaze?
This election is a prime opportunity to swim out of the muck (drain the swamp, anyone?) and pull others out with you. A vote for Amash or another candidate is not a waste. Instead, it is a principled stand for Christ, character, civility, and competence. Our political system will never be improved unless another candidate, maybe even Justin Amash, gains enough votes, traction, and relevancy to become the new normal. It’s up to Christians to take the lead. So let’s do that. As a Christian community, let’s not only continue to have these discussions about alternative (and more qualified) candidates for leadership positions, but let’s be intentional about acting on those convictions.
Your vote is valuable, Christendom. Use it for good.