Political Life and Faith

First, let me begin with two disclaimers.  1. I fully believe there are politicians who are men and women of sincere and authentic faith.  2. I have no ability to judge the faith of another beyond what I see and whether their words and actions are consistent with their professed faith.  Even that is shaky.

Back in the '80's we lived in Philadelphia and there was a pastor of one of the larger African American Churches who was elected to the House.  He was charismatic.  He was bright.  e was a good "politician" in that he knew how to work with a variety of people to get things done.  He was easily vetted.  Everyone expected he would go far, perhaps even to become the first Black president.  Then one day he resigned.  He said that it was not possible to be a politician and to retain his integrity.  He chose his integrity and he resigned.

Again, I don't doubt that there are some people of faith who retain their integrity in the political process, but it clearly is not an easy task.  The temptations of power are always present.  Doing things the easy way is just easier.  Compromises of character are not the same as political compromises but it is easy to confuse the two.  As I've been watching Rick Santorum, who presents himself as a man of faith and is often touted as such by the Christian Right, I'm struck that his behavior is not very "Christian."  Often, he says things in his campaign speeches that are clearly not true.  Yes, that is what politicians do... but it is not what Christians do, at least not real ones.  By playing that faith card so prominently, he opens himself to that criticism and calls into question his integrity as a Christian and as a human being.

I'm struck too that the reverse is equally true... when people of faith become overly involved in partisan politics, they too risk losing their integrity.  Earlier this week, Franklin Graham was on the television show, Morning Joe, and was asked about the faith of the president.  He wouldn't go so far as to deny Obama's Christianity but at the very least he waffled, saying that he couldn't judge the veracity of another's faith.  And he clearly does not like Obama's politics.  When asked about Santorum, he was sure that he is a Christian.  He volunteered the same knowledge regarding Gingrich.  When the host stated that Graham was revealing an amazing double standard, Graham responded that Obama seems to be more concerned about the Muslims of the world than the "Christians murdered in the Muslim world."   Here's a link to the interview.  And here's a response to Graham from Zachary Bailes, an M. Div. student at Wake Forest, on the Associated Baptist Press.  I don't follow Graham and so don't know whether he still had any integrity in this area, but if he did, he sure blew it in this interview.

Here's the piece that worries me.  I obviously have strong political views (duh!) and even agree with Franklin Graham that my understanding of faith, of who Jesus is, and of his call on my life, must impact my political views.  So, how do I avoid losing my integrity?  Howdo I keep my faith from being so tied into partisan politics that it becomes co-opted?   I try to be honest and to look at the whole picture.  I try to be respectful of opinions that I clearly believe are wrong.  I try to see the strengths and the failings of my own "side" as well as any other.  Still, the risk is real.  The best I can say is that I'm trying to retain my integrity as a person of faith while strongly holding opinions regarding important issues.

The Authority of Faith or If You're Going to be a Catholic, Be a Catholic

I believe in freedom of religion.  I believe politicians can and should vote their consciences and that their consciences should be informed by their faith.  I also don't believe that public policy should be formed around religious preferences.   That basically means that when a politician puts forward a policy that is consonant with their faith, they better also have some good reasons that are outside of their faith.  A foundation in one's faith is not enough to form public policy.

I respect politicians who truly hold their faith, whatever it may be, and live it with authenticity.  I have no respect for politicians who use faith as a wedge between constituencies and I have little respect for politicians who are less than genuine in their commitments.

That brings me to Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, both of who have been playing the "good Roman Catholic" card of late.  Neither is a good Roman Catholic.  Both are ignoring the nature of authority in the Catholic church.  They think and act as if a good Roman Catholic can pick and choose between the teachings of the church and embrace those that fit their own politics or morals while rejecting others.  While in fact, many who call themselves Roman Catholics in the US do just that, it is a difficult place to be when the Catholic Church is built on a hierarchy of authority which cannot be easily ignored.  Juan Cole has an interesting blog piece entitled the Top Ten Roman Catholic Teaching Rick Santorum Rejects While Obsessing about Birth Control where he shows how Santorum does just that.  These two politicians claim to be pro-life and point to their supposed Roman Catholic faith as the foundation for that understanding, all the while ignoring that in Roman Catholic teaching, pro-life is a much broader term that rejects capital punishment, any kind of pre-emptive war, most specific wars including Iraq, and which calls for universal health care, welfare for all needy families...

