Have you noticed how partisan politics has become? I heard an NBC reporter this morning discussing the way the current stimulus package debate has drawn President Obama into partisan politics, despite his pledged desire to bring new bipartisanship to Washington. The reporter pointed out how the same thing happened to Bush, who had pledged to be a "uniter" rather than a divider. He said it just seemed to be part of the fabric of Washington.
I'm concerned with the way partisan loyalties seem to be destroying our ability to treat each other fairly and respectfully. Some conservatives accused Democrats of wanting Bush to fail because of partisan loyalties, and said that was un-American. Now some conservatives say they want Obama to fail. Why was it bad for one and not the other?
Party loyalties often appear to overwhelm objective analysis of issues and positions. For example, when a Republican president led a war against Iraq, some Democrats charged that we had no clear national interest at stake and that we had no clearly defined measure of victory and no exit strategy. When a Democratic president sent troops into Bosnia and Somalia, some Republicans said the exact same thing. To the independent observer, it looked like the real issue may not have been national interest or military strategy; the real issue may have been whether or not the President belonged to your party.
Even worse, it seems that the growing political divide in our country is leading us to demonize our opponents, much the way we demonize our enemies in war. It seems we want to believe the worst about our political opponents. They are the enemy. Since we believe in the truth, they must be enemies of the truth. Since they are enemies of the truth, they must be ignorant of the truth or, worse, liars.
So right-wing pundit, Ann Coulter, writes a book entitled, If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans; and left-wing pundit (now senator), Al Franken, writes one entitled, Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. And each side is thoroughly entertained by one and deeply offended by the other.
Too often when I talk with people about political and social issues, I hear them paint their opponents in harsh, insulting, and combative ways. Friends have called Cheney and Rumsfeld "warmongers." Clinton was a "whoremonger." Bush is "an idiot." Obama "pals around with terrorists." It's rare that I can sit at a table with someone and find they can treat their opponents fairly and respectfully. Can't we question whether the Bush administration's policies were too hawkish without labeling them as inhumane warmongers? Can't we question some of Obama's political associations without making it sound like he plays racquetball with Bin Laden?
I confess that I once engaged in the same sort of rhetoric. And I admit that I still struggle at times to treat my political opponents with respect. But I'm doing much better. I now consider it something of a personal challenge to enter a controversial discussion and find ways to speak politely of opposing positions—and an even greater challenge to describe someone else's positions with the fairness with which I would want them to represent my own views.
Somehow we Christians must learn to speak "with grace" (Col. 4:6), using speech that "gives grace" to those who hear (Eph. 4:29).
You know, the way we do when we discuss our differences in the church . . .
6 comments:
Rob,
A few years ago, my dad told me about a sermon he had liked where you talked about the kind of language that Christians should be using, and you brought out several similar points. As Christians, we simply don't need to be calling anyone "stupid", "moron", "idiot", or worse, because that isn't how Christians talk. Period. Regardless of what party is running things, we should be able to view everyone as being created and loved by God, first and foremost, whether we believe they are trying to serve God or not. Good post.
Mark
That last line said it all.
Hi Rob,
I'm with you in most of your comments. I've been trying to discipline my own speech about these things and encourage others to do likewise. But, a couple of nits to pick.
You say, "Now some conservatives say they want Obama to fail. Why was it bad for one and not the other?"
It seems to me that you have not paid close attention to Limbaugh's comments, but have too readily accepted the media's spin on them. What conservative wouldn't want President Obama to fail in implementing policies that they think will be harmful to the country? I don't know of anyone who has said they want Obama to fail to protect the country or help the economy.
Also, you say, "Can't we question some of Obama's political associations without making it sound like he plays racquetball with Bin Laden?" But the only fault I can find in the "pals around with terrorists" construction is that it would be more accurate to say that he "paled around" with former, yet unrepentant terrorists (Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn). The facts of what Ayers and Dorhn did, and the fact that they have expressed no remorse for these actions, are beyond dispute. However, this issue seems to have little relevance now that the campaign is over and Obama has ascended to the presidency.
Casey Perkins
Mark,
That sounds like something I might have preached from the sermon on the mount. To refuse to call someone "fool" or "raca" because of Jesus' exact words, but to call people "stupid idiots" is to play the same legalistic games for which Jesus was chastising the Pharisees.
Maybe it's okay to think it without saying it? ;-)
Rob
Dean,
Glad to know you popped in! I'm new to this blogging thing. Still watching to see if it's going to be a worthwhile pursuit.
The last line was really my biggest concern. The political hostilities are not nearly as troubling as the partisan attitudes among Christians.
But that's the subject for another blog (whenever I get to it).
Rob
Casey,
Thanks for the comments...and for picking those nits.
I do understand Rush's point, and I don't entirely disagree (though I have grown weary of his strongly partisan and hostile rhetoric--as I am weary of most of what passes in the media for political dialogue). I want Pres. Obama to succeed at stimulating the economy and winning the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and supporting education and improving bipartisan cooperation in goverment, etc. I do not want him to succeed in other aspects of his agenda, including what appears to be a radically pro-choice agenda on abortion.
My point was about the rhetoric used on this subject. First, saying I want a president to fail is inflammatory rhetoric, and I think it is intended to be controversial--our media, right and left, thrives on controversy. But more importantly, I was pointing out how wanting a president to fail was considered a bad thing when the other side was accused of it. Maybe they would have said the same thing: I want Bush to succeed in some things, and not in others. My concern in this post was with the partisan posturing and hostile diatribes on both sides--not to analyze the reasons which might underlie the rhetoric. I enjoy a good debate over political philosophies, but that's not really my purpose in this blog. Here I'm more concerned about Christian attitudes in such debates.
I have shared some of the concerns that have been expressed over some of the more radical people in President Obama's political past (and present for that matter--his nominee for deputy attorney general among them). My concern is with the "palled around" language. It seems to me a deliberately inflammatory way to describe a political association. I once was in an informal prayer group of pastors in Milwaukee, one of whom was a leader of one of the most radical anti-abortion organizations in America. He said things that made me very uncomfortable. We knew each other by name, but our association hardly went beyond meeting to pray about the abortion issue and discuss a city-wide peaceful pro-life event. To say we "palled around" would be a gross exaggeration. I just think we need to raise such concerns in a way that is fair and accurate.
Maybe a way to sum up my concern would just be to say I'd like to see political debates employ the Golden Rule . . . what a radical idea!
Thanks again for the comments.
Rob
Post a Comment