Bipartisanship as Political Ecumenicism

A while back I wrote a post decrying the importance of separation of church and state and why political parties should stay as far away from religion as possible. The impetus of that post was the Democratic Party’s plan to have an interfaith gathering at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

When I tried the liberal side of Christianity, and granted, this was part of my letting go of God altogether, it seemed to me that an interfaith gathering had all the conviction of a bowl of mush.  The attendees had only one thing in common: a belief in a Higher Source and Guide, someone or something outside of the realm of the physical that gave their lives meaning and “guided” them in relation to the world and their fellow human beings.  Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, you name it, all were welcome under this big tent called Interfaith. Okay…so?  The other thing these “interfaith” gatherings have in common is the idea that even though we all “worship” in a different way, really, deep down, we’re just all the same. Don’t we all want the same things? Aren’t we all just good people? We all believe in “God.” It’s no matter that your idea and my idea of “God” are diametrically opposed.  Let’s lay down our doctrinal differences and sing Kum Ba Yah!

Why should any true believer accept this watered-down version of spirituality? It turns THEIR faith into just one choice from the smorgasbord of Faith™, and THEIR professed TRUE faith just one of many TRUE faiths.  Doesn’t that miss the point? Example: If Jesus really is the “way, the truth and the life” and “no man comes to the Father” but through him, why would a Christian embrace a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu as a “brother or sister” in God? Makes no sense.

It seems to me that the virus of bipartisanship, to which the Republican Party appears immune, has infected the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama in particular, and it  has been no more effective at mitigating Republican opposition to Democratic policies than ecumenicism has been at creating religious unity. 

The Democrats like to call themselves the “Big Tent” Party. Unfortunately, the Democratic tent has gotten so big that no one can even tell you what it means to be a Democrat any more. If  one is going to run for political office as a Democrat, the least one could do is swear allegiance to the Democratic party’s platform and ideals. Methinks the Republicans may have been on to something when considering purity pledges from their candidates. Not that I agree with their policies (!), but at least the Republican politician knows what’s expected and the penalty for failing to live up to that expecation.  That I’m even thinking that this is a good idea tells you how far off the mark I consider most members of the Democratic leadership.

But here’s the deal: There is a reason politcal parties exist. The don’t exist to join hands with the opposition party to sing Kum Bah Ya. They exist for one purpose only: to put a political ideology into practice. Period. The voter should be able to choose the person that best represents their chosen political ideology, and not have to constantly be on alert to make sure that their chosen representative is continuing to support the ideals of that party. We voters need to know that the person we elect is going to have lines in the sand and that we can count on them to uphold certain political ideals. Otherwise, why bother running under either party’s banner? 

Bipartisanship is Obama’s political raison d’être.  And it’s killing us.

Paul Rosenberg, January 2008:

In the wake of the disasterous Bush presidency there are two possible responses. One is that, just like the last time conservatives controlled the country–1920-1932–they are destroying the country.  The second is that both sides are to blame.  They’re both fighting, instead of solving the problems we face.  Obama represents the second response, and he is, quite simply, utterly, totally and dangerously wrong.  Whatever his intentions may be, action based on this worldview cannot fundamentally reverse the damage that movement conservatism has done to our country.  Because of the fierceness of movement conservative opposition, his worldview demands that we change things only modestly in the grand scheme of things.

This is what’s at the root of the problems Obama has faced recently, epitomized by his remarks praising Ronald Reagan, however you interpret them.  Obama claims he has been misunderstood.  But really, it is Obama who fundamentally misunderstands history, and it his misunderstanding that it is the root cause of the confusion he spreads to others.  His misunderstanding is based on three inter-related things–a lack of historical knowledge, an acceptance of the dominant political discourse, and a devaluing of material causes and conditions.  In particular, the dominant narrative blaming both sides for our political problems, and attributing the cause to bad attitudes in people’s heads and hearts, is not just historically inaccurate, it results from a virtual rightwing takeover of the media and many other institutions–a material cause that affects the nature of our political narratives regardless of the actual evidence at hand.

Americans have lost their sense of domestic security, and it has nothing to do with terrorists.

Democrats were given majorities in Congress because the majority of Americans knew the Republicans weren’t on our side and we knew that they would do everything they could to prevent Democrats from moving forward.  And so, while Obama and the Democrats go chasing after Republican votes they don’t need, we are still without jobs or national healthcare and are losing more ground with every passing day. For the first time ever, we don’t see a better future for our children and grandchildren. We know something has gone terribly wrong and we want the party of FDR to hold up its ideals and fight to implement them. We don’t want Kum Ba Ya.