Friends and the U.S. Election

Editor’s note: During this election season, when our political life in the United States seems especially contentious, Friends United Meeting has invited a variety of Friends to share their thoughts on how to navigate as a Quaker through these divided times. Our sixth installment is by Michael Jay, of New Association of Friends.I’ve considered what it meant to be a Friend at the ballot box since my first election. My Yearly Meeting’s Faith and Practice had a testimonies section which included a number of testimonies that were understood to be political positions. Unfortunately for me, these positions did not match the names on my ballot.

These testimonies are in an unsorted list, so for convenience I will put them in three categories: Public Morality, Life Issues, and Human Dignity. Again unfortunately, no candidate nor political party used Faith and Practice to build the planks of their platform.

Public Morality issues include drinking, smoking, gambling, etc. These are not on my ballot. Five Years Meeting embraced Temperance as a political issue when it was founded over a century ago, but Temperance is no longer politically relevant and is now left up to a matter of personal choice.

Life Issues include opposition to war, abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty. This list is politically relevant, and there are numerous people who consistently advocate for life—sometimes they are on the ballot. Unfortunately, too often when people talk about who is “Pro-life,” they will name a candidate who wants to restrict abortion, and expand euthanasia and the death penalty. Faithful voting in this category is challenging.

Human Dignity issues include humane treatment of prisoners, care for the poor, robust public education, religious freedom, and equal rights and justice for minorities and immigrants. Again, this list is politically relevant, and there are spirited debates between people who want these outcomes on which policies best achieve them.

I am not a policy expert. I don’t know the best tax structure, nor the most effective kinds of regulation—so, unless a politician says to harass the poor for being poor, to close the schools, to kill the disabled, and to torture the prisoners, it is hard for me to evaluate policies.

What I can evaluate, which I believe covers everything that is politically relevant on this list, is which candidate treats people like people. I can observe how a candidate talks about others and how a candidate treats others. Even if a candidate read Faith and Practice and promised to make each of the testimonies a priority, I would doubt his or her sincerity if this was followed up by dehumanizing language and a call to be fearful of our neighbors. Campaign promises show what the candidate thinks will win the election, but how people talk shows character. Those who believe campaign promises will be disappointed, but a leader’s character shapes every decision. “Does the candidate treat people like people?” has become the single issue that determines my vote.

~ Michael Jay
Raysville (Indiana) Friends Meeting