An (American) political rant
I have lots of thoughts swirling around my mind following a week of political overload since the start of the Democratic convention in Denver last week, continuing right through to the shock announcement of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee.
It’s all been filling the news columns stateside and here in the UK too. It’s hard to get away from it all. Thankfully, that’s just fine for me. Apologies to those of you who try to avoid politics like you do that crazy uncle who’s always there at the big family gathering.
I have to say, the whole Sarah Palin thing has been very strange. To be honest, it feels more like a movie than reality. I’m not quite sure how I see it panning out. She is a complete unknown. And despite what the McCain team say, it’s abundantly clear she was not nearly as fully vetted as Joe Biden was by the Obama team.
Story after story is emerging that I just can’t see helping the Republicans. Hearing a Republican defend her foreign policy experience as being fine because ‘Alaska is near Russia’ was just laughable.
I could well be wrong (I seem to remember that happening once before in 2002 I think), but it strikes me that McCain’s pick of Palin reeks of two things:
1) Throwing a bone to the religious conservatives.
2) Trying to get Hillary’s women supporters on board.
Both of these I find very frustrating. As a Christ-follower myself, I hate the way it feels like so many Christians are being used by the Republican party. Christians on the far right seem to have allowed themselves to be defined by two issues - abortion and homosexuality. And these two issues have become the litmus test and everything else is less significant.
I think this is terrible. I happen to think that things like abortion are important issues. I definitely want to see as few abortions happening as possible (without making abortion illegal). I definitely think that a baby in a womb is a genuine life. This has been made all the more real with my wife, Rachel, being 17 weeks pregnant. However I don’t think this issue is the be all and end all. What about those in poverty? Isn’t that a moral issue? And how about healthcare? Should people be left without cover because they can’t afford it?
These are just two issues, but there are countless others, and I think these too are moral issues the same way abortion and homosexuality are. I hate the idea that Christians are being thrown the bones of comforting views on abortion and homosexuality and then turning a blind eye to all other issues.
As to the Palin pick being also about trying to get Hillary Clinton supporting women on board, I think this is just insulting! It assumes that women were only supporting Hillary because she was a woman and not because they have strong political views. I’m not a woman, but if that was remotely behind the move to pick Palin, I’d be very offended.
I’ve been alarmed at how suddenly the Christian right is now fully jumping on board because of the Palin VP pick. And I’m alarmed at the hypocrisy of some of those representing the Christian right. If Obama had a 17 year old daughter who was pregnant, would this have been James Dobson’s response: “The media is already trying to spin this as evidence that Governor Palin is a hypocrite, but all it really means is that she and her family are human.”? I suspect if this was a Democrat, he’d have been far less gracious. And that’s putting it mildly.
(Having said that, I don’t think that someone’s child should be part of the political debate at all. I’m glad to say Obama came straight out and said this was off-limits.)
A few disclaimers. As those of you who reguarly read my blog know, I’m hoping Obama wins the Presidential election in November. I think his policies are much better than McCain’s and will move America forward far better than McCain could. (Note, I don’t think he’s right on everything by any stretch, just a better option the McCain. I may post on my issues with Obama soon.) At the same time, I don’t begrudge anyone disagreeing with me. There are many good people who will choose to vote for McCain, and that’s fine. My only hope is that it’ll be for comprehensive and all-encompassing policy reasons and not petty ones.
Though I realise my comments are pretty hard-hitting on the Christian right, I am not suggesting every Christian who votes for McCain is a two-issue voter. Just my frustration that that does appear to be the case with a big proportion on the Christian right.
Ok, I’m done.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
First, a video from 2004 that is as funny as it is accurate (the politics section is toward the end) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRqu_KyXygQ
Second, you’ve highlighted exactly why the American system of a two party government is way past its prime and needs to die. Quickly and horribly die. I think there are a lot of people who have strong feelings about both of the hot-button issues you mentioned but also care a great deal about poverty, about ending this ridiculous war, and about providing affordable healthcare. We have no party for people like that and, unfortunately, they (we?) usually find one party pandering to one thing: guilt. It’s far easier to make an American feel guilt about abortion or gay marriage by pointing to the Bible than it is to point to articles in newspapers or internet stories about people and places several time zones away (Some of us are spending more time pointing out the Bible’s commands that concern poverty and caring for one’s neighbor, though).
