Both Divine Justice & Karma

Liberals may despise Cruz, but in one of those ironies common in politics, they know that right now he’s big government’s best friend. Democrats won’t utter the words out loud, but in their hearts they’re chanting, “Go, Ted, Go!” And in quiet moments, as they count their unearned blessings, they dare to dream their secret ally might be the next Republican nominee for president. 

Mark Salter, "Why Democrats Love Ted Cruz (Whom They Despise)"

Just Maybe "The System" Will Win

As we watch events on Capitol Hill with a mixture of disbelief and disgust, an important thing may be happening that is hopeful if tenuous.  From "out here" most of us can see that one key problem in Congress is the breakdown of a system of politics that basically works pretty well most of the time.  It is a process of give-and-take, deal-making, and compromise that is not perfect but still has served the republic reasonably well for a long time now.  Yes, it sometimes leads to corruption.  Important principles and values can get muddied.  On the other hand, it can also produce landmark legislation that changes and improves the lives of our citizens.  It is this process that has broken down in Washington, and while there are a number of factors at work and there is no such thing as an innocent politician, it is also clear that it is the take-no-prisoners intransigence of the tea party faction esp. in the House of Representatives that is driving the breakdown of "politics as usual" in Washington and other places in our nation.

In this context, a posting at Bloomberg.com entitled, "Tea Party’s Ross Says Debt Worth Yielding on Obamacare," could be important—at least one would hope so.  The posting quotes Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Florida) as admitting, "We’ve lost the CR [continuing resolution] battle...We need to move on and take whatever we can find in the debt limit."  Ross apparently still feels that there should be negotiations concerning the debt ceiling, which President Obama has said is not going to happen, but the change in his tone is what is important.  He has shifted from intransigence on the Affordable Care Act to what appears to be a more realistic position.  He is quoted as saying, "There are a whole lot of other issues that haunted us at the election other than Obamacare,” and, “I would hope there’s at least enough of us [Republicans] to constitute a majority of reasonable people that realize we need to give and take."

The tea party began just three years ago with the attitude that the time for compromise was at an end.  Washington had to be coerced into change.  The public at large, however, quickly grew sour on that approach to national politics, and we have already several times witnessed tea party politicians go down in flames because of their radical ideologically driven approach.  The reality of American politics with its many different perspectives, is forcing tea party politicians to learn that they can't get their way long-term unless they are willing to compromise with liberals, moderates, independents, and esp. other conservatives who aren't as right-wing as they are.  Ross apparently is learning that lesson even if others in his faction haven't yet done so.  That is hopeful, as far as it goes.  We desperately need a return to the politics practiced by "reasonable people."

FDR's Long Shadow

In the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the American people to the welfare state as he sought to bring the nation out of the Great Depression.  The counter-intuitive economic principle was that we solve depressions at the national level by spending more not less.  The counter-intuitive social principle was that poverty is not a personal moral issue but, rather, a national moral issue.  The poor, as a class, are not poor because they are lazy (laziness being a quality we find in people of all classes).  The poor are poor because of a lack of opportunity and freedom.  FDR built his New Deal out of forces already at work in American society, but it was he who wove them into the welfare state.

The obvious thing is that large swatches of the American public still cannot or will not think counter-intuitively concerning economics and social classes.  They still believe that in hard economic times the nation must behave "rationally," that is pull in its belt just as any sane family would.  And they still believe that the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor.  Even among the poor, many simply do not accept the fundamental premises on which the welfare state is built.  It does not help matters that the welfare state is also a bureaucratic state and has inevitably introduced new forces of greed, injustice, waste, and just plain stupidity into our lives.  The thing is even in  its bureaucratic guise, it has also managed (until recently) to lift millions of people out of poverty and give them new lives and hope.  It has also employed many of those who have lived in poverty, thereby becoming a direct means of providing jobs for lower income folks.  Bureaucracy, like most things human, cuts both ways.  So does welfare.

Republicans and Democrats represent two sides to the ongoing debate over the welfare state and the bureaucratic state.  Both believe in the fundamental, central American value of personal freedom.  In a manner that is itself counter-intuitive each rightly presses its own "agenda" forward.  One seeks to maintain and even expand the welfare state so that all may be free.  The other seeks to limit and even reduce the welfare state so that all may be free.

The Tea Party introduces a note of discord.  It wants to kill the welfare state.  It has transformed "common sense" (cut spending in hard times & the poor deserve their poverty) into hard and fast ideology.  Tea Partiers want to end the debate and take us back to the golden summer of 1929.  However it all plays out, it is impossible to believe that we will go back.  FDR's shadow is too long.  So long as we remain a democracy, we will keep working at the task of balancing personal freedoms with social justice.  We will keep working on (as Democrats) and wrestling with (as Republicans) the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, and the Great Society.  Only when we cease to be a democracy will that fundamental debate of American society come to an end.

To the extent that the Tea Party seeks to bring the Great American Debate to an end, it is an anti-democratic force for repression.  That is not surprising.  As we listen to its voices what we hear is anger, fear, and a profound ignorance of how society actually works.