The first time a politician stands up and says "I am against birth control because I'm a Roman Catholic... and I'm also against capital punishment.  I take Just War Theory seriously and I believe in a safety net that truly provides for the needs and dignity of the poor," I will take that person seriously.  Until then, he or she can't say that they hold a position based on the authority of their church without me laughing at them.  I laugh at Santorum and Gingrich.

Now, there are other kinds of Christians who understand authority very differently.  The Baptist tradition, for example, says that an individual's relationship to God is between them and God.  Authority does not come from a hierarchy but from responsible reflection by the individual and interaction with the Holy.  Without responsible reflection and without relationship to the Holy, there is no authority.  Even when the relationship is authentic, in this tradition, one still cannot generalize the shape or substance of another's relationship with the Holy.  (This is why freedom of religion was an idea that came primarily from the early Baptists).  I know many in this tradition, my tradition, who see things very differently than I do.  Some I respect deeply because their views are based in responsible reflection and in their understanding of their relationships with God.  Others... not so much.

Still other traditions place the authority in the gathered community.  The bottom line is that if one is going to claim religious authority for a particular stand, they had better understand how authority works in that tradition and own the tradition.

why I won't vote for any of the Republicans

OK... anyone who knows me knows that there is a simple answer - BECAUSE THEY'RE REPUBLICANS!  There are clearly some Republican stands that do not work for me.  In my estimation, they are all too quick to throw the poor under the bus and to shred the little safety net we have.  As a party, they have focused on what I think is the wrong issue when they talk about the deficit while what we really need are jobs.  Yes, yes, yes, the Dems are not much better, but they are a little better.  So here are a few of my reasons with each of the four remaining candidates.

Newt...  character counts.  He has none.  We can look at his hypocrisy as he claims to be a "family values" candidate while having done more to sully marriage than anyone I have ever known, read, or read of.  And while involved in despicable behavior, he had the nerve to condemn Bill Clinton for similar acts.  I know he says it was not about the sexual acts but about lying to congress, but when the moderator of the South Carolina debate asked about his behavior with his 2nd wife, he said it was despicable to ask such questions in the midst of a presidential campaign.  Evidently it was fine to ask such questions of a sitting president?!  He claims to have changed.  People do change.  I don't believe him.  His mean-spiritedness through the debates shows that he is the same old Newt.  There are those who talk of him as having "big thoughts" and "great ideas."  When his big thoughts and great ideas include essentially doing away with child labor laws, they sound like terrible ideas and small thoughts to me.

Rick Santorum... I respect a person living their faith and bringing it to play in their politics.  Every single political view that I hold is impacted by my understanding of who Jesus is and what it means to follow him.  That said, Santorum's understanding of what it means to be a Christian is, in significant places, diametrically opposed to mine.  And while I believe one can act ofor public policy changes based on his or her faith, public policy can never find its sole or even primary justification in anyone's faith.  To believe that birth control should be outlawed is so far outside of the mainstream and so far outside of anything that is positive for our country that I can't imagine him being president.  Add to that gender views that take us back at least a century.   I guess I expect more from him since he calls himself a Christian and a Roman Catholic.  When he completely dismisses the rest of the "pro-life" views of his church without a blink, I wonder how much of his political views really are based in faith.

Mitt... First, running a government is not the same as running a business and anyone who thinks it is or should be, doesn't understand government.  Add to that the fact that his role in business was to purchase weak companies, strip them of anything of value, and essentially throw the rest away.  Even if business and government were analogous,  that is not how I want to see government run.  That he is so incredibly rich that he doesn't have to work, makes more in a week off of investments that I do in a decade from work, and seems to see nothing wrong in paying a lower percentage of taxes than the vast majority of the 99% makes me wonder whether he really gets it.  It also seems that he wants this job too bad.  He seems to switch his views depending on what he thinks will get him elected... perhaps not an unusual trait for a politician but still one that I won't vote for if I can help it and it just seems too obvious with him.  I do respect that he gives a much larger percentage of his income to charities than any other politician I know of. 

