Jim WallisGod's Politics: A Better Option
Why can’t we talk about religion and politics? These are the
two topics you are not supposed to discuss in polite company.
Don’t break up the dinner party by bringing up either of these
subjects! That’s the conventional wisdom. Why? Perhaps it’s
because these topics are too important and too potentially
divisive, or because they raise issues of core values and
ultimate concerns that make us uncomfortable.
All over the country I feel the hunger for a fuller, deeper,
and richer conversation about religion in public life, about
faith and politics. It’s a discussion that we don’t always hear
in America today. Sometimes the most strident and narrow voices
are the loudest, and more progressive, prophetic, and healing
religion often gets missed. But the good news is about how all
that is changing.
Abraham Lincoln had it right. Our task should not be to
invoke religion and the name of God by claiming God’s blessing
and endorsement for all our national policies and practices -
saying, in effect, that God is on our side. Rather, as Lincoln
put it, we should worry earnestly whether we are on God’s side.
Those are the two ways that religion has been brought into
public life in American history. The first way - God on our side
- leads inevitably to triumphalism, self-righteousness, bad
theology, and, often, dangerous foreign policy. The second way -
asking if we are on God’s side - leads to much healthier things,
namely penitence and even repentance, humility, reflection, and
accountability. We need much more of all those, because they are
often the missing values of politics.
Martin Luther King Jr. did it best. With his Bible in one
hand and the Constitution in the other, King persuaded, not just
pronounced. He reminded us all of God’s purposes for justice,
for peace, and for the "beloved community" where those who have
been left out and left behind get a front-row seat. And he
brought religion into public life in a way that was always
welcoming, inclusive, and inviting to all who cared about moral,
spiritual, or religious values. Nobody felt left out of the
conversation.
The values of politics are my primary concern. Of course, God
is not partisan. God is not a Republican or a Democrat. When
either party tries to politicize God or co-opt religious
communities to further political agendas, it makes a terrible
mistake. The best contribution of religion is precisely not to
be ideologically predictable nor loyally partisan. Both parties,
and the nation, must let the prophetic voice of religion be
heard. Faith must be free to challenge both the Right and the
Left from a consistent moral ground.
"God’s politics" are therefore never partisan nor
ideological. But God’s politics challenge everything about our
politics. God’s politics remind us of the people our politics
always neglect - the poor, the vulnerable, the left behind.
God’s politics challenge narrow national, ethnic, economic, or
cultural self-interest, reminding us of a much wider world and
the creative human diversity of all those made in the image of
the creator. God’s politics remind us of the creation itself, a
rich environment in which we are to be good stewards, not mere
users, consumers, and exploiters. And God’s politics plead with
us to resolve, as much as possible, the inevitable conflicts
among us without the terrible destruction of war. God’s politics
always remind us of the ancient prophetic prescription to
"choose life, so that you and your children may live," and
challenge all the selective moralities that would choose one set
of lives and issues over another. This challenges both the Right
and the Left, offering a new vision for faith and politics in
America and a new conversation of personal faith and political
hope.
People concerned about social change and hungry for spiritual
values can actually combine those two quests. Too often politics
and spirituality have been separated, polarized, and even put
into competition with one another. We have been buffeted by
private spiritualities that have no connection to public life
and a secular politics showing disdain for religion or even
spiritual concerns. That leaves spirituality without social
consequences and a politics with no soul. Political discourse
that is disconnected from moral values quickly degenerates. How
might we change our public life with the values that many of us
hold most dear? How can we connect a genuinely "prophetic"
spirituality to the urgent need for social justice? This is the
connection the world is waiting for.
Prophecy is not future telling, but articulating moral truth.
The prophets diagnose the present and point the way to a just
solution. The "prophetic tradition," in all of the world’s great
religions, is just what we need to open up our contemporary
political options, which are, honestly, grossly failing to solve
our most pressing social problems. The competing ideological
options, from which we are forced to choose, are perhaps at
their lowest ebb in compelling the involvement of ordinary
citizens in public life. It is not that people just don’t care,
but that they feel un-represented and unable to vote for
anything that expresses their best values. That is a serious
political crisis, and we need better options.
