RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

A Plea for a New Generation of Republican Leadership

by Brian McLaren 09-08-2009

I believe our nation works best with robust and civic dialogue and civil debate. For mature societal conversations to take place, at least two mature parties are required, and looking back over this summer, a second party is hard to find.

The Obama administration needs a worthy loyal opposition, just as any group in power does, and the president himself often says so. But people who shout “Hitler, Nazi, socialist” don’t constitute a worthy loyal opposition. Nor do the birthers (who don’t stray too far from the fictional portrait of the afterbirthers described satirically here). Nor do the nostalgics, who seem to keep waking up in the 1980s year after year, quoting Ronald Reagan.

[Regarding the nostaligics, one can't help but recall God's words to Joshua (Joshua 1:2): "Moses my servant is dead." Many Republicans, it seems, are like Joshua and need to be told it's time to move on and discover their own voice, to think their own thoughts, to face today's challenges, to start leading constructively and not just repeating old slogans -- always revering the memory of their late-20th-century Moses, of course, but moving on to face today's problems just as their oft-sung hero sought to face those of his day.]

It seemed hard for the situation to deteriorate below gun-toting protestors at town hall meetings and Hitler-mustached posters, but we managed to hit a new even-lower low in recent days in the refusal of some parents and school districts to allow schoolchildren to listen to the presidential back-to-school address. Journalist-author Thomas Friedman had it right on “Meet the Press” Sunday, as did Education Secretary Ame Duncan on “Face the Nation”: that reaction is just plain “stupid” and “silly.” How many Republican leaders will stand with them?

Where does this bizarre behavior come from? True, there’s a strain of extremism that runs through American politics on the left and right, and the Internet, late-night radio, and cable TV help keep it alive. But there’s more to this, I think. I’m convinced that there is some degree of white fear and resentment behind at least some of this reaction: fear and resentment of an African-American president, mingled with xenophobia regarding brown-skinned immigrants, undergirded by fear of a future where there is no more racial majority status for white people. There is also, I suspect, a good amount of modernist fear of postmodernity mixed in. And where Christianity becomes a tribal religion rather than a reconciling faith — the exclusive and combative religion of rural non-coastal folks, for example, or Southern folks, or socially conservative folks, or folks who hold a certain economic ideology — there is probably some old-fashioned religious supremacy at play too: the “Our God is better than your god, so we should be in power” syndrome.

I keep wondering — don’t more Republicans themselves see the danger of an increasingly reactionary Republican party becoming in the 21st century what anti-civil-rights/pro-segregationists and McCarthyites were in the 20th, or what the pro-slavery/anti-abolition movements were in the 19th — conserving an unjust status quo that deserved to be left behind? Out of love for their party and the good things it could potentially stand for in 2012 and beyond, don’t they want to step forward now and be counted?

Even if all President Obama stands for were as dastardly as the shouters, birthers, and nostalgics insinuate, can’t some perceptive Republicans see the need to do what President Obama did to win the election — to inspire with some hope, rather than constantly pulling the levers of fear? Fear is indeed a powerful short-term motivator (and fundraiser), as is revenge, but it uses an inflating currency (and where do you go after flashing the Hitler/Nazi/fascist credit card?). An unregulated fear-based politics will eventually crash just as an unregulated bubble-based economy will, but like a crashing economy, it can cause a huge amount of damage on its way down.

That’s why it’s so depressing to see the paucity of Republican leadership providing a mature alternative to all this. That’s why, with so much at stake — from environmental policy to health-care reform to immigration reform to economic reform to foreign policy reform to campaign finance reform, even those of us who are firm supporters of President Obama wish his administration had a more robust conversation partner and a wiser, more constructive loyal opposition.

Thankfully, George Will has started speaking up with some fresh things to say, countering the long reign of neoconservative foreign policy in the Republican Party. Perhaps people like Will and Peggy Noonan represent the rise of a constructive conversation partner in the civic conversation. But they’re writers; where are the politicians? If there are some perceptive Republicans out there who see from the inside what the rest of us see from the outside, I hope they’ll start speaking up like George Will and Peggy Noonan — and soon. Because if the best leaders the Republicans can offer the nation and the world in the next decade are the likes of … well, I won’t mention names … then everyone will be worse off for it — Republicans, Democrats, everyone. I believe, hope, and pray that Republicans can do better for their party, for America as a whole, and for the world.

Brian McLarenBrian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is a speaker and author, most recently of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again.

