As a young Evangelical (29), it strikes me as odd and unfortunate that others in this particular demographic are motivated to support Sen. Obama.  I believe, however, that this phenomenon (which has been a bit overblown) is due to a variety of cultural issues (e.g. pervasive relativism, liberal leaning universities, and perhaps an unreflective desire for a more “acceptable” socio-political belonging in our age group); however, the primary reason we Evangelicals, who should be understood theologically rather than politically (see anevangelicalmanifesto.com), are reconsidering our partisan allegiances is that we have viewed our parents and community leaders as having perfunctorily thrown their support behind republicans simply because they dangle the Pro-life/Traditional Family carrot.  Even if republicans seem disingenuous, merely using us for votes (which I doubt), their commitment is not insignificant, and most young Evangelicals still hold values consistent with conservative thinking on these two massively important issues.  However, it is the degree to which support for republicans within our community has seemed thoughtless and myopic that has made many willing to sidestep these issues in order to focus on a broader sense of social justice.  However, many of us have allowed the term “social justice” to be defined though liberal outlets. After years of studying scripture and philosophy, I believe Evangelical values are more in line (though not identical) with more conservative values.  I wish, therefore, to offer two basic philosophies that I find compelling and commonsensical.  It is because of the following reasons, which include a commitment to true social justice, that this Evangelical intends to vote for John McCain.   

1. Utilitarianism is not a robust ethic. That is, the greatest good for the greatest number is not the greatest good.  What I mean is that often the possibility of real success (and I don't mean mere financial success) comes with the possibility of real failure.  This is true in business and relationships, and - I think - life in general.  There is a temptation to want to spread safety nets to help people avoid failure (whether economic, educational, or otherwise), but I think we should be less afraid of failure than we should be of selling ourselves short.  The policies of liberals/democrats tend toward redistribution, which in effect scrapes off the top to give to the bottom, rather than helping the bottom arise to the top.  They tend to require faith in the government for issues that may be matters of personal or communal responsibility. This is not to suggest that we should not address social concerns, but rather that we should take those concerns onto our own shoulders (all of us together) rather than turning to the government to do them (which is usually less efficient and more costly anyway).

2. Next, a closely related point:  It is precisely that the responsibility to do good in the world does lie (and should lie) with the citizens (individually and corporately).  Asking the government to take roles to that end is essentially a rejection of this responsibility. Therefore, true social justice can only be implemented through the free act of free citizens, i.e. it cannot be mandated by the State.  Believe it or not, I would rather have rich jerks who are free to hoard all their money for selfish ends than have real charity fade away because "contributing" was forced on all of us by legislation.  I think we all agree that people should want to chip in; they should help others; we should rally together to alleviate misfortune – put time, money, and energy into lives besides our own, but the question is, should the government force us to do so (through taxation and legislation), and if they did, would it really be the same (in both substance and quality) as if we had done it by our own volition?  I believe the answer to both is "no."

And that's leaving aside the issue of who gets to decide what justice, love, etc. mean.  If the government promises to do good, we may well ask, what do they mean by "good," at what cost (social, spiritual, personal, financial, etc.), and should we agree?  Oddly enough, there is evidence that conservatives (more so than liberals) give freely and frequently of their time and money - all without government coercion (see for instance: George Will’s article “Conservatives More Liberal Givers” at RealClearPolitics.com).

Lastly, think how much good might be done if all those people excited about a presidential campaign (and all the millions of dollars that come with them) cared as much (in terms of personal effort) about Africa or poverty stricken America as they do about electing someone. Of course, politics are important too; don't get me wrong. Nevertheless, it often seems easier to pass the proverbial buck to the government, so we can blame them for our problems, rather than rolling up our own sleeves.  Naturally, the government can't give us anything that they haven't taken from us first - and the most important things they can't take unless we allow them to.