In all of the major issues currently being debated in Congress and in the nation, our choice is not essentially between liberal and conservative answers to those questions. The choice we face, rather, is between a politics of engagement and one of imposition. Engaged politics can be rough and tumble, but in the end it consciously works for solutions arrived it out of the engagement of many viewpoints in a process of give and take. At its best engagement politics rests on mutual respect and shared concerns, no matter how differently expressed or even perceived those concerns might be. Imposition politics is one-sided, ideological, and built on disdain. It appears to be the stronger of the two approaches, because it seems to be grounded on unbending principles and unalterable attitudes. In fact, it totters uncertainly on the shifting sands of our worst political natures while engagement politics, for all of its uncertainties, tends to find solid ground in an underlying unity of purpose. Engaged politics creates partners, however shaky their alliances might be, while imposition politics sparks intense, angry, and even bitter resistance.
The tea party, so called, represents one of the clearest expressions of imposition politics in recent American politics. As such, it offers Americans an important opportunity to reaffirm our core shared commitment to a constitutional form of government built on engagement with each other regarding the great issues of our day. Just as an infection can leave a body with enhanced antibodies, so resistance to the tea party movement could well strengthen our democracy and make us better practitioners of a more honest, open, and engaged politics. Amen.