The War Between the States - Round III

The Old South

About a month ago, Michael Lind published an insightful piece entitled, "The white South’s last defeat," subtitled, "Hysteria, aggression and gerrymandering are a fading demographic's last hope to maintain political control."  His thesis is that the real political divide in our nation today is not between right and left but, instead, between South and North.  The "Old South" (white, evangelical, & of British-American origins), Lind insists, has continued to exist down to the present and has successfully maintained political control of most of the states of the Confederacy.  Now, however, that dominance is increasingly threatened and has already been lost in Florida and Texas, which have become minority-majority states.  Other regions of the country have historically undergone this same process, and there was considerable political upheaval when they did.  Now, it is the South's turn.  Lind warns us that, "The demographic demise of the white South is going to be traumatic for the nation as a whole." He concludes, "But the old-stock Yankees in the Northeast and Midwest did not accept their diminished status in their own regions without decades of hysteria and aggression and political gerrymandering. The third and final defeat of the white South, its demographic defeat, is likely to be equally prolonged and turbulent. Fasten your seat belts." (The first two defeats of the white South were the Civil War and the civil rights movement).

If Lind is correct, his thesis suggests that we can look at the future in two related ways.  It looks like we should probably feel more pessimistic about the short-term and more optimistic about the long-term.  That's why we have seat belts—to keep us safe in dangerous times.  Let's just hope that our democratic institutions and habits of mind will be sufficiently strong to carry us through.  Amen.

Incarnational Politics

Political commentator Steve Kornacki recently posted an interview he did with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich entitled, "In the real world we were kidding ourselves."  The focus of the interview, obviously, was the results of the 2012 election and what they mean for the Republican Party.  Unlike many Republicans who are not willing to contemplate more than a cosmetic touch-up of their party, Gingrich argues that it must undergo substantial change.  In the course of the interview, Kornacki asked Gingrich, "When you look at the Republican Party’s relationship with African Americans and Hispanics, what is the message you want to deliver to those voters?" Gingrich answered by calling for the Republican Party to undergo "a big rethinking," a "very large fundamental rethinking." He then stated,

The first thing you have to do with African Americans, Latinos, and Asian-Americans and Native Americans is go there. They don’t need to come to you; you need to go to them. And when you go there, listen. Phase one is not going there to tell about you. Why is it we can have entire cities that are disasters, that we can have 500 people getting killed in Chicago, we can have Detroit collapsing, we can have the highest black unemployment teenage in modern history, and no Republican politician can figure out that going there to say, “Gee, shouldn’t we do something to make this better”? And then talk about it jointly, so it becomes a joint product — that it’s not “Let me re-explain conservatism.” I don’t mean to walk away from conservatism, but we need to understand conservatism in the context of people who are talking with us.

This is almost stunning stuff.  In effect, Gingrich is proposing what in theological circles we can only call an incarnational approach to the practice of politics.  In order to become a party of all the people, the Republican Party has to go to the people and not talk at them about conservative principles but listen to them regarding their lives and needs.  Go to listen.  Then, Gingrich proposes, the party has to work collaboratively with the people to address real life problems, such as gun violence in Chicago or the collapse of Detroit.  Finally, he urges conservative Republicans to understand their conservatism in the context of "people who are talking with us."  In short, he is calling for a politics that is dialogical, collaborative, and contextual.  Theologically speaking, he is proposing a Christ-like, incarnational politics.

Two thoughts.  First, we would all benefit immensely if the Republican Party, by some miracle, embraced this path of political renewal.  Gingrich is proposing a set of attitudes and cognitive habits that would influence the whole way the party approached politics—including the way it related to Democrats, women, the LGBT community, and foreign nations.  Imagine a political culture in which both parties behaved according to the incarnational principles espoused by Gingrich!

Second, but back in the real world it is impossible to imagine that such a thing could come to pass as long as the tea party-ist radical right continues to dominate Republican discourse and behavior, such as it does today.  The recent flap over CPAC's failure to invite Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) to speak (see here) is but one reminder of where vocal American conservatism seems to be today.  The radical right's vocal indictment of less right wing Republicans as being RINO (see here) is another.  Only to the extent that the Republican Party can isolate and reduce the influence of its radical, dualistic, our way or the highway wing will it have the opportunity to become what Gingrich envisions for it.

Still, the vision is a noble one.

The Party of Christian America

The trend is deeply troubling and bodes ill for the future of the republic.  In Republican controlled states, we see a trend that attempts to effectively limit voting by minorities, gerrymander districts to maximize the vote of non-minorities, and now to manipulate the electoral vote to reduce the chances a Democrat can be elected by the new Democratic coalition of minorities and women.  All of this is being done quite openly and with one goal in mind: preserve, protect, and expand the power of the right wing of the Republican Party in the face of a fundamental demographic shift taking place in the U.S.

Within roughly 30 years, give or take, the U.S. will be a "majority minority" nation where "people of color" along with Hispanic Americans will comprise the majority of the nation.  The 2012 election has already demonstrated the growing political clout of the emerging minority majority, and it will only grow.  The U.S. Census Bureau observes (here) that, "The U.S. is projected to become a majority-minority nation for the first time in 2043. While the non-Hispanic white population will remain the largest single group, no group will make up a majority." It states that, "All in all, minorities, now 37 percent of the U.S. population, are projected to comprise 57 percent of the population in 2060. (Minorities consist of all but the single-race, non-Hispanic white population.) The total minority population would more than double, from 116.2 million to 241.3 million over the period."  White Americans will lose their status as the majority race in America but remain the largest single minority.  We will also be much less of a Christian nation than now.

