Nothing raises the ire and emotions of many people more than a discussion around politics and religion. Eleven weeks ago at an appointment with my barber I was made gravely aware of this fact. In our normal casual conversation, knowing of my barber’s political persuasion, I asked him if he planned to visit Governor Sarah Palin on tour in NC and buy her book. He commented on her qualifications and her high moral Christian character. Sitting in the chair of my barber, of over forty years, he asked, "Are you ready to admit your regrets of voting for President Obama?" No. "Do you realize that out of all of the men who sit in this chair 95% of them have the opposite view of you; can you see anything wrong with that?" I felt under attack. As he was shaving around my ears I could sense the quiver of his hands and voice, so I thought I best be quite. So goes the political atmospherics! (My response to my barber was to purchase a copy of Palin’s book, Going Rogue, a gift to him. He’s still serving the 5%.)
This experience weighted heavy on my mind, so the next day I decided to enlist some friends I knew to be opposite of my political affiliation in the advancement of “civil discourse”: six people, 2 Independents and 4 Republicans, one of which is a brother and another a brother-in-law. I respect and hold in high regard all these persons: four of which I usually see and speak with weekly, if not twice, at church and/or Rotary and the others irregularly speak and visit in their homes. After all my blog, in part, from the beginning was to encourage others to engage in introspective, honest, respectful, dialogue on issues that will affect our lives - our children's future.
The latest offering I received from the civil-debate-group mailing of “the six” was an article, written by Morten Zuckerman, forwarded from my brother-in-law. A friend had forwarded it to him with the comment “Looks like a classic case of buyer's remorse to me.” (If you read all the responses to this article, you’re seeing it’s an example, Right and Left, of the decadent, accusatory rhetoric that has taken over our citizenry.)
Zuckerman’s “He’s Done Everything Wrong” may be all truth based on his perspective. (Although, he left out accomplishments and has possibly prematurely judged an outcome.) On the other hand, given a different viewpoint, President Obama may also have “done everything right.” Paradoxically by this point of view, needless to say under most difficult circumstances, could the outcome have been different? Probably only marginal! Witness: push back from the Right’s “everything will be a NO” even perhaps decided before he was inaugurated. “Take back our country.” On the other side, Democrats kowtowed to big-money lobbyist (include Republicans also) on the crucial health-care initiative. You name it, on almost everything nothing could be done right in the eyes of the Left or the Right. Obama’s diligence through a hurricane of rhetoric for whatever worthwhile accomplishments has not been in a complete vacuum. It has been an effort consistent as conveyed through a campaign for those who voted for change, including the vote of 12% of Republicans who continue to find themselves Party disenfranchised.
The onus, of course, is on Democratic leadership to hurdle their self-imposed impediments, if necessarily only within their own ranks, quickly to move forward a course-correction ---- if that’s possible. If not, it’ll be their “Waterloo” as Jim DeMint would have it, not necessarily Obama’s Waterloo.
The Atlantic’s current magazine has an article, The Honeymooners, which shows the first-year-begin-to-end-approval ratings (only on magazine’s hard copy) of all the presidents since Truman. Even with what most would consider the most challenging first year of a presidency, all the things handed to him, Obama rating is comparable to some others: In percentages, Obama 68:47 (begin:end); Bush 57:84; Clinton 58:54; Bush-1 51:80; Reagan 51:49; Carter 66:52; Ford 71:45; Nixon 59:63; Johnson 78:70; Kennedy 72:79; Eisenhower 68:71; Truman 87:51 And Obama’s personal likeable numbers remain high.
So don’t despair yet; Obama may succeed in spite of immense odds, even with the irrepressible extreme Right’s vitriolic betting, impetuous crusades (i.e. right-wing’s 24/7 media where everything is framed in the negative) to insure his failure. Unfortunately, it is the negative that sells; “talking heads,” paid high-dollar contracts, saying anything outrageous to compete for higher ratings. The sport of politics --- void of sportsmanship!
Obstructionist from Right and Left not only ran off the tract; they destructed the rails. It will be a sad day if “our country” fails along with “his failure,” and that’s a frightening thought to think that’s where we may be headed. Many Americans over the years have become a greedy, impatient breed that expects too much, too quickly. (Zuckerman’s problem?) And when we don’t get exactly what we want, we find scapegoats to belittle, denigrate, demoralize, disparage, dehumanize, and we come “bearing false witness” to stick unbecoming labels on some dedicated leaders (and citizens). A proliferation of politically-fabricated-false-email rumors augment incitement of culture wars: opposing-hot-button issues aggravated by strident political forces, ensuring endemic polarization. Political gridlock is guaranteed! That’s where we will remain unless something changes, and that for the most part is out of Obama’s control. It can only change when “We The People” strive for higher moral and ethical codes. That’s where we “individually” and as a so called “Christians Nation,” have so wretchedly failed. Can this personal-character assassination be reversed? Not until the vociferous, scurrilous rhetoric is reduced to “fact and truth.”
