There are obviously large swaths of the country who believe that adhering to biblical virtue implies voting for a particular type of Republican- folks like Bush II in the 2000/2004 elections, and folks like Santorum, Perry, or Palin today. Needless to say, I reject this idea- not necessarily because I disagree on “the issues” with any of the aforementioned (I probably agree around 50% of the time on the headline issues), but simply because I find the approach and persona of these figures deeply dissatisfying- to the point where I really wonder if we are indeed worshipping the same Lord, as we both whole-heartedly proclaim. Of course, I don’t know any of these candidates personally, only through the media. And the media loves to see the worst in everyone, so I could stand corrected upon closer inspection. When I look to the alternatives, I typically see a Democratic candidate with whom I will be in agreement on somewhere less than 50% of the issues, and for whom my disdain in their approach/persona will roughly approximate what I feel towards the Republican candidate. The glaring exception to this rule is (was?) of course President Obama- I was hopeful of his presidency 4 years ago as he captured the hearts/minds of the younger generation. He wasn’t in the national eye prior to his campaign long enough to be dirtied up by the process, and I was thrilled with how he took down the Clinton machine. I stand today disappointed like many that he has thus far been remarkably ordinary/unimpressive as a president.
In light of this sad realization, the most dominant theme that I have converged on over the last several years is the idea that the two primary parties are largely indistinguishable in terms of what they offer to the American people. Sure, they may squabble vigorously over the issues, but they are identical in the sense that they are both beholden to interests that hardly represent the majority. A wise observer once remarked that the Religious Right and the hard core Secular Left are in many ways ideologically equivalent. This is why to me, there is little difference between watching Fox News on the one hand, or MSNBC on the other. They each shill for their own, and this is totally a mutually reinforcing, rational equilibrium from a game-theoretic perspective.
I was once somewhat active and willing to help raise money and host fundraisers for promising candidates who shared my aspirations. Disillusionment with candidates from both sides of the aisle and the feeling that nothing that I do matters anyway started to chip away at my enthusiasm. But perhaps more than anything else, what really got to me was that I didn’t like the kind of person I became when politically engaged. What good is it to try and win arguments and debates if you feel like you’re losing yourself along the way? Less active soon became almost complete withdrawl. For a while, I justified my unwillingness to engage by pointing out repeatedly that Jesus did not come as a political movement, and that His methods were too radical for the politics of His day. I would think that this is even more true today than it was 2000 plus years ago. At the same time, I also wholeheartedly believe two other things- the first is that Jesus came to redeem EVERY sphere of human existence- and so politics is a subset by definition. Secondly, I think that more than any other nation, we absolutely get the government we deserve, and so inaction is actually implicit agreement with the status quo. The more I think about such things, the more my apathy masked as righteousness gnaws at me.
This leaves me in a very in-between space, which is obviously the title and recurring theme of this blog. Most folks I talk to agree that the political culture in this country is pretty rotten, and a major housecleaning would be the minimum to get things going in a better direction. I personally think that the spirit of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are essentially the same- they both feel that the incumbents are across the board corrupted, and the catalysts for both movements were uber-egregious bank bailouts. There’s this underlying sense that there is way more common ground in our society than meets the eye. As of this writing, it appears that the leading candidates on the Republican side are Mitt Romney, New Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. The only one who even remotely captures the spirit of non-establishment is Ron Paul. Some of his ideas are so out there that you know they’ll never get implemented (going back to the gold standard) but I love his stance on cutting defense spending. Our country’s obsession with this notion of safety is just as culpable for bankrupting us as entitlement programs. The remaining three feel like uninspiring, man-the-ship guys who will more or less maintain the mediocre standards of their predecessors.
I suppose this is the best we can do. And it leaves me essentially where I’ve been for a long time with this whole politics things- at sea. If folks have a better alternative in mind, I’m all ears. This country has given me too much for me to not care anymore, and there has to be a way to integrate our civic duty with the commandment to love our neighbor.
On a happier note....my little boy isn't so little anymore.