In a nation where race still matters, this is scary stuff for a powerful segment of white society.  In effect, that fear has taken over the Republican Party, defining those who do not share in it as RINOs.  We could well rename this new, radical party of the right the "Christian America Party," although not all of its adherents are religious.

It seems inevitable that we are headed for a rocky ride over the next few decades as we collectively navigate the rapids of demographic change in a nation where demographic change matters.  It is to be hoped that our democratic institutions and sensibilities will weather the storms of this change and that we will find our way beyond the Christian America Party's desperate grab for permanent power.

As things stand now, it may succeed in stealing elections, but in the long run it is sealing its own fate.  Generations of Latinos, Asian Americans, and other ethnic-racial minorities will continue to learn what the overwhelming majority of black voters learned two generations ago, namely to vote Democratic as a matter of heritage and habit.  Unless CAP is able to totally corrupt our democratic system, the majority will win out, and the Democratic Party will come to dominant our political landscape in a way neither party does today.  This is not something that any of us should desire.  We desperately need a vigorous but reasonable conservative voice in American politics.  CAP is not that voice.

Will They Listen?

Gen. Powell

"I think the Republican Party right now is having an identity problem. And I’m still a Republican. I’m a Republican who grew up along with George Bush XLI. I grew up with Ronald Reagan, Cap Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, that Republican Party, the Republican Party of Dick Lugar and John Tower. But in recent years, there’s been a significant shift to the right and we have seen what that shift has produced, two losing presidential campaigns. I think what the Republican Party needs to do now is take a very hard look at itself and understand that the country has changed. The country is changing demographically. And if the Republican Party does not change along with that demographic, they’re going to be in trouble. And so, when we see that in one more generation, the minorities of America, African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans will be the majority of the country, you can’t go around saying we don’t want to have a solid immigration policy. We’re going to dismiss the 47 percent. We are going to make it hard for these minorities to vote as they did in the last election. What did that produce? The court struck most of that down and most importantly, it caused people to turn out and stand in line because these Republicans were trying to keep us from voting. There’s also a dark-- a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the Party. What do I mean by that? What I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that? When I see a former governor say that the president is shuckin’ and jivin’, that’s a racial era slave term. When I see another former governor after the president’s first debate where he didn’t do very well, says that the president was lazy. He didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well, he said he was lazy. Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans but to those of us who are African-Americans, the second word is shiftless and then there’s a third word that goes along with it.  Birther, the whole Birther Movement. Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the Party? I think the Party has to take a look at itself. It has to take a look at its responsibilities for health care. It has to take a look at immigration. It has to take a look at those less fortunate than us. The Party has gathered unto itself a reputation that it is the party of the rich. It is the party of lower taxes. But there are a lot of people who are lower down the food chain, the economic chain, who are also paying lots of taxes relative to their income and they need help. We need more education work being done in this country. We need a solid immigration policy. We have to look at climate change. There are a lot of things that the American people are expecting and the Republican Party, as they get ready for the next election, really has to focus on some of these issues and not ignore them. Everybody wants to talk about who’s going to be the candidate. You better think first about what’s the party they’re actually going to represent. If it’s just going to represent the far right-wing of the political spectrum, I think the Party is in difficulty. I’m a moderate but I’m still a Republican, that’s how I was raised. And until I voted for Mister Obama twice, I had voted for seven straight Republican presidents."

General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State

January 13, 2013

"Meet the Press"

The Shadow of Slavery

Yesterday, January 21, 2013, President Obama delivered his second inaugural address to a crowd estimated at roughly one million souls.  Only time will tell whether or not it will become one of the better remembered inaugural addresses, but whether it stands the test of time or not it is a well-thought out testimony to enduring themes in our nation's life.  It is an articulate meditation on liberal values and a deft summary of the President's vision for the country and of his agenda for his second term.  It is worthy of our reflection and response—worthy of some quiet time reading and meditating.

Different ears will hear different things in the speech.  For me three words leapt from the text: equality, dignity, and change.  I could not but feel that the institution of chattel slavery cast its long, sad shadow across the speech and the day.  We are not shut of slavery nor of the racism that sustained it for more than two hundred brutal, bloody years.  The struggle for civil rights and economic justice suffuse nearly every paragraph of the President's speech, and undergirding them are three things that freedom-starved slaves longed for: equality, dignity, and change.  Racists of every generation including our own resist these same values, or rather reserve them for "their kind" and "their people."  The loathing that Mr. Obama has had to suffer through is a measure of the lingering voice of the slave holders who still, still, still cannot abide the freedom granted their former slaves by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  The echoes of Dr. King in his address is the lingering voice of the descendants of slaves who themselves were still not free.  In the last fifty years, we have come a long way, but the President is correct.  No achievement is final, no victory is forever, and our journey is not complete so long as people of color, women, and gays have not achieved full equality and dignity.  Until that day, we must continue to seek change.

Most of us have been intensely disappointed by the politics practiced on Capitol Hill and in many of our state capitals since the election of President Obama in 2008.  It is painful to watch one of our two major parties, a pillar of our democracy, taken hostage by absolutist ideologues.  It has been sad to witness the President's honest attempts to enter into dialogue and cooperation slapped away in a manner that dripped with disdain and disrespect.  Birtherism is a stain on our national conscience, a reminder that equality and dignity are still being contested in our time.  We really do need to change.