A brother and a friend, teasingly I suppose, have suggested that my writings are too politically inclined. Frankly, I take no particular pleasure in politics, but Politics and Faith-responsibility are inseparable; their coming together calls for “a truth revelation” that too often has been elusive, evaded, scourged or hidden. As I once discussed with my Christian friend, now deceased, the emotional issues where Politics and Faith meet, while hard for many of us to discuss, must be a conversation “face to face.” Because, by grace, brother to brother, sister to sister, that’s where a better government and society begin. If you and I can’t courteously speak, openly and honestly, to these difficult issues, who will?
By these tough words some may question my own commitment to civil discourse; necessarily with humility we must face the cold fact of truth that’s painful for all of us.
In the malfunctioning of a stalled government, it was a commendable good-faith-civil-discourse initiative in the President’s recently separate meetings with Republicans and Democrats. However, you might correctly imagine, the edited clips of cable-news outlets gave biased or incomplete information, Left or Right, depending on the channel viewed. This is where many divisive, extreme spectrums originate, often propagated in a spurious and subtle manner. (Charles Blow says, “A study published in The Economic Journal during the summer of 2008 found that voters preferred extreme political positions to moderate ones.) An unedited, full conversation of the president/congress meetings may be seen here: DemandQuestionTime.com. Some people are calling for a continuation of this debate-format.
Listening respectfully to each other would be welcomed again, most assuredly by progressives, in the spirit of “true conservatism,” some may call Reaganist style or as prescribed by the founder of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke: “The task of statesmen was to maintain equilibrium between ‘the two principles of conservatism and correction.’ To govern was to engage in perpetual compromise – ‘sometimes between good and evil, and sometimes between evil and evil.’ (Inserted: ‘evil’ used as a relative term) In such a scheme there is no useful place for the either/or of ideological purism.” Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post wrote what this might look like within current proposals: The myth of Washington bipartisanship and the art of true compromise. In these principals there is no “black” or “white” but a “gray” where most of the time the truth/resolution may be found – somewhere in the middle.
Seeing Gray Where Faith & Politics Meet is the current study book of a group in our Centenary United Methodist Church. Adam Hamilton, senior pastor of The United Methodist of The Resurrection, adapted this study from his book, Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White: Thoughts on Religion, Morality and Politics. Hamilton brings to critical focus our responsibility as Christians to practice scriptures in a way Jesus teaches; those are the Christians that will “stop being the wedge that divides our nation, and starts acting instead as bridge builders and peacemakers that bring an end to the culture wars.” Hamilton says, “Christianity’s next reformation will be led by people who are able to see gray in a world of black and white.” So it will be with our nation: Whether in Christianity’s Fundamentalism or Liberalism beliefs, being conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, Right or left, individually, we must be the difference in-between black and white, conceding our unrelenting, mighty certitude. The boiling pot of rhetoric will be cooled, and the quivering emotional state of man will be calmed.
This experience weighted heavy on my mind, so the next day I decided to enlist some friends I knew to be opposite of my political affiliation in the advancement of “civil discourse”: six people, 2 Independents and 4 Republicans, one of which is a brother and another a brother-in-law. I respect and hold in high regard all these persons: four of which I usually see and speak with weekly, if not twice, at church and/or Rotary and the others irregularly speak and visit in their homes. After all my blog, in part, from the beginning was to encourage others to engage in introspective, honest, respectful, dialogue on issues that will affect our lives - our children's future.
The latest offering I received from the civil-debate-group mailing of “the six” was an article, written by Morten Zuckerman, forwarded from my brother-in-law. A friend had forwarded it to him with the comment “Looks like a classic case of buyer's remorse to me.” (If you read all the responses to this article, you’re seeing it’s an example, Right and Left, of the decadent, accusatory rhetoric that has taken over our citizenry.)
Zuckerman’s “He’s Done Everything Wrong” may be all truth based on his perspective. (Although, he left out accomplishments and has possibly prematurely judged an outcome.) On the other hand, given a different viewpoint, President Obama may also have “done everything right.” Paradoxically by this point of view, needless to say under most difficult circumstances, could the outcome have been different? Probably only marginal! Witness: push back from the Right’s “everything will be a NO” even perhaps decided before he was inaugurated. “Take back our country.” On the other side, Democrats kowtowed to big-money lobbyist (include Republicans also) on the crucial health-care initiative. You name it, on almost everything nothing could be done right in the eyes of the Left or the Right. Obama’s diligence through a hurricane of rhetoric for whatever worthwhile accomplishments has not been in a complete vacuum. It has been an effort consistent as conveyed through a campaign for those who voted for change, including the vote of 12% of Republicans who continue to find themselves Party disenfranchised.
The onus, of course, is on Democratic leadership to hurdle their self-imposed impediments, if necessarily only within their own ranks, quickly to move forward a course-correction ---- if that’s possible. If not, it’ll be their “Waterloo” as Jim DeMint would have it, not necessarily Obama’s Waterloo.