I will not cast a vote for Obama/Biden. I will not cast a vote for McCain/Palin. A lot of people tell me I’m wasting my vote by voting for someone who isn’t a Democrat or Republican, but consider it my protest and maybe one day soon we’ll have a fairer and more representative multi-party government.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Good thoughts Sam..
I think the pandering is happening on both sides, in all fairness (I’ll be interested to read your difficulties with Obama). But I have a question. Are there certain “moral” issues, as you call them, that should be seen as more central for a Christ-Follower than others?
If we lined up the most prominent issues would there be some more at the core of the redemptive-historical picture than others? For instance (to use absurdity) surely helping the poor is closer to the center than ensuring no one ever speeds on our highways. Both are “goods,” but one is better than the other, isn’t it. And its a better good precisely b/c it is closer to the center and core of the biblical-redemptive storyline. So what issues should be at the center of our thinking and why? If this is the case (that there are more central issues than others) how do we make that determination?
What do you think?
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Here are some thoughts from me.
Religion has no place in politics. Pray for our leaders…but they should not be the ones telling us that we are moral or not if we don’t believe the same things they do.
To be told you aren’t the “right kind of Christian” if you aren’t a conservative Christian is just ridiculous.
Sarah Palin is a joke. Seriously, I am waiting for someone to say…just kidding! I don’t care about her daughter being pregnant. I do care that the republican platform opposes sex education. So, how are these young girls supposed to learn? Oh, abstinence, right. Well, is it the governments job to teach teenagers not to have sex before they’re old enough to deal with the results of that?
As for the thought that women will vote for her because she’s a woman? Insulting indeed. Her being a woman is the only tool the Republicans are using. Do they really think the die hard feminists who were going to vote for Hilary are going to jump ship and vote for McCain now? Or a woman who basically is the polar opposite of everything Hilary stood for?
One more point I will make, because I have personal experience to make it. There is no way, no HOW that any new mother to a special needs child is ready to go on to defend the office of vice presidency, let alone, possible presidency. Even being nearly 5 years into my role as mother to a special needs child, there is no way, unless I were to give my son over to someone else to completely care for, could I hold such a position. To me, as a woman, as a mother, as an American, that shows complete disregard for these family values they hold so dear. It shows poor judgment on McCain’s part that he would offer such a position to someone who should be focused on her children.
Why was Hilary different as a mother and running for president? Because her child is raised, grown woman. Of course she would have had Bill to deal with, but that’s another post.
No vote from me McCain! You blew it big time!
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I was posed an interesting question the other day that I’ve continued to ponder in regards to american politics.
“Does everybody really want the same thing but believe there are different ways to accomplish this, by voting for different candidates or parties?”
I believe the answer to this is No. I think there are vast differences in what people are looking for from government and politicians. As one who finds myself on the very far left, I’m often amazed we’re even talking about the same country as I hear others speaking of this election.
My opinions are neither right nor wrong but different than those with other opinions. I believe my opinions to be as well-informed and open-minded as anyone else who has an opinion.
This being the case I believe there are only two answers for this dilemma we find ourselves in. One, we either choose candidates that populate our representative form of government with the ideals that meet the broadest representation of people - what is the common ground we can all agree on? Or two, we realize that those who believe differently than us will likely never come to ‘our’ side and we make intentional determined moves to separate the country into separate places.