That being said, it is also remarkable that we re-elected a "person of color" to a second term of office in spite of the obstacles thrown in his way by those who calculated that they could bring him down by practicing the "politics of 'no'."  It is remarkable that a descendant of slaves stood before us yesterday and called on us to continue the journey.  Slavery still casts its long shadow across our nation, but it is a shadow.  And, as I think about it, perhaps in our generation we are more blessed than harmed by that shadow because it has forced us to see that equality is something that we must grant not just to light-skinned straight men.  Mr. Obama began his address by recalling the Declaration of Independence's bold proclamation that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."  They are also the unalienable rights of women, gays, Muslim Americans, and immigrants from Latin America.  They are also the rights of children who suffer abuse and families that struggle to make ends meet.  Equality.  Dignity.  Change.

Perhaps, just perhaps, lurking within the shadow of slavery is the Spirit working, working, working for the Kingdom.  Our faith encourages us to believe it is so.  Amen.

Dialogue, Listening, & Politics Revisited

"Political Dialogue"

Anderzej Dudzinski

Immediately after the election back in November, I argued the thesis (here) that in order for our politics to improve politicians need to learn the art of dialogue.  I defined dialogue as an exercise in listening before speaking in order to understand the partner.  It is based on humility and mutual respect, and its goal is the making of peace. The question I posed for Congress was whether or not "it can discover a politics of dialogue."

Now, I understand that this sounds naïve given the reality of early 21st century American politics, especially on Capitol Hill, but I don't think it is.  John Ward has recently written an article entitled, "Republican Party Path Back From 2012 Election Requires Shift In Culture, Not Just Tactics," which puts forward the thesis that the reason the Obama team proved so effective in the last election was because it cultivated the art of listening.  He contrasts this approach to politics with the Romney campaign, which talked at the public without any attempt to listen to it.  Ward concludes, "In the end, the Obama crew wedded astute listening to a magnificent ground game built on technology and data, completely outclassing the Romney campaign by increasing turnout, particularly among minorities and youth, in key swing states."

In other words, the Obama folks practiced the politics of dialogue.  They listened before they spoke.  The cynical come back, of course, is that they listened only so they could be more persuasive in their presentations.  That, undoubtedly, is true.  On the other hand, those who cultivate listening skills cannot go unaffected by what they hear.  Listening, if it really is listening, is an other-oriented skill that will not leave the practitioner unchanged.  Or, to put that more positively, those who practice listening will be changed by what they hear, and what they say will be affected by what they hear.  That is dialogue, or at least the beginnings of dialogue.

The point to be made here is that dialogue is a spiritual discipline.  When we practice dialogue rather than debate or discuss issues, we bring ourselves just a little closer to being what God is creating us to be.  From a strictly Christian theological perspective, it may be said that dialogue is a Spirit-infested exercise in peacemaking.  It is inspired human listening and speaking—even when practiced for political gain.  There is such a thing as good politics, and dialogical listening is the foundation on which that politics rests.  Amen.

Hearing Other Voices

The reelection of President Obama and the general electoral success of the Democratic Party has, as most of us know, sent shock waves through American conservatism, which apparently was convinced that its big wins in 2010 were the beginning of a trend rather than just one more oscillation in current American voting patterns.  Lots of things are happening on the Right, some hopeful, some troubling.  One of the hopeful things is that some conservative evangelical Christians are thinking more critically about the way they relate to the rest of us.  In what almost amounts to a confession of sin, for example, Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, is calling on evangelicals (here) to approach those who are not evangelical more moderately and with more humility.  Evangelicals, he argues, should stop looking on their neighbors of other persuasions through the lens of hot button issues such as abortion and homosexuality.  He is particularly disturbed at the rising tide of gay marriage and suggests that evangelicals have contributed to the decline in "traditional" marriage by their intransigent behaviors.

Even a decade ago American evangelicalism was riding the crest of a wave of popularity and enthusiasm, but recent trends have not treated the movement well.  Its juggernaut denominations are no longer growing as they once did.  The megachurch phenomenon has proven to be a two-edged sword with even its most ardent supporters now reflecting on its limitations.  And it has become increasingly clear that the collective decision to become a de facto wing of the Republican Party has harmed evangelicalism more than helped it.

So, we are hearing other evangelical voices.  These voices are more conciliatory, less dogmatic.  One wonders if the time is coming when at least some evangelicals and ecumenicals will find common ground for increased dialogue and even cooperation.  The evangelical-ecumenical split affects us all in our local communities.  Could there be some healing take place?  Will those of us on the left bank even be willing to engage in such a thing?  Is all of this just a momentary blip caused by the shock of a lost election, the effects of which will soon go away?  Perhaps little will come of this new opening, but perhaps the Spirit can quietly make more of it than we otherwise will.  That's a prayer.  Amen.

Theology & American Politics Today - a postscript

In the previous two postings, I've argued that a powerful wing of the Republican Party today is mired in ideological idolatry, which necessarily blinds them to the realities of early 21st century American politics.  Idolatry in all of its forms is self-defeating.  Theologically, it stands under divine judgment, which is here understood to mean that its failure is planted in the very nature of who we are as human beings.  Gravity causes things to drop.  Idolatry causes people and movements to fail.  To the extent that the Republican Party remains trapped in an ultra-right ideology, to just that extent it will inevitably dwindle into irrelevance.  False gods always bite the hands that worship them.

