Sunday, January 27, 2008

Jesus and the GOP


As Alabama approaches Super Tuesday, I am reposting my very first entry here. It's still the bedrock of my political feeling at this point.

I must have missed a critical Sunday School lesson somewhere along the way. I know I learned that Jesus loved me. I also remember reading about his kindness to those who were outcasts such as tax collectors and prostitutes. I vividly recall the story of his death and resurrection, his visit to the disciples afterward, and Thomas touching his scars and believing.

But I must have been out the day everyone else read the verse about Jesus registering with the Republican Party and adopting a platform just this side of Barry Goldwater.

It could very well be true. There are plenty of lessons I learned by inference and the example of others rather than in church or from the Bible. This is how I found out God is not too keen on seeing movies at theaters but you can watch them at home anytime. He especially detests smoking but will let gluttony slide. And beer sold on Saturday at 11:59 p.m. is tolerable but on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. it's an abomination.

So it is not altogether unreasonable to deduce - what with the political ads implying so - that Jesus is a Republican. With conservative Christian values, of course.

So, if I'm getting straight what I hear from Christian TV and radio, Jesus is a laissez-faire free-market capitalist who detests government regulation of business. He thinks anyone who considers the environmental impact of manufacturing is a tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing pothead. He's never seen a weapons system he didn't like. He figures cutting government contract deals with cronies is just part of doing business. He thinks poor people are only poor because they're lazy and that they could be success-driven yuppies with cookie-cutter clothes and cookie-cutter houses if they'd just get off their butts.

Had enough sarcasm?

My point is that we all say (I hope!) that God prefers neither dominant party or ideology - Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. But Christians got suckered into acting like He does about thirty years ago, give or take. Before that, evangelicals were largely populists - social conservatives and economic liberals. The Republicans co-opted our vote primarily by opposing abortion and supporting school prayer (without actually doing much about either). We've been a lock for them ever since. But instead of us influencing them, they've influenced us. Evangelicals now support the party line on everything - from the economy to social security to oil policy - simply because the party courted us on two issues, got what they wanted, and comes back wrapped in the flag and God's name every two years to get more.

Should we tell injured parties that corporations must operate unchecked and that over the course of decades market forces alone will eventually make these businesses public benefactors rather than threats? Doubtful. Do we really want to tell our children that we take little thought of the environment they will inherit or the resources we squander? I don't think so.

Yet we do it every time we support politicians who make corporations immune to lawsuits in exchange for campaign support, future board positions, and exotic travel opportunities. We send that message every time we defend energy policies that foul our air and avoid new power sources strictly out of blatant subservience to huge oil conglomerates. And we repeat it every time rights and liberty are eroded in the name of security.

It is wicked and abominable that we allow them to use us in this way.

Am I a Democrat? No way. Their capitulation to the abortion industry and militant secularism is abhorrent. But I refuse to make the blanket judgment that anything that comes out of any Democrat's mouth is wrong. Or, conversely, that everything a Republican says is right. That's utter foolishness. Wisdom is in a multitude of counsel, not in a gang of people who already agree with me.

We should not be married to any party or political ideology. Read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). Can you honestly say - without qualification - that Jesus would be completely endorsed on every count, in practical application, by either side of our system? Not in a million years. And that's because He isn't about warring philosophies or beating the other guy or proving He's right. He's just Himself.

He is the truth - take Him or leave Him. But don't try to graft Him onto your politics. He transcends your ideology. And in many ways He will contradict your ideology. Please remember that the next time a politician tells you he's a God-fearing across-the-board conservative. Sometimes those two things are mutually exclusive.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Please leave comments

.
Please weigh in on this clip of Tony Campolo on a Canadian talk show.

Operators are standing by.



I think Tony's been reading my blog!
.

I hate the horse race

The horse race theme of the presidential candidate coverage reminds me of the guest stars on The Love Boat or the contestants on TattleTales. It's about being famous for being famous. (Seriously, what did Dick Gautier do for a living?) Or, in this case, being in the lead because you've been in the lead. The news coverage is all so self-fulfilling it is frightening.

Even McCain pollster Bill McInturff laments the vicious cycle of the poll-driven nomination process, “Polling affects press coverage, which affects your name recognition, which affects polling.” Which affects voting. When people hear "current front-runner" tacked on to every mention of a candidate's name, it can heavily influence voters to pick the horse who seems to have the best chance of winning.

I'm still convinced this dynamic accounted for Bush winning the GOP nomination in 2000. He was one of the least substantive candidates in the field (he couldn't pick out many countries on a map) but he had constant early press coverage (and the front-runner label) for his gigantic fundraising results as far back as 1998. That gave him a tremendous advantage going into the final year.

I find it ludicrous that the news media treats each individual state as if it's make or break when only two states have even voted! Someone wins Iowa and they are trumpeted as the frontrunner: "Smith Takes the Lead!" Then the same person loses New Hampshire and the headlines scream "Smith Campaign Reeling! Will It Survive?" It's only two states! There are 48 more to go!

I believe there should be a nationwide primary. It would put an end to all the false do-or-die drama and give every candidate a chance to receive votes in every state. This is also important to me because I live in Alabama and our turn comes so late that I can't recall ever having voted in any primary where the nominee hadn't already been decided. At the very least, my preferred candidate as always out of the race by that point.

It would also spare us watching the candidates going from state to state and lying about everything they're going to do just for that state - as if it were their first priority.

Yes, I'm talking to you, Mitt.