Just as I have no right to impose my values and beliefs on them, they have no right to impose their values and beliefs on me. Nor institute government that keeps me from living in the ways I choose.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:00 pm
My friend sent me the link to your blog, and I have to say that I am not a huge McCain fan, though I admire his views on taxes, national security, and attempts to reach across party lines (sometimes too much), but when I heard his pick for VP, a slight smile grew across my face. Being a mother to two with one on the way, I admire a woman who has found a way to be both a mom and have a career (a demanding one at that). She won the respect of the people of Alaska time and time again to raise up from mayor to governor. It vexes me that liberal, feminists preach to us day in an day out not to stay home with our kids, to shove them into day care from day one to be raised by other people…then criticize a woman who figured out a way to have the best of both worlds.
And to answer your question deana, parents! Parents should teach their children about sex, not the school systems. And to criticize the republican’s for putting up a woman just to pander to women…seriously, why do you think Hillary was running? What? A woman can’t hold a position like that unless she is a liberal? I thought feminism was about the advancement and freedom of all women, not just those with certain political views.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Hillary was running simply to pander to women?
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Don’t you hate it when you write loads and then lose it all?! So frustrating! I’ll try again.
Firstly, thanks for all the comments guys. You’ve raised some great questions and discussion points. Thanks!
Secondly, can we all agree to one thing? That we see each other as fellow humans. We are all more than our political view points. Of course we’re going to disagree about stuff, but let’s seek to do so respectfully, human to human. Politics tends to turn nasty when we depersonalise people. Let’s not see each other by political labels. Is that ok with everyone?
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Matthew - I definitely feel you on the sense that no party fully represents you. Having said that, the question I feel that as to be asked is whether any political party ever can fully represent our views? We have a multi-party system here in the UK and yet there is no one party I fully identify with. Isn’t perhaps the very nature of politics and government such that there’ll always be an element of compromise when it comes to voting?
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Jason - You’re right about some issues being more significant for followers of Christ than others. Having said that, I think your questions actually point to the reality that it is so important that there is a healthy separation between church and state. Things aren’t pretty when the church gets fully into bed with one political party. I am veering towards the view that Christ followers should not be fully attached to any political party. Instead we should treat each voting opportunity as a chance to vet all political options based on the issues that are most important, knowing that there’s no perfect party and there’ll always be an element of compromise.
I’ll come back to the question about issues which I feel are most important.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Deana - Now that was a rant! I think you out did me! The Sarah Palin pick does raise so many questions. It is frustrating to see the McCain camp crying foul over everyone questioning her experience by saying they’re being sexist. You can’t expect to pick an unknown and not have people want to vet her. She could be President of the United States!
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Steve - I definitely think you’re right about people having very different expectations of the role of government. The truth is that this is always going to be messy. There is no perfect political system.
I’ll come back and explore this later.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Hillary,
It’s a beautiful thing about America, I can have my views…and believe with all of my heart that I am right. I can serve the same God you serve, and call myself Democrat. I can be a woman, raising a small child, and being a devoted wife, and working, and be involved with politics, all without being a feminist. Those are my rights, just as much as it’s your right to disagree with all of them. And I truly love this country for that.
I have to say, I think you are arguing the same point I was about who should teach the children about sex. It is NOT the government’s job to do ANY of the teaching. Abstinence, or sex education. My point in saying that, was the Republican party is making such a point of her daughter is “keeping the child” and “marrying the father”. Big deal…why did she get pregnant at the age of 17 in the first place? People will say, “Don’t pick on the poor 17 year old kid”. I agree completely that it was not the choice of her daughter to be in the spotlight…but really why make it such a point? Why are the political pundits using it as a platform to further the parties’ views on pro-life?
And about the statement of liberal feminists who “preach to us day in an day out not to stay home with our kids, to shove them into day care from day one to be raised by other people…then criticize a woman who figured out a way to have the best of both worlds.” What exactly do you think Sarah Palin will be doing on a day to day basis? Do you truly believe she’s going to tote around her 6 month old baby with her to Afghanistan, or to meetings with the president, or foreign leaders? No, she will have aides and nannies raising her children in her absence as she goes about her role in running our country. A noble job indeed, but in my opinion a much higher job is being their for your children…one of which has special needs, and the other which is a pregnant teen.