What would it mean to evaluate the leading current political
options by the values of the prophets? Most importantly, what
would happen if we asserted that values are the most
important subject for the future of politics? What if we
proposed a "prophetic politics"?
After the 2002 mid-term elections, I attended a private
dinner for Harvard Fellows in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Our
speaker was a Republican political strategist who had just won
all the major senatorial and gubernatorial election campaigns in
which he was involved. Needless to say, he was full of his
success and eager to tell us about it. This very smart political
operative said that Republicans won middle-class and even
working-class people on the "social" issues, those moral and
cultural issues that Democrats don’t seem to understand or
appreciate. He even suggested that passion on the social issues
can cause people to vote against their economic self-interest.
Since the rich are already with us, he said, we win elections.
I raised my hand and asked the following question. "What
would you do if you faced a candidate that took a traditional
moral stance on the social and cultural issues? They would not
be mean-spirited and, for example, blame gay people for the
breakdown of the family, nor would they criminalize the choices
of desperate women backed into difficult and dangerous corners.
But the candidate would be decidedly pro-family, pro-life
(meaning they really want to lower the abortion rate), strong on
personal responsibility and moral values, and outspoken against
the moral pollution throughout popular culture that makes
raising children in America a countercultural activity. And what
if that candidate was also an economic populist, pro-poor in
social policy, tough on corporate corruption and power, clear in
supporting middle-class and working families in health care and
education, an environmentalist, and committed to a foreign
policy that emphasized international law and multilateral
cooperation over pre-emptive and unilateral war? What would you
do?" I asked. The Republican strategist paused for a long time,
and then said, "We would panic!"
Virtually every time I’m out speaking on "prophetic politics"
during any election season, somebody asks the question, "How can
I vote for what I’ve just heard?" Some very interesting polling
in the last few years shows how increasingly important voters’
perceptions of "values" are to their electoral behavior. And
most voters feel they can’t really vote for their values. In the
polling, the values question now goes beyond traditional family
and sexual matters to also include matters such as "caring for
the poor." The problem is that politics is still run by
ideological polarities that leave many people feeling left out.
*
There are now three major political options in our public
life. The first political option in America today is
conservative on everything - from cultural, moral, and
family concerns to economic, environmental, and foreign policy
issues. Differences emerge between aggressive nationalists and
cautious isolationists, between corporate apologists and
principled fiscal conservatives, but this is the political
option clearly on the ascendancy in America, with most of the
dominant ideas in the public square coming from the political
Right.
The second political option in contemporary America is
liberal on everything - both family/sexual/cultural
questions and economic, environmental, and foreign policy
matters. There are certainly differences among the liberals
(from pragmatic centrists to green leftists), but the
intellectual and ideological roots come from the Left side of
the cultural and political spectrum - and today most from the
liberal/left find themselves on the defensive.
The third option in American politics is libertarian -
meaning liberal on cultural/moral issues and conservative on
fiscal/economic and foreign policy. The "just leave me alone and
don’t spend my money option" is growing quickly in American
life.
I believe there is a "fourth option" for American
politics, which follows from the prophetic religious tradition
we have described. It is "traditional" or "conservative" on
issues of family values, sexual integrity and personal
responsibility, while being very "progressive," "populist," or
even "radical" on issues like poverty and racial justice. It
affirms good stewardship of the earth and its resources,
supports gender equality, and is more internationally minded
than nationalist - looking first to peacemaking and conflict
resolution when it come to foreign policy questions. The people
it appeals to (many religious, but others not) are very strong
on issues such as marriage, raising kids, and individual ethics,
but without being "right-wing," reactionary, mean-spirited, or
scapegoating against any group of people, including gays and
lesbians. They can be pro-life, pro-family and pro-feminist, all
at the same time. They think issues of "moral character" are
very important, both in a politician’s personal life and in his
or her policy choices. Yet they are decidedly pro-poor,
pro-racial reconciliation, critical of purely military
solutions, and defenders of the environment.
At the heart of the fourth option is the integral link
between personal ethics and social justice. And it appeals to
people who refuse to make the false choice between the two.