Ron Paul... he's the one that really scares me.  I don't think the Republican establishment would allow him to win, but I think he is the candidate who would be most able to beat Obama.  Paul's commitment to reduce the role of the military and to end our empire is very attractive to me and to many liberals.  His commitment to enforce the parts of the constitution that protect individuals from the powers of the state likewise is attractive.  His libertarian views regarding drugs also are attractive to many liberals.  His consistency is a wonderful thing in the days of politicians reading polls and changing their views like their ties.  He could strip off many liberal voters who are disenchanted by Obama's militaristic bent or who drank the Koolaid that he is a socialist and expected him to act like one.  He isn't and he hasn't!  At the same time, I think that many Republicans who find those views distasteful would still vote for him just to vote against Obama.   I think he might gain far more than he would lose.  The parts that I don't like about Ron Paul scare me more than the parts I do like entice me... he is commitment to shredding the safety net for the poor, doing away with government involvement in ensuring safe food, water, air, and drugs.  He does not believe government has a role providing an adequate education for all or providing foreign aid that can make a difference in saving the lives of literally millions overseas.  Those views are more than I can take.  Add his racist statements of the past and he is completely off my list too.

When I listen to what each of them envisions for the country, for the world, and look at the stands and characteristics they bring to the table,   none are the kind of leader that I believe we need in this difficult time.  None bring the kind of vision of the future I want to see implemented.

So that leaves me with Obama.   Folk who know me also know that I've never been a huge fan of Obama.  During the Democratic primary I described him to my friends as a centrist and looking at his work in office, that is exactly what he has been... and I'm anything but a centrist politically.  I'm not thrilled... but I like him much, much, much better than any of the above.  I wouldn't vote for a third party candidate even if there was one I loved because I'd be too afraid one of the above might win.

So, given the choices, for me, it's Obama 2012.

compromises

My primary instrument is acoustic guitar and I have two wonderful instruments, both built by Lowden Guitars, an Irish company that builds stunning guitars.  They are not inexpensive but to my ears, they are well worth the cost.   The sound is big, warm, responsive, elegant, and rich.  Guitars though are not very loud as far as instruments go so to be heard in any but the most intimate of settings, they require some kind of amplification.  Any instrument that embodies all of those adjectives is going to be very difficult to capture with any kind of pickup and amplifying it will necessarily involve multiple compromises between accuracy, complexity of the system used to capture the sound, susceptibility to feedback, and the choice of which characteristics of the instrument must be attenuated to play in a louder situation.  I joke that I spent a significant amount on a great guitar only to be faced with multiple compromises when trying to amplify it and significant additional costs.

Getting a good live sound is a huge area of discussion among acoustic players.  For me, the bottom line is always, which compromises am I willing to make?  What characteristics of the sound of my guitar played in my living room am I willing to give up in order to be able to play for an audience of 50 or 100 or 500 people? 

Compromise... is not a popular word in the US these days.  For decades, compromise has been the primary work for politicians.  In a nation growing ever more diverse, their job was to come together and work out deals with which nobody was completely happy but everyone got something they deemed important.  Of course, there have always been instances where folk have had issues about which they could not compromise.  Still, until recent times, politicians did a pretty good job of finding ways past those issues and making deals.

In recent years our culture has become more and more polar.  In politics this has been fed in the primary process where the more extreme voters are likely to participate and many politicians, especially on the right, are pushed towards the extremes just to get nominated.  As those more extreme groups have gained power in the primary process and have enabled some extreme candidates to get elected, they have become more entrenched and less willing to compromise.  For what it's worth, the same thing has happened in religious circles.

Now, here's the piece that has me interested.  A few days ago Glenn Greenwald published a fascinating article in The Salon comparing many of Obama's political stands to those of Ron Paul and traditional liberal stances.  He said the issue was that many liberals are either downplaying the issues where Ron Paul is actually more in line with their beliefs or ignoring them altogether.   The reality here is that progressives are being forced to compromise their views.  They must decide whom they will embrace when one candidate stands for some of their issues and not others while the other candidate is the exact opposite.  I think Greenwald is correct that in large degree the liberals are avoiding a conscious compromise and ignoring those issues where Obama stands in contrast to their historic views.

Coming out of Iowa, the Republicans have a similar dilemma.  Mitt Romeny, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul represent very different understandings of what it means to be a Republican and each would present an extremely different platform for that party in the next election.  None seem to be a happy compromise for them.  Indeed, I think that dis-ease with compromise has been the genesis of the revolving 2nd place candidates as many in the party are not happy with Romney while each option they put forward turns out to be worse.  In any case, they will be forced to compromise, to choose which characteristics they can let go in order to keep some others.  Some, like many in the Tea Party have already said they will not vote for Romney as he would be a compromise with their core principles.   It will be interesting to see where this goes...