I brought up the point of being a mother of a SPECIAL NEEDS CHILD. I’m not saying that being a mother limits any woman from being everything she wants to be. But living the life of a mother of a special needs child is something altogether different. And when your baby is that young, you have no idea what life is going to hold. I know this from personal experience. You learn along the way what it is you can and can not handle. Sure she’s been the governor of Alaska, but that’s not being the second in line to one of the most powerful countries on the planet.
And one more thing, such a big deal has been made about how commendable it is that she followed through with her pregnancy of her child with Downs Syndrome on she found out through early screening. If that was me…I would be offended that anyone would assume anything less. Why hasn’t she been commended for keeping the other four? Why is it only a point that she kept the disabled one? Because it makes a point…it presumes that pro-choice people would say is okay to abort a special needs child. That’s disgusting to me.
Sam, you got me going. That’s why I asked yesterday “your politics or ours?”. It always amazes me how interested you are in our politics. But I know that the WORLD is watching us. The WORLD is waiting to see if we as a country will vote to get it right this time. And I pray that we do. I pray we get it right, and restore our name as a country who cares about the whole world. And while neither party has all of the answers, the only way we will fix the mess that the last administration has made, is to TRY. We need to TRY something new. TRY to make amends with world leaders. TRY to fix our healthcare system. TRY to make this world a place our children’s children will enjoy living in. And we can not do that with the same old politics.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Sam, the fact remains that at least in the UK and Germany (& several other countries, of course) you at least have the opportunity to narrow it down a little when it comes to your compromises. I feel left out of this process because neither Obama nor McCain are worthy of my vote and the libertarians and greens are too far out there, along with just about everyone else. Someone please bring back T. Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party
I agree with Deana that we need to try something new to fix what’s been done but I see both candidates as the same old same old.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Hillary - thanks for stopping by, I’m glad your found this blog. I appreciate your thoughts, comments, and honesty. As to the being a working mother, Deana has just replied with some interesting comments, so I’ll just let the conversation unfold around that for now.
I will say that I agree with you about education being the responsibility of parents. We’re having our first child in February and have thought and chatted long and hard about parenting. One of the things we’re both fully agreed on is that we will take responsibility for educating our kids. Sure we’ll use schools, put ultimately it is our responsibility. And I’m going to accept that school will teach my kids some stuff I’ll disagree with. That’s fine. Because we’re educating them. We’ll talk about the things we’re learning. Grapple with why certain things are important. I am really passionate about seeing more resources and training going towards helping parents parent well. I think the church could really take a lead in this area.
I do feel the need to disagree with you about Hillary Clinton. I really don’t think you can put her and Sarah Palin in the same category. Whilst I really didn’t like the tone of much of Hillary’s campaign, I don’t feel her campaign was all about pandering to women. Though obviously she wanted their support. Women joined her campaign because they resonated with her message. I just get a sense that the McCain camp have done this to get some of those women to move to Palin just because she too is a women. And I think that’s somewhat demeaning.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Interesting article in today’s Guardian newspaper: “Palin, with her meat loaf and rifles, reminds us that there are two hopelessly incompatible Americas” - read it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/04/sarahpalin.johnmccain
September 4th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
With that Guardian column in mind, here’s a quote from an e-buddy on another blog:
“How long can a political system remain stable and peaceful when the two sides that dominate it become increasingly contemptuous towards the other, and seem increasingly to be motivated by the desire to humiliate, obliterate and destroy the other?”
September 4th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Yes, that’s going to be interesting. I have a feeling that, particularly if McCain stays behind in the polls, things are going to get really nasty. What do you do when there are two (at least) Americas?
September 4th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
The ideas that Sam and Matthew alluded to were exactly my earlier thoughts…
We are neither united nor making any attempts to reconcile the differences and find the common ground.
One quote I disagree with from the Guardian article:
“The conviction by the left that the right is stupid is one of the defining and least attractive characteristics of contemporary politics.”
I don’t believe it is only the ‘left’ perceiving that the ‘right’ is stupid. People tend to look with condescension on those they disagree with and those whom they have no desire to find common ground with.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Actually Sam, it seems to do the exact opposite. If there are issues that are more central. Then you must choose a party that best represents those central issues, no?