The Atlantic’s current magazine has an article, The Honeymooners, which shows the first-year-begin-to-end-approval ratings (only on magazine’s hard copy) of all the presidents since Truman. Even with what most would consider the most challenging first year of a presidency, all the things handed to him, Obama rating is comparable to some others: In percentages, Obama 68:47 (begin:end); Bush 57:84; Clinton 58:54; Bush-1 51:80; Reagan 51:49; Carter 66:52; Ford 71:45; Nixon 59:63; Johnson 78:70; Kennedy 72:79; Eisenhower 68:71; Truman 87:51 And Obama’s personal likeable numbers remain high.
So don’t despair yet; Obama may succeed in spite of immense odds, even with the irrepressible extreme Right’s vitriolic betting, impetuous crusades (i.e. right-wing’s 24/7 media where everything is framed in the negative) to insure his failure. Unfortunately, it is the negative that sells; “talking heads,” paid high-dollar contracts, saying anything outrageous to compete for higher ratings. The sport of politics --- void of sportsmanship!
Obstructionist from Right and Left not only ran off the tract; they destructed the rails. It will be a sad day if “our country” fails along with “his failure,” and that’s a frightening thought to think that’s where we may be headed. Many Americans over the years have become a greedy, impatient breed that expects too much, too quickly. (Zuckerman’s problem?) And when we don’t get exactly what we want, we find scapegoats to belittle, denigrate, demoralize, disparage, dehumanize, and we come “bearing false witness” to stick unbecoming labels on some dedicated leaders (and citizens). A proliferation of politically-fabricated-false-email rumors augment incitement of culture wars: opposing-hot-button issues aggravated by strident political forces, ensuring endemic polarization. Political gridlock is guaranteed! That’s where we will remain unless something changes, and that for the most part is out of Obama’s control. It can only change when “We The People” strive for higher moral and ethical codes. That’s where we “individually” and as a so called “Christians Nation,” have so wretchedly failed. Can this personal-character assassination be reversed? Not until the vociferous, scurrilous rhetoric is reduced to “fact and truth.”
A brother and a friend, teasingly I suppose, have suggested that my writings are too politically inclined. Frankly, I take no particular pleasure in politics, but Politics and Faith-responsibility are inseparable; their coming together calls for “a truth revelation” that too often has been elusive, evaded, scourged or hidden. As I once discussed with my Christian friend, now deceased, the emotional issues where Politics and Faith meet, while hard for many of us to discuss, must be a conversation “face to face.” Because, by grace, brother to brother, sister to sister, that’s where a better government and society begin. If you and I can’t courteously speak, openly and honestly, to these difficult issues, who will?
By these tough words some may question my own commitment to civil discourse; necessarily with humility we must face the cold fact of truth that’s painful for all of us.
In the malfunctioning of a stalled government, it was a commendable good-faith-civil-discourse initiative in the President’s recently separate meetings with Republicans and Democrats. However, you might correctly imagine, the edited clips of cable-news outlets gave biased or incomplete information, Left or Right, depending on the channel viewed. This is where many divisive, extreme spectrums originate, often propagated in a spurious and subtle manner. (Charles Blow says, “A study published in The Economic Journal during the summer of 2008 found that voters preferred extreme political positions to moderate ones.) An unedited, full conversation of the president/congress meetings may be seen here: DemandQuestionTime.com. Some people are calling for a continuation of this debate-format.
Listening respectfully to each other would be welcomed again, most assuredly by progressives, in the spirit of “true conservatism,” some may call Reaganist style or as prescribed by the founder of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke: “The task of statesmen was to maintain equilibrium between ‘the two principles of conservatism and correction.’ To govern was to engage in perpetual compromise – ‘sometimes between good and evil, and sometimes between evil and evil.’ (Inserted: ‘evil’ used as a relative term) In such a scheme there is no useful place for the either/or of ideological purism.” Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post wrote what this might look like within current proposals: The myth of Washington bipartisanship and the art of true compromise. In these principals there is no “black” or “white” but a “gray” where most of the time the truth/resolution may be found – somewhere in the middle.
Seeing Gray Where Faith & Politics Meet is the current study book of a group in our Centenary United Methodist Church. Adam Hamilton, senior pastor of The United Methodist of The Resurrection, adapted this study from his book, Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White: Thoughts on Religion, Morality and Politics. Hamilton brings to critical focus our responsibility as Christians to practice scriptures in a way Jesus teaches; those are the Christians that will “stop being the wedge that divides our nation, and starts acting instead as bridge builders and peacemakers that bring an end to the culture wars.” Hamilton says, “Christianity’s next reformation will be led by people who are able to see gray in a world of black and white.” So it will be with our nation: Whether in Christianity’s Fundamentalism or Liberalism beliefs, being conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, Right or left, individually, we must be the difference in-between black and white, conceding our unrelenting, mighty certitude. The boiling pot of rhetoric will be cooled, and the quivering emotional state of man will be calmed.
