The Latest From The Big Tent
Anyone who believes that the GOP is hostile to dissenting voices, and not a “big tent” party, needs only to read former Senator John Danforth’s Op Ed in this morning’s New York Times to see evidence to the contrary. Calling on “moderate” Christians to have a greater voice in government while seeking to discredit Christians of a more conservative bent, Mr. Danforth clearly puts to the lie the notion that the Republican party is monolithic.
Taking his cue from the post-modernists who are uncomfortable with the notions of truth and absolute standards of right and wrong, or at least of the ability of humans to recognize them, the picture Mr. Danforth paints of the “moderate” Christian is one of someone who really wishes he was more certain of what he believes, and is resentful of those who are.
It would be one thing for Mr. Danforth to merely use the forum he has been given to advance his beliefs and the reason for them. But what he in fact does in this piece is engage in a systematic attempt to silence the voices of more conservative Christians who would offer dissent to his own take on the role of the believer in society and government. Or, at the very least, he tries to convince the uncommitted that the take of the moderate Christians on issues of the day – some of which he enumerates – is the “one authentic Christian perspective on politics” – a tactic of which he accuses the conservatives.
In essence, the premise of Mr. Danforth’s discomfort with the conservatives can be summed up via his declaration that for the moderates, “the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves.” An interesting statement, particularly for an ordained Episcopalian minister, as the commandment he cites is actually called by Jesus the “Second” great commandment. Conveniently left out of this formula for dealing with mankind’s ills is the “First” commandment – to love the Lord above all else.
Of course, it’s that first commandment that is so difficult for those who are uncomfortable with confrontation under almost any circumstance. That ultimate love for the Lord that Christians – who are, after all, the topic of Mr. Danforth’s column – are to have necessitates a love for His truth, and a willingness to stand for the truth, no matter the consequences. In fact, the sharing of the truth - coupled with a humble willingness to actually listen to other opinions - is the ultimate act of love demonstrated to one's neighbor. And yes, this commitment to the truth holds even if it means some people will dislike the believer for doing so.
Nevertheless, Mr. Danforth finds this to be a distasteful practice on the part of the conservatives when they try to work within the American constitutional system to have an influence on public policy. The unstated implication of the piece is that any attempt on the part of Christian conservatives to participate in the political process – the same political process in which moderates and liberals have the right to participate – is an attempt to forcibly impose their views on others, lacking in the spirit of humility that he attributes to his own kind. Never mind the fact that they have to get the same number of votes in Washington, or throughout the nation on election day, as any other group.
The unspoken, yet certainly real, fear harbored by Mr. Danforth and others of his ilk is that the conservatives will actually meet with success in promoting their agenda. That there is a very real chance that a majority of Americans agree with them, and are thus willing to promote policies and candidates that will further that agenda.
No one likes to lose in the public-policy arena, but that is always a danger in a democratic society. Which is why it is all the more important that various factions focus their energies on talking to the American people about why their position should be supported, and on engaging in rational debate with those of opposing views.
Unfortunately, it seems that the further toward the left one drifts, the less likely he is to be willing to engage in such rational debate. Demonstrating this, well, truth, Mr. Danforth has chosen the path of merely trying to discredit his opponents by telling anyone who listens that his opponents really shouldn’t be engaging in policy discussions anyway. At least that is what is to be believed if the reader agrees with Mr. Danforth that the relationship between the rise of activism on the part of Christians and the breakdown of collegiality in government is undeniable, although no similar consideration is given to the rise of the secular left in this light.
Mr. Danforth, and others like him, are certainly welcome in the Republican party. But unfortunately for them, the other major American party has already demonstrated how effective the tactics he has chosen to use are in winning policy fights – by virtue of the continued dominance of conservatives in Washington, in no small part as a result of these tactics.
Taking his cue from the post-modernists who are uncomfortable with the notions of truth and absolute standards of right and wrong, or at least of the ability of humans to recognize them, the picture Mr. Danforth paints of the “moderate” Christian is one of someone who really wishes he was more certain of what he believes, and is resentful of those who are.
It would be one thing for Mr. Danforth to merely use the forum he has been given to advance his beliefs and the reason for them. But what he in fact does in this piece is engage in a systematic attempt to silence the voices of more conservative Christians who would offer dissent to his own take on the role of the believer in society and government. Or, at the very least, he tries to convince the uncommitted that the take of the moderate Christians on issues of the day – some of which he enumerates – is the “one authentic Christian perspective on politics” – a tactic of which he accuses the conservatives.
In essence, the premise of Mr. Danforth’s discomfort with the conservatives can be summed up via his declaration that for the moderates, “the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves.” An interesting statement, particularly for an ordained Episcopalian minister, as the commandment he cites is actually called by Jesus the “Second” great commandment. Conveniently left out of this formula for dealing with mankind’s ills is the “First” commandment – to love the Lord above all else.
Of course, it’s that first commandment that is so difficult for those who are uncomfortable with confrontation under almost any circumstance. That ultimate love for the Lord that Christians – who are, after all, the topic of Mr. Danforth’s column – are to have necessitates a love for His truth, and a willingness to stand for the truth, no matter the consequences. In fact, the sharing of the truth - coupled with a humble willingness to actually listen to other opinions - is the ultimate act of love demonstrated to one's neighbor. And yes, this commitment to the truth holds even if it means some people will dislike the believer for doing so.
Nevertheless, Mr. Danforth finds this to be a distasteful practice on the part of the conservatives when they try to work within the American constitutional system to have an influence on public policy. The unstated implication of the piece is that any attempt on the part of Christian conservatives to participate in the political process – the same political process in which moderates and liberals have the right to participate – is an attempt to forcibly impose their views on others, lacking in the spirit of humility that he attributes to his own kind. Never mind the fact that they have to get the same number of votes in Washington, or throughout the nation on election day, as any other group.
The unspoken, yet certainly real, fear harbored by Mr. Danforth and others of his ilk is that the conservatives will actually meet with success in promoting their agenda. That there is a very real chance that a majority of Americans agree with them, and are thus willing to promote policies and candidates that will further that agenda.
No one likes to lose in the public-policy arena, but that is always a danger in a democratic society. Which is why it is all the more important that various factions focus their energies on talking to the American people about why their position should be supported, and on engaging in rational debate with those of opposing views.
Unfortunately, it seems that the further toward the left one drifts, the less likely he is to be willing to engage in such rational debate. Demonstrating this, well, truth, Mr. Danforth has chosen the path of merely trying to discredit his opponents by telling anyone who listens that his opponents really shouldn’t be engaging in policy discussions anyway. At least that is what is to be believed if the reader agrees with Mr. Danforth that the relationship between the rise of activism on the part of Christians and the breakdown of collegiality in government is undeniable, although no similar consideration is given to the rise of the secular left in this light.
Mr. Danforth, and others like him, are certainly welcome in the Republican party. But unfortunately for them, the other major American party has already demonstrated how effective the tactics he has chosen to use are in winning policy fights – by virtue of the continued dominance of conservatives in Washington, in no small part as a result of these tactics.
posted by JeffreyH | 10:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home