Edwards invoked the Democratic mantra last night during the veep debate: "The president said that he would unite this country, that he was a uniter, not a divider. Have you ever seen America more divided? Have you ever seen Washington more divided?"
Of course, this is the same Edwards that said, "I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind."
But never mind, that's not divisive.
Really, though, this whole blather about "dividing," well it plays well on Oprah, and we can all gather round the campfire and sing "Kum By Ya" and feel all united and stuff, but unity ain't all what it's cracked up to be. A herd of swine going over a cliff are united, but they're also going to their destruction.
Furthermore, this whole "the President must be a uniter" is just plain bovine scatology.
First of all, it fails to acknowledge that the American electorate are free moral agents. The way you'd hear some folks tell it, so long as the president rings the divider bell, we Pavlovian dogs out here can do nothing else but snarl and snap at one another. Puh-leeeze. No, fact of the matter is, whatever rhetoric and polemic any politician or party utilizes, we don't either have to swallow it or allow it to stir up our emotion or dictate our actions.
Secondly, the cause of division in our society is not uniquely located in the office of the president, the person of George W. Bush, or any other external thing. Oh, how we would like it to be. It would sure make it easier for us. We could pass the blame off on someone or something else, and not give it another thought. But fact of the matter is, the principle of division in this country is located right there deep inside of us in the passions and behaviors we refuse to acknowledge, address, and repent of. That we allow political figures and their rhetoric to exacerbate the evil we already coddle and nurse within us is to our shame and condemnation.
No, folks, President Bush could be evil incarnate (and some of you think he is), but the one who is dividing this country is you. And me.
God forgive us and have mercy.
Posted by Clifton at October 6, 2004 02:43 PM | TrackBackClifton,
The problem here is, no, I won't say what the problem is or is not. One of the the problems here is that President Bush is being held to the "uniter" standard because it is one he set for himself. I live in Texas where he was Governor and he claimed to be a uniter based on his experience here. He may have spent part of his youth in Washington, but he was not prepared for the partisanship of Washington, D.C. because there is less difference between Texas Republicans and Texas Democrats than there is between Washington Democrats and Washington Democrats. The same can be said for the Republican Party. He never had to work with the Texas Democrats as Governor because Texas Democrats are endangered species.
I believe the greatest danger in American politics right now is the sadly mistaken view of many Christians, particularly or especially Orthodox Christians, that the Republican party is somehow more moral or closer to God than the Democratic party. This is largely based on the relative dominance of Right to Life people in the Republican Party and the dominance of Free Choice views in the Democratic party. The truth of the matter is that neither political parties nor corporations nor governments are moral nor immoral. Christians must be vigilant lest be deluded into thinking that either party is "our friend." We are not of this world and we must subordinate nationalism and political partisanship to our devotion to our Lord. If we are competent and righteous, we may be called to serve those who are placed in authority over us, but we should always recognize that our loyalty is to One. Since God has graciously enabled us to have some say in who rules over us we obviously have a duty to be informed, but we cannot allow the shifting political fortunes of anyone to make us happy or sad.
My sermon is over, and I thank you again for what you do here.
Max's comment makes me think of two things. First, I wonder, respectfully, how fully Christians are enjoined from allowing "the shifting political fortunes of anyone to make us happy or sad." One does not need to be religious to realize that a politican (like any other human being) might disappoint or deceive. But beyond that wariness, are we required to avoid all human emotion as we formulate and express opinions about particular politicians? Second, it pains me a lot to hear the abortion-on-demand position referred to as "pro-choice." I am not trying to be critical of Max. I've just started noticing that "pro-choice" seems like such a sanitized, carefully-crafted, public-relations sort of term for what is really ocurring, that I've decided to begin commenting when I see or hear it used. "Pro choice" has, in fact, become the standard term, used by everyone, so I hope Max will not take my comment personally.
Posted by: RL at October 8, 2004 01:14 AMRL, I am not taking anything personally, but I do appreciate your concern that could happen. I just use the convention of calling people what they call themselves. I personally don't think abortion can be viewed as anything short of killing a human baby, but I also think that God will forgive any remorseful sinner including me. My concern is that we not allow either political party to hijack the Church for its own ends. Jesus had difficulty keeping folks from both "political" camps from first claiming him and then condemning him. I don't like where the Democrats would take us on the abortion issue, but I also don't like where the Republicans would take us on the materialism and war issues. I hope our bishops don't start looking and sounding like Jerry Falwell and Ralph Reed. In politics and diplomacy there are no friends, only transient allies. In the church, there are brothers and sons. I prefer eternal relationships over shifting alliances.
Posted by: max higgs at October 8, 2004 08:39 AM