Who are these people? Many are religious: Catholics, black
and Latino Christians, evangelicals who don’t identify with the
Religious Right, and members of all our denominational churches
who want to put their faith into practice. They are Jews and
Muslims who are guided by an active faith and not just a
personal background. They are people who do not consider
themselves "religious," but rather "spiritual," and would be
drawn to a fourth option in politics. And they are people -
religious, spiritual, or not - who consider themselves shaped by
a strong sense of moral values and long for a political
commitment that reflects those values.
*
As I travel the country, I find many people who share this
perspective. Still, it is not yet a viable political option. It
should be. As one who has called for a new "moral politics" that
transcends the old categories of both the secular Left and the
Religious Right, I believe it is time to assert a clear "fourth"
political option. In a recent conversation, columnist E.J.
Dionne of The Washington Post said there was a huge
constituency of "non-right wing Christians" and other morally
concerned people in the country who need to get organized. Like
E.J., they are moderate to conservative on personal moral
questions while very progressive on social justice.
Recent polling shows that the more religious voters are, the
more likely they are to vote for conservatives. Given how
negatively much of the political Left seems to regard religion
and spirituality, this is not surprising. But what if a new
political option regarded personal ethics as important as social
justice and saw faith as a positive force in society - for
progressive social change. I think the fourth option could be a
real winning vision and believe that many are very hungry for
it. While the political elites and many special interest groups
resist the "personal ethics/social justice" combination (perhaps
because it threatens many special interests), countless ordinary
people would welcome it.
What we need is nothing less than "prophetic politics." We
must find a new moral and political language that transcends old
divisions and seeks the common good. Prophetic politics finds
its center in fundamental "moral issues" such as children,
diversity, family, community, citizenship, and ethics (others
could be added such as nonviolence, tolerance, fairness, etc.)
and tries to construct national directions to which many people
across the political spectrum could agree. It would speak
directly to the proverb "Without a vision, the people perish,"
and would offer genuine political vision that rises out of
biblical passages from prophetic texts. Our own ancient
prophetic religious traditions could offer a way forward beyond
our polarized and paralyzed national politics and be the
foundation for a fourth political option to provide the new
ideas politics always needs.
Simply put, the two traditional options in America (Democrat
and Republican, liberal and conservative) have failed to capture
the imagination, commitment, and trust of a majority of people
in this country. Neither has found ways to solve our deepest and
most entrenched social problems. Record prosperity hasn’t cured
child poverty. Family breakdown is occurring across all class
and racial lines. Public education remains a disaster for
millions of families. Millions more still don’t have health
insurance, or can’t find affordable housing. The environment
suffers from unresolved debates, while our popular culture
becomes more and more polluted by debased and violent
"entertainment." In local communities, people are more and more
isolated, busy, and disconnected. Our foreign policy has become
an aggressive assertion of military superiority in a defensive
and reactive mode, seeking to protect us against growing and
invisible threats, instead of addressing the root causes of
those threats. The political Right and Left continue at war with
each other, but the truth is that these false ideological
choices themselves have run their course and become
dysfunctional.
Prophetic politics would not be an endless argument between
personal and social responsibility, but a weaving of the two
together in search of the common good. The current options are
deadlocked. Prophetic politics wouldn’t assign all the answers
to the government, the market, or the churches and charities;
but rather patiently and creatively forge new civic partnerships
where everyone does their share and everybody does what they do
best. Prophetic politics wouldn’t debate whether our strategies
should be cultural, political, or economic; but show how they
must be all three, led by a moral compass.
Perhaps most important, prophetic politics won’t be led just
by elected officials, lawyers, and their financial backers. Look
for community organizers, social entrepreneurs, nonprofit
organizations, faith-based communities, and parents to help show
the way forward. Pay particular attention to a whole generation
of young people forged in community service. They may be cynical
about politics but are vitally concerned with public life. The
politics we need now will arise more from building social and
spiritual movements than merely lobbying at party conventions.
And ultimately it will influence the party conventions, as
successful movements always do.
*
The prophetic role that churches are undertaking is
illustrative of the larger public vocation that may now be
required. That role may become more clear in the wake of the
election. Without a vision, Democrats had nothing to offer the
American people as an alternative to the vision of the Bush
administration.