Writing for CNN, commentator Will Marshall has just written an article entitled, "The GOP's real problem is ideology."  Marshall points out the unmistakable consequences of putting ideology before reality, which ended with the Republicans' failure to capitalize on an economic environment in which they "could not lose" and lost.  Rendered majestically tone deaf by their ideology, they went out of their way to alienate African Americans, Latinos, and many women.  Marshall concludes, "A conservative governing philosophy centered on exploiting white voters' sense of cultural dispossession is a formula for political marginalization, if not demographic suicide. Any honest post-mortem of the 2012 election should lead Republican strategists to this inescapable conclusion: It's the ideology, stupid."

If, however, we visit the right wing websites, we hear very little of this kind of reflection.  There, the commentary is more largely (but by no means entirely) marked by finger pointing, denial, animosity directed at President Obama, and a protective insistence that "conservative principles" were not at fault in Republican losses (see here for one example).  A lot of the blame is falling on Governor Romney.  The word "scapegoat" comes to mind.

In sum, the theological doctrines of judgment and idolatry are important analytical tools that provide important insights into the real world of American politics.  One wishes it was otherwise.  But it isn't.

Theology & American Politics Today (ii)

Picking up from the last posting, the focus of much of the political commentary since last Tuesday has been on the Republican Party.  How will it respond to its losses, which were serious and totally unexpected by party leaders, pundits, and faithful?  There is the hope that it will learn its lesson and shift back to the center at least enough so that it can advocate a less abrasive and radical conservatism.  There is the fear that it can't and that we will continue to be plagued by asymmetrical politics.  Stated theologically, there is the hope that the party will learn the lessons of idolatry and will move away from the hardline ideology in which is has been mired for some years now.  The statement, "This is not your grandparents' Republican Party," reflects the reality of how far to the hard right the party has fallen. The predominant portion worships uncritically at the feet of Conservatism.  The religious fundamentalism of the Evangelical Right gives this idolatry a religious fervor, one of the key marks of idolatry being the worship of a false idol.  The racial fear of people of color, the Other so potently symbolized by President Obama, is an idol in itself and powerfully contributes to the Idol of Conservatism worshipped by the dominant wing of today's Republican Party.

Much of the Republican Party appears to live in a bubble because it does live in a bubble.  Its faithful live in an alternative reality where their hard right version of conservatism fed by religious fundamentalism and white racism is god-like, and the god their religious wing preaches is a piece of their idolatry.  The Republican Party was not like this in the past.  The Democratic Party, for all of its obvious flaws, is not like this today, although the possibility that it could be is always with us.  Inside the bubble of right wing idolatry, the president is an anti-christ figure.  He is not the legitimate president.  He is a Muslim born in Kenya.  He is a socialist who doesn't understand how the "real" America works.  He is incompetent and lazy (meaning, of course, he is a person of color).  His followers are ignoramuses or only interested in living off the government "teat"—"they" just want "stuff" (meaning, of course, they too are people of color).  Thus, the 2012 election's results are mind-boggling to the idolatrous hardcore Right that is so powerful in the Republican Party.  Its faithful are fervently convinced that the real America of their forefathers is dying.

Idolatry is always insidious and always carries its own judgment.  The political ideology that infects a powerful wing of the Republican Party cannot be sustained in the long run.  As a form of idolatry, it is self-defeating and self-destructive.  The thing that is not comforting is that idols fall hard and in the process cause significant collateral damage.  What could happen is that the hard right wing of the Republican Party will refuse to budge politically or practice compromise, and the demographic realities of 21st century America will inexorably squeeze it into a smaller and smaller space until eventually it will become irrelevant.  But the process will take time.  Each election cycle the Republican Party as it is today will shrivel a little more.  As some have already observed, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and Ohio will become solid blue states.  The new swing states will be places like Texas, Arizona, and Georgia.  The electoral college math suggests that it will become harder and harder for a Republican to win the presidency.  The Congress will eventually become lopsided with Democrats.  And the real debate in American politics will be between liberal and conservative blue dog Democrats with a rump Republican Party sometimes allying itself with the blue dogs.

Or, perhaps, the Republican Party can shake the party loose from its idolatry, and we can return to true, fruitful two party politics.  This could well happen.  Certainly, right now there is a sense that the Republicans could loosen up their doctrine of "new no taxes" and could accept some kind of meaningful immigration reform measure.  Some powerful Republicans, at least, heard the message that the public is tired of all the fighting and wants a Washington that works effectively and cooperatively.  This second scenario is preferable, but given where the party is today not certain.  Idols fall hard.  Their faithful will not, cannot live outside the bubble.  They cannot compromise their principles.  They honestly believe that their  political opponents are inherently evil.  And the realities of 21st century America will eventually bring their god crashing down, but it will take time and there will be a good deal of damage done to the very fabric of our nation.

The matter hangs in the balance.  Idols are powerful, and a wing of the Republican Party will not learn the lessons of defeat.  They will continue to live inside the bubble, and their intransigence threatens the whole party with decline and eventual irrelevance on the national scene.  There is another wing, however, that can live outside of the bubble and learn the hard lessons of last Tuesday.  The key is compromise and humility.  Real-world politics requires compromise and a pinch of humility.  If the Republican Party can shake itself free of doctrinaire politics ("no new taxes" politics), it can reverse the otherwise inevitable demographic decline that threatens it today—if.  But, we should never forget that idols fall hard.

