Originally posted Jan. 27, 2012, at Thinking Outloud. Republished with permission of the author.
When it comes to politics, each side of the American major two-party system holds certain beliefs about everything, including, but not very explicitly, human beings.
Conservatives (Republicans, Libertarians, etc.) seem convinced of the power of the individual.
In this worldview, people have unlimited possibilities if they/we just try hard, sacrifice, invest, produce, invent and risk. The human person is strongest as the independent “I” who may contribute to the general welfare but only because of personal choice and acting out of personal moral or spiritual values.
The conservative man or woman buckles down, works hard and enjoys the fruits of their labor, contributing to the general welfare in limited (roads, bridges, national defense) ways.
Success? Well, you deserve it because of hard work, luck or some other feature of your life. At’a boy! Think Warren Buffet, Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Liberals (Democrats, Green Party, etc.) are focused on the welfare of the whole, particularly those whose life experience, health, social status, age or race makes them vulnerable to fewer advantages in the classroom and marketplace.
In this worldview, the whole needs protection from the individual run amok; the individual meaning someone Anglo-European, privileged, educated and middle-class.
The environment, exploited by industrialization, needs protection and renewal. Women, children, people of color, the sick, impoverished and aged, perpetually disadvantaged by the economic system of the last 200 years, deserve legal protection and help from the government of the whole.
Think Barack Obama, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Ralph Nader.
Here’s why I’m between the extremes: because human nature is imperfect, and both of these polarized views of people and communities are true.
We are both ingenious and productive AND careless and profoundly selfish. We need all of us working at our personal best as well as joint efforts for justice, economic opportunity, education and health care.
The very best of American politics is an effort to balance out these perspectives on the human condition. Our extremist rhetoric of the last few years is an exhausting waste of all our time.
We need a government that is committed to hard work and effort as well as the common good. The vast majority of voting Americans know exactly what I mean and can’t wait for common sense to infuse politics. Won’t that be a glorious day.
Find a link to Lynne Silva-Breen’s blog Thinking Outloud at Lutheran Blogs.
You might also like to read:
What the church can learn from the presidential primary
No balm from Gilead
Lutheran freedom
There's so much room to talk theology here, and yet you barely scratch the surface and instead come to a utopian conclusion (if government was good, there wouldn't be any problems... if we had some common sense, we wouldn't have any problems).
The problem, in one word, is sin. Sin demonizes everything that it touches, from individuals to institutions, both big and small, and it touches everything (especially government!) No form of government will be ideal, because sinners are always the ones running the government. We need curbs against the sinners, great and small, and against institutional systems that lead to death. Although in Luther's time, government was best left to the princes (and your job was to follow your prince, even when he was wrong), today we live in a government "of" the people and "by" the people. That puts the responsibility for good government squarely on us. It is up to us to root out the sin present in our government, our corporations, our people and ourselves. We've got a lot of God-given suggestions on how best to do that. Of course, we're sinners too, so it's not that surprising we're trapped in a system of death.
As Christians, though, we know two things. First, sin wins, at least against us. Second, God's not going to accept that. God sent us Christ, who in bearing our sins, triumphs over them. So we're freed from this entire system of death we call government. It can't win, even if it orders our death. That means we can act where others may be too scared for action. It may not be common sense... it might be love, mercy or forgiveness of sins instead. But that may be just what we need to ease the burden this system of death places upon others.
Also, I think you get some of your people mixed up. Obama is a moderate. So was Reagan. Presidents usually are, since they have to appeal to enough people to get elected, and only about a third of the country is in each camp ("liberal" or "conservative").