I know people are railing on the 2 party system, but that’s the system we have. And as it stands it seems if there are issues that are more central for a person then they will naturally gravitate to the party that best represents their values. Precisely because no party is perfect.
So the question remains. What are the most central issues for a Christ follower to consider and why? What principles guide our determination of those issues?
September 5th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
When you take Scripture as a whole and the mandate of Christ, there are a few things that jump out for me. I don’t believe God has favourites, but people in these circumstances seem to have a particular space in God’s heart:
- the poor
- the hungry
- widows and orphans
- the oppressed
- the sick
Now, the church is called to champion the plight of these people with or without the help of government. At the same time, it would seem to me that the political party who would do the most for these people would be the most advisable pick.
A couple of other thought I’ll through into the mix:
I don’t believe it is the role of government to legislate morality. For those who are followers of Christ, the emphasis should be on transformation, seeing people changed from the inside out. People who don’t follow Christ are under no moral obligation to obey any of the teaching of Scripture. Of course, every society implements its systems of right and wrong, but this is where it is important to keep church and state separate.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
By the way, the reason the church shouldn’t be in bed with one political party is because you cannot assume that because a party may be more aligned with high priority issues for Christ-followers now that it will stay that way in the future. If you are in bed with a party it is very hard to see things through non-partisan eyes. You end up turning a blind eye to issues that should be central. Something that I think many on the Christian right have done due to being too in bed with the Republican party.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
A new set of questions centers on how one should adjudicate b/t legislation and legislating morality. Clearly there is some overlap, punishment for murder comes to mind. Surely we wouldn’t argue that christ-followers should no longer support legislation making it illegal to murder even though that is a moral issue.
And we’d also say it doesn’t matter what one believes they should still not murder.
So the line of legislating morality doesn’t seem to be as black and white as we might think.
So what principles determine when we crossed that line? Where should that line be located, etc?
September 5th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Sam,
I do have to agree with your thoughts on the the church’s responsibility to care for the community. That is how God intended community to work. We take care of our own, and many churches do just this. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it was the churches from all over the world that came to meet the needs of the people, and stayed for the long haul. Where the government was lacking, the national community stepped in.
On the idea of which party better benefits the poor, the widows, the orphans, the hungry and the oppressed, I would have to say neither. But I would offer up the question: What do you mean by help? There are many different types of help that the government could offer. In my opinion, the way the system is set up today, that government in general breeds dependence instead of empowerment. We’re handing out fish instead of teaching people how to fish. Generation after generation living off the government does not in my opinion equal help.
When I go down to inner city Baltimore, or hang with my girls in Guatemala, I get a sense of hopelessness, an endless cycle of the same old, same old. But when these same people are introduced to programs that provide them with a different way of life, normally offered up by a church or non-profit organization, only then do you begin to see hope. I don’t believe this can be solved by choosing one party over another, because they both seek to bandage a system so broken, it needs to be torn down and rebuilt with the need at the center…not the power sought by whatever party seeks it.
I am not an ignorant conservative. I have my ideals, and those ideals happen to align more closely with one party over another. Sure, I wish we had more to choose from, but the reality is that so far third & fourth parties have never really taken off the ground, and I refuse to waste my vote. In my perfect society, it would work much like it does in Acts 2, where we would care for each other and give freely to one another, not because the government tells us to, but because our hearts reach out of a love we could have only experienced in the love of Christ.
But we don’t live in that perfect society, so I fight for lower taxes, so that I have more to give to people in need. And not just to feed them for a day, but empower them to feed themselves for a lifetime.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Just wondering if you had any thoughts about my questions related to legislating morality in my previous comment. What is the line there? How do we adjudicate b/t legislating morality and just legislation.
Just curious.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I haven’t forgotten about this. Just not yet been able to formulate my thoughts into something concise yet! I’ll give it some more attention over the next few days. In the meantime, if you or anyone else does have some formulated thoughts, I’d love hear them!