The Politics of Dialogue

"Political Dialogue"

Anderzej Dudzinski

In the wake of Tuesday's election, the initial signs of what's coming next in Washington are mixed and uncertain.  The raise a couple of important questions.  Will the liberals headed to or headed back to D.C. learn a modicum of moderation and not over-interpret their "mandate," which doesn't seem to be a mandate to be liberal fundamentalists?  Will esp. the tea party radicals learn the true art of politics, namely compromise for the sake of the common good?  There are some sound bites coming out of House Republicans that suggest that "seeking common ground" is now possible.  There are others that seem to be saying, "We won, too, which means our mandate to resist compromise in all forms has been reaffirmed by our constituents."

In religious circles, there is n important spiritual discipline called "dialogue."  Dialogue is an exercise in listening before speaking that seeks deeper understanding of the dialogue partner's faith.  It is a spiritual exercise in peacemaking.  Dialogue requires humility and respect.  It also requires a critical mind and heart, which listen critically to one's own words as well the words of the partner.  Dialogue is the true opposite of debate.  Dialogue is thus not a search for common ground per se.  It is only a search for deeper understanding that balances self-interest with other-interest where debate is a clash of two opposing self-interests.  In debate, one listens to discover the weaknesses of one's opponent.  In dialogue, one listens to discover oneself in the spirituality of another.  In dialogue, we are always the student first and maybe a modest teacher later—maybe.  Dialogue is not give and take; it is give and receive.

That being said, the crucial question for the Congress of the United States from this day forward is whether or not it can discover a politics of dialogue.  Can it, at least, move slightly in that direction?  Can esp. the tea party fundamentalists discover the essential dialogical truths of politics that the common good trumps ideological purity and that compromise is a good thing when practiced with integrity and a concern for that common good?  Those are dialogical values.  They are also good politics.  Good politics requires some degree of humility and a modicum of willingness to listen, really seriously listen to the way one's political opponent loves America and wants to serve the nation.  Modest liberals, moderates, and conservatives come equipped with dialogical attitudes—or, at least, there is a decent chance they come so equipped.  Fundamentalists of all stripes do not.  In the Congress today, the scale is tipped heavily toward right-wing fundamentalists who worship at the feet of ideological purity.  In their purity, they show open disdain for the practice of good politics and and their opponents.  The gridlock in Washington will be broken only to the extent that these fundamentalists learn at least a little of the spiritual discipline of dialogue.  Amen.

Todd Is At It Again

RPK's "old friend," Rep. Todd Akin (R - MO) is at it again.  Just a year ago, he stirred up controversy over his assertion that liberals hate God and want to replace God with big government (see here).  Although Akin gave a half-hearted apology, he refused to meet with liberal clergy from his own district and successfully waited the whole thing out.  In fact, we can suspect that his stand against the liberals actually gave him further credit with his own base and didn't hurt in the least in his successful bid to become the GOP candidate for the U. S. Senate in this year's election.

Akin is at it again, as most readers know.  His use of the term "legitimate rape" and stated belief that women who are "legitimately raped" seldom become pregnant has set off a fire storm, primarily on the left but even from members of his own party.  There were widespread calls from within the Republican Party for his resignation, while Democrats have been keeping their fingers crossed in hopes that he would refuse.  And Akin has.  He issued an apology, and has avowed that he intends to fight on.  We can assume that he thinks that he can wait this one out too.  The dust will settle.  The media will go on to something else.  MSNBC commentators will find something else to rant about.  And he can resume his potent challenge for the senate seat in Missouri.

Let's face it.  He may be right.  But, somethings are different his time.  In the short run, he has given the Democrats an opportunity to force Romney off message yet again.  Every day, every week that they can divert him from his attacks on President Obama's fiscal record is a good day, a good week for the Democrats.  He has also managed to reignite the "Republicans are anti-women" theme, which seemed to have gone quiet. And he has drawn attention to the Republican Party's radical anti-abortion stance, which seeks to criminalize abortions for virtually every case—including rape and incest.  Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, is among those suddenly thrown on the defensive.  This is not, we can be sure, the lead-up to their national convention that the Republican leadership planned for.  It is not the way they wanted to go into the fall campaign, which begins in just days now.  And Rep. Akin's refusal to resign has been a gift from heaven for the Democrats, who can continue to bring this sore subject up, time and again.  In the long run, it may not matter—but, it adds to the sense that the Republicans don't have their house in order and are doing everything they can to blow the coming presidential election.  We'll see.

The point here, however, is a different one.  Mr. Akin, it turns out, is a committed fundamentalist Christian and even has theological training.  The reason he steps on these land mines is partly because he is a true believer who feels an obligation to speak the truth as he sees it.  He honestly believes that liberals including even liberal Christians hate God.  He honestly believes that there are "illegitimate" rapes and that few women suffer serious consequences from being raped—or, he did.  Maybe he has actually learned differently from his gaffe.  Like many of the tea party right, he is engaged in a spiritual war against the enemies of God, which include his political opponents.  One wonders when the large majority of Americans will realize that the the threat of radicalism does not come from the left these days—certainly not from a pragmatic President who has upset the liberal wing of his party on more than one occasion.  It is the radical right that is the real threat to our democracy today, and Rep. Akin is a prime example of that threat.

