Skip to main content

How's This For Post-Partisan?

The Republican Party is now the War Party. Somewhat distressingly, the Democratic Party always was. What's missing from our political discourse actually is anthropology. I'm not a philosopher; I'm just a man who loves his country, and yes, its politics. What is Man? What does he do? What does he owe to his Creator? What does he owe to the nation he calls home? And to his neighbors and fellow citizens?

These are pretty basic questions, but ones that never get asked before we start. The truth is that you and I may have different answers. And that's fine, as long as we can talk. They are right to say that our politics is noxiously partisan; what never gets said is that it really is mindless. And most people give an answer that sounds like, "If only those people were not insane..." You know what? I do think most people who call themselves "progressives" are insane. Or, to be polite, they have the wrong anthropology. That wouldn't be that bad, if they could be circumspect about it. But they're usually smug and self-satisfied. When I think of a progressive, I think of a college professor, and a college freshman. Both of those people can be the best of America: inspiring, energetic, self-giving. But I guarantee you, that isn't the first image that pops into my head. And into the heads of most "conservatives".

Conservatives are nuts, too. For every 'liberal' dunderhead who's heard far too many sympathetic lectures on socialism and watched too many hours of Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow, there's at least two conservatives that I wouldn't have a beer with. We need to be optimistic, winsome, and actually fun to be around. I admit, I'm not always that guy. Especially not when discussing this subject.

On the other hand, it's really hard to be optimistic and winsome when the party apparatus that represents "non-conservatives," let's call them, is completely devoted to the murder of children as perhaps its first principle. Yes, I'm talking about abortion. But I want to say that more than this, I'm holistically pro-life. That's why I unapologetically favor the abolition of the death penalty in the United States. Not because murderers don't deserve to die. They do, and they always have. But I see a Liturgy of Death in this country, and it proceeds just as surely in the death chambers in the prisons of the United States as it does in the abortion mills across this land. And it proceeds in distant battlefields, as the living instruments of our foreign policy give their lives, precisely for what, we don't know. But it is high time we stopped using that bond of fraternal sacrifice as a shield against our poor decisions, our misguided interventions cloaked in spasms of patriotism. Their fortitude is not a policy; the love of friends and family is not a justification.

It's clear that the Republican Party is going to have to save the "safety net," because as much as it may contribute to the common good--at least rhetorically--those responsible for its construction and expansion are too interested in their self-image and the self-aggrandizement of the technocratic elite to be bothered with reality. This president and his party make the spending excesses of the Bush administration look like a rounding error. The federal budget has at least doubled in 10 years. Even if I were a social democrat, that would seem alarming. Not that the president cares, really. He seems to think fine words and good intentions are all that governing requires. Remember that professor and college freshman? Obama is both, and it is most certainly not good, in this case.

That's all I have to say for now. I'd probably get pegged a "social conservative" and some kind of extremist. Well and good. I hope they call me a "Christian extremist" too; at least "Christian" won't mean endless nattering about civility and bipartisanship while cowering in the corner while the country burns.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un