With the Republicans offering war overseas and corporate
dominance at home, and the Democrats failing to offer any real
alternatives, who will raise a prophetic voice for social and
economic justice and for peace? Never has there been a clearer
role for the churches and religious community. We can push both
parties toward moral consistency and their best-stated values,
over the unprincipled pragmatism and negative campaigning that
both sides too often engaged in during the recent election.
The courage many church leaders showed in opposing the war in
Iraq is an early sign of that prophetic role. So is the growing
unity across the spectrum of the churches on the issue of
poverty. The truth is that there are more churches committed to
justice and peace than churches that belong to the Religious
Right. It’s time the voice of those congregations be heard and
their activism be mobilized to become the conscience of American
politics in a time of crisis.
We’ve seen other moments in recent history when the churches
emerged as the leading voice of political conscience and
opposition. Certainly there were key times in the struggle
against apartheid in South Africa, in El Salvador during the
1980s, in the people power revolution that ousted dictator
Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, and in the opposition to
communist rule in Poland when the churches became the critical
public voice for both political challenge and change.
Even in democracies, churches have responded to that same
prophetic vocation. In New Zealand during the 1990s, when
conservative forces ripped that society’s long-standing social
safety net to pieces, it was the churches - in partnership with
the indigenous Maori people - who led marches, ignited public
protest, and helped restore key programs in health care,
housing, and social services. During the Thatcher years in
Britain, it was again church leadership that reminded the nation
of its responsibilities to impoverished urban communities, to
the ethics of the common good over private gain, to social
justice, and to peace. And, of course, in the United States,
black churches provided the moral foundation and social
infrastructure for the powerful civil rights movement that
changed our society.
In a bitterly divided nation, we face historic challenges.
But the political "tie" that the nation is caught in might be a
moment of opportunity. It shows that the old options and debates
have created a deadlock. This very crisis could open the way for
some new and creative thinking and organizing. And that could be
very good news indeed. Our political leaders must learn the
wisdom that the way to reach common ground is to move to higher
ground. And we citizens should start by showing the way.
*
Perhaps the most mistaken media perception of our time is
that religious influence in political life only equates to the
politics of the Religious Right. The biggest story that the
mainstream media has yet to discover is how much that reality is
changing. My prediction is that moderate and progressive
religious voices will shape politics in the coming decades far
more significantly than will the Religious Right.
History teaches us that the most effective social movements
are also spiritual ones - movements that change people’s
thinking and attitudes by an appeal to moral and religious
values. Those movements change the cultural and political
climate, which then makes policy changes more possible,
palatable, and, yes, democratic. Perhaps the best example of
doing it right, as we have said, is the American civil rights
movement, which was led by ministers who appealed directly to
biblical faith. I believe that will be the more-likely pattern
for future movements that combine faith and politics, replacing
the more politically conformist model of the Religious Right.
To move away from the bifurcating politics of liberal and
conservative, Left and Right, would be an enormously positive
change and would open up a new "politics of solutions." Right
now, Washington responds to a problem or crisis in two ways.
First, politicians try to make us afraid of the problem, and,
second, they look for somebody to blame for it. Then they watch
to see whose political spin succeeded, either in the next poll
or the next election. But they seldom get around to actually
solving the problem. The media make everything worse by assuming
that every political issue has only two sides instead of
multiple angles to view and solve the problem. Addicted to
conflict as their methodology, the media always seem to want to
pitch a fight between polarized views instead of convening a
public discussion to find serious answers.
The answer is to put values at the center of political
discourse and, in every public debate, ask what kind of country
and people we really want to be. We would find new agreements
across old political boundaries and new common ground among
people who agree on values and are ready to challenge the
special interests on all sides who are obstructing the solutions
most Americans would support. Ideologies have failed us; values
can unite us, especially around our most common democratic
visions.
Jim Wallis
is editor-in-chief of Sojourners, and the author of
the bestselling book, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It
Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It: A New Vision for Faith and
Politics in America . This excerpt from the book is reprinted in
the Blip Magazine Archivewith the permission of Sojourners and the
author. |