A Hero

I first became aware of Tammy Duckworth when she first ran for congress in Illinois in 2006 and narrowly lost to her Republican opponent.  I don't think I'm alone in finding Duckworth's story a compelling one.  She served in Iraq as a major in the army and a helicopter pilot who lost both of her legs after being shot down.  An added attraction for me personally is that she was born in Bangkok, Thailand, and like my own daughters has a farang (Western) father and a Thai mother.  She's only a decade older than our oldest daughter.

Duckworth is now running for Congress again, this time against a tea party radical by the name of Joe Walsh (R - IL).  The race has gained some national attention because Walsh has criticized Duckworth for supposedly constantly mentioning her military service and sacrifice (see here).  In the process, he has called her heroism into question.  In light of his criticism of Duckworth, reporter Rick Newman has posted an article entitled, "What Joe Walsh Needs to Know About Tammy Duckworth," which describes her true heroism.  Being shot down, Newman writes, is not what qualifies her for that title.  Rebuilding her life in the face of horrific pain and daunting challenges does. I would recommend readers of Rom Phra Khun take a few minutes to read Newman's description of Tammy Duckworth's heroic struggle to regain her life.

 In my humble opinion, the United States will be better off if the voters of the Eighth District of Illinois replace Joe Walsh with Tammy Duckworth.

If Duckworth does unseat Walsh, she will be the second person of Thai descent to have served in the U. S. Congress.  The first, interestingly enough, served only briefly in 2010.  He is Charles Djou, a Republican who won a special election in Hawaii's First District in 2010 but then lost his seat in the general election of 2010.  He is running for it again this year.

Undocumented Political Rhetoric

A recent study by Drs. Peter Dreier of Occidental College and Christopher R. Martin of the University of Northern Iowa is entitled, "“Job Killers in the News: Allegations without Verification”. According to their report on their research findings, this study "analyzes the frequency of the term "job killer" in four mainstream news media since 1984." How was the term "job killer" used by the Associated Press, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post? Did these four media outlets verify claims that certain programs or policies would "kill jobs"?  Dreier and Martin found that the charge "job killer" is used largely for political purposes.  Its use has nothing to do with whether the economy is in decline or not.  The conservative Wall Street Journal "was the most likely of the four news organizations to deploy 'job killer' as conventional wisdom, with no attribution."

Most often, the term "job killer" was used by Republicans and business against governmental measures to regulate business.  And, "in 91.6% of the stories alleging that a government policy was or would be a 'job killer,' the media failed to cite any evidence for this claim or to quote an authoritative source with any evidence for these claims."  Some "job killing" news articles posted by these news agencies spread rapidly across the Internet.  The authors concluded that these four news agencies were actually promoting a Republican and business political agenda in their use of the term "job killer" without verifying or documenting the truth of their political allegations.

Nine times out of ten the charge that a bill, law, or policy "kills jobs' there is no substantiation to back up the claim—no data, no facts, and no authoritative sources are cited.  It is enough for political pranksters to shout, "job killer" in the crowded room of American politics to send the media, at least, stampeding for the doors.  Perhaps we should focus less on the supposed dangers of undocumented workers to our economy and give more attention on the very real danger of undocumented political rhetoric to our politics.

Two Viewpoints

"I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view. I've said many times through this campaign that one of the things I hope to do is to help build a conservative majority in the United States Senate and continue to help the House build a Republican majority and have a Republican White House and then bipartisanship becomes having Democrats come our way."

Indiana Republican Senate nominee Richard Mourdock

May 9, 2012, on "Fox & Friends"

“I’ve said it many times, this is a historic time, and the most powerful people in both parties are so opposed to one another that one side simply has to win out over the other.”

Richard Mourdock

Quoted in the New York Times, May 8, 2012

"If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it."

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)

Statement on his primary defeat to Richard Mourdock, May 9, 2012

Revivalism & the Way We Elect Presidents

2008 National Democratic Convention

In a posting replete with partisan rancor, entitled, "With 'hope and change,' Obama misled America," the chair of the National Republican Committee observes that presidential candidate Obama fooled the electorate into thinking that he is a moderate when in fact he is a flaming liberal. In the process, he has failed to keep his promises and has turned into an ugly partisan politician. Talk about the pot complaining about the soot on the kettle! Supporters of the president have another set of talking points in defense of the president, and most of the time it is impossible to tell that Republican and Democratic partisans are even talking about the same man.

That being said, there is apparently a measurable decline in enthusiasm for President Obama, which is hardly surprising given the revivalistic style of electioneering expected of all presidential candidates. The only viable path to election is to create an unrealistic, emotion-charged atmosphere of enthusiasm promising a level of change no president can actually achieve in office. Once elected, reality sets in, and it is a battle-scarred incumbent who must come back to seek reelection. President Obama, in fact, has kept many of his promises including winding down the Iraq War. In other cases, circumstances have frustrated his attempts to keep promises, some of which proved unrealistic to begin with. If we step away from the atmosphere of hateful political rhetoric of our day, we have seen him make mistakes at points, do exactly the right thing at others, and grow into the office. The same could be said for both Bush presidencies and for most others.  The thing is that we can disagree with a president's policies without demonizing the president and engaging in the politics of polarization in the process.

