A Question for Pacifists

As I mentioned here, I think a commitment to pacifism could have major ramifications for how one relates to the larger structures of society, especially the state.

So, in that vein, I’ve been wondering: Does a pacifist have an obligation to avoid endorsing political leaders who employ violence? For instance, in his book Choosing Against War, Mennonite John Roth suggests that a Christian pacifist might refrain from voting, or at least voting for president, since the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

The underlying logic seems to go something like this. In voting for president, I am authorizing him to deploy lethal force if he deems it necessary. But if I am a pacifist, I don’t think it’s permissible for me to deploy lethal force, so how can I authorize someone else to do so on my behalf?

It may be that in voting for president it’s not the case that part of what I’m doing is authorizing someone to use violence on my behalf. In other words, maybe that’s not the right way to understand what I’m doing when I vote. But doesn’t it seem, at least commonsensically, that if I vote for president I am (at least implicitly) accepting the legitimacy of using force, since that’s a major part of what the President’s job entails?