What has happened is that we have appropriated the American revivalistic tradition, grounded in religious zeal and fervor, for the conduct national political campaigns. Where nineteenth-century revivalists appealed to the hearts of their congregations while excoriating the devil, politicians now appeal to the emotions of their followers while demonizing their opponents. Whatever its uses religiously, revivalism is not a healthy model for deciding who should be president, and it is bound to lead to disappointment and a disillusioned electorate.  It is also one of the sources of the poisonous political environment we are struggling with today by which candidates cannot concede the goodness of their opponents or their own limitations.  They instead must play this game in which one side is virtuous and the other evil.  It is not a coincidence that some of those who overtly draw on religion as their motive power as politicians are also among the most able demonizers of their opponents, witness former candidates Santorum and Bachmann and almost candidate Palin.

It's been said before and will be said again: there has to be a better way.

In Defense of the President for Another Reason

In the last couple of days, the word "appeasement" has found its way back into our vocabulary.  Several Republican candidates for the presidency have charged that President Obama's foreign policy amounts to appeasement of terrorists and other enemies of our nation.  The word, of course, conjures up the image of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain failing to stand up to fascism prior to World War II. The charge, then, is that the President of the United States is selling out his nation by caving in to America's foreign enemies.  The President's defenders have jumped all over the inappropriateness of the charge, rightly pointing out not only that it is in and of itself ludicrous but also that it tends to undermine national security by projecting a lack of national support for our foreign policy among key national leaders.  The President himself offered a brief but effective comeback, stating (here), ""Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that."

The President's Republican detractors also decry the his supposed failure to be tough on Iran without being able to offer any constructive alternatives themselves.  Their one suggestion is that the President should declare his unwillingness to negotiate with the Iranian government, which on the face of it makes no sense at all.  IF the goal of our foreign policy is to promote our own national security in the framework of a more peaceful world, it seems only logical that we should be willing to talk to anybody, anytime if such talks could meet these ends.  And in the world's eyes, we will always look stronger if we are willing to talk.  The President has kept enough American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and sent enough drones to assassinate enough terrorist leaders to render charges of weakness and appeasement silly.

But, from what might be a Christian perspective, it is the President's termination of our post-9/11 guns blazing cowboy foreign policy that deserves true recognition, most notably in the case of Libya.  Projecting the right balance of power and restraint, President Obama dealt with a people's revolution, a tyrant, and a potentially explosive international situation in pretty much the right way.  Violence is always to be regretted, and the ethical question of its use is always a subject for theological debate.  In that debate, there is a case to be made for the near term use of limited amounts of violence as a means for promoting a less violent world for the long term.  President Obama's foreign policy reflects that approach, and he certainly deserves credit for effectively creating conditions that are more likely to make the world less violent and our nation thereby more secure.  Whether or not he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize when he won it, he surely does now.

These Are Sad Times

Comments that Rep. Todd Akin, Republican of Missouri, made in a recent radio interview are beginning to catch fire in the media and threaten to "go viral."  In response to a question about NBC's leaving "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance recently, Akin observed that, "Well, I think NBC has a long record of being very liberal and at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God. And so they’ve had a long history of not being at all favorable toward many of the things that have been such a blessing to our country." Akin is currently seeking the Republican nomination for the Senate seat now held by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D - MO).

Missouri Democrats have grabbed onto Todd's comment hoping to use it to their political advantage. Meanwhile, progressive Christian and Jewish leaders are defending their faith in the face of what they take to be Todd's ignorance and prejudice.  While the reactions of both Democrats and progressive religious folks are understandable, there is something painfully sad about the whole incident.

Rep. Akin's comments and his later reaffirmation of them are but a further revelation of the fearful anger that is so prevalent in our national life today.  We see it in the tea party movement.  We see it in the debates over abortion, gay rights, and even raising the ceiling on the national debt.  An important element of our population is frightened and angry.  People who think differently are no longer neighbors but enemies of the nation—and of God.  And while the fear and anger seems to be especially strong on the right wing of our politics, the left wing reacts in kind, fans it, and seeks to use it to political advantage where it can.  Prejudice breeds fear, fear breeds anger, anger breeds but deeper prejudice, and the whole vicious cycle fractures our political system—renders it ineffectual.

And in it all, the actual teachings of Jesus are lost to all of us including those who sincerely intend to defend those teachings.  When Rep. Akin speaks about liberals, we do not hear in his voice the love for neighbor that Christ taught.  It is a simple truth, we defend Christ only when we speak with kindness, love, and a willingness to forgive and be reconciled.  These are the fundamental values of the New Testament.  What is truly sad is that Rep. Akin is a seminary graduate—Presbyterian no less—and knows all of this.  Somewhere along the line, however, his politics seems to have trumped his faith, at least in his rhetoric.  And one can only wonder how Rep. Todd thinks he is qualified to represent the liberal residents of Missouri in the Senate, if elected to that high office.  That, after all, is what he must do if elected—represent all of his constituents liberal as well as conservative.  How can he possibly represent the hundreds of thousands of Missourians that he believes are God-haters?  How can he practice the art of compromise in the Senate if he is convinced that liberal Democrats from places like New York are enemies of his faith and his nation?  These are sad times.

Sources for this posting:

• Wikipedia, "Todd Akin"
• The State Column, "Rep. Todd Akin: Liberals have “hatred for God”
• PoliticMo, "Akin: Liberalism centered on “hatred for God"
• PoliticMo, "Akin defends comments saying “liberalism” hates God"