Categories: Faith and Politics
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • rabbitale
    I am so often saddened at the cutting remarks of persons who call themselves Christians. To be pointed is no sin, as Christ Himself regularly displayed, but to accuse and to use labels is unseemly. With some thought we all can identify who the Accuser of the Brethren is.
    Is there a reason, brothers and sisters of various political opinions, that we cannot discuss issues without labeling each other?
    My spirit is very distressed. No doubt many of us have spit out our replies with little thought. I fear we worship a god who looks rather like us. Let us study the Gospels again.
  • Way to backtrack! I should try this sometime when I say something stupid (which I have!) (I'm kidding, really)
  • lumens
    Conservatism isn't at all a populist ideology. It's not "against
    something". It's against centralized governmental power, in part because
    government is beholden to special interests. They lost in 2006, in part
    because the pendelum always swings the other way, and in part because their
    engagement of special interests rendered the party as hypocrites.
  • Whether they make a major dent, or reclaim the house, depends on whether
    they can come up with a consistent, clear alternative. That alternative is
    conservatism.


    That is precisely why the Republicans will lose if they do; much of the
    country outside the South has actually rejected it. Conservatism as a
    populist ideology by its very nature is reactionary -- that is,
    "against something" -- and the reason it started losing elections in
    2006 was because it was finally exposed as being more for themselves and their
    "special interests" than for the people they supposedly represented. Keep in
    mind the lobbying scandal that ensnared a number of GOP candidates that year
    was in fact was part and parcel of conservative culture from the outset
    because its ultimate agenda always was to consolidate power in fewer and fewer
    hands. But the badmouthing that conservatives still do against a
    still-ineffective "left" will eventually wear thin, and I'm already predicting
    an Obama landslide in 2012.
  • lumens
    There are newly registered Democrats in every state. The Dems have had
    momentum. They do not at this point. The polls take into account those
    newly registered Democrats. I wouldn't call Toomey a favorite in the
    election, as Specter will probably play up his conservative credentials.

    My broader point about the future of the party wasn't simply based on the
    existence of Pat Toomey, so there isn't much point assessing his electoral
    prospects, fun as it is to do so.

    I would argue that Clinton changed the calculation for Democrats, thanks to
    the revolution of 1994. Obama is certainly following his playbook, trying
    to advance the bulk of his agenda early on so he can run to the middle later
    in his campaign. Unfortunately, this plan sort of sacrifices the midterm
    elections.

    The Republicans will almost assuredly gain seats in 2010. Whether they make
    a major dent, or reclaim the house, depends on whether they can come up with
    a consistent, clear alternative. That alternative is conservatism.
  • The average voter, at this point, is inclined to
    favor Toomey, even though he's conservative. It's a myth that the
    electorate has shifted leftward ideologically. There remain far more
    conservatives than liberals.


    You have zero basis on which to make that statement because you clearly don't know what goes on in Pennsylvania. In fact, Democratic registration has actually increased over the past five or so years in reaction to the heavy-handedness of the conservatives who run the GOP nationally.

    Introduces a slightly different slate of
    governmental programs is not a winning message.


    As if your agenda is. In fact, Bill Clinton permanently changed the calculus at the expense of the conservative movement, which is still trying desperately to channel Ronald Reagan.
  • lumens
    I am sure the gap will close as the battle wears on. The primary has
    nothing to do with it. The average voter, at this point, is inclined to
    favor Toomey, even though he's conservative. It's a myth that the
    electorate has shifted leftward ideologically. There remain far more
    conservatives than liberals.

    If the Republicans send a bunch of centrist candidates to bat in 2010, they
    will lose because their message will not be sufficiently distinct from that
    of moderate Democrats. They need to make the case that Obama has committed
    trillions of dollars, that the impact has been negligible, and that there is
    a very good reason why this is so. Introduces a slightly different slate of
    governmental programs is not a winning message.
  • That's only because the campaign hasn't started and Specter has competition in
    the Democratic primary. It wasn't Toomey that pushed him out; it was the fact
    that his power base, the Rockefeller Republicans that dominated the
    Philadelphia suburbs and the only true swing area in Pennsylvania, largely
    became Democratic.

    And as for the GOP not winning by staking out middle ground, that's the
    standard conservative line. The right is still trying to convince itself that
    "doctrinal purity" won them elections -- nonsense, it was the fact that until
    recently its agenda mirrored the mood of the country. Times have changed, but
    it hasn't changed with them.
  • seekingdisciple
    When President George H.W. Bush gave a school speech much like Obama did, the Democrats cried foul and yet the liberal media said nothing yet somehow when Republicans do it it turns into cries of racism, etc. Sorry Brian, your double standard is wrong in this case. Your liberal world vision leads you to write such pieces like this that do nothing for Christianity nor conservatives like myself.
  • lumens
    Toomey is ahead of Specter (the guy he pushed out of the GOP) in the polls,
    so he certainly has a chance to get elected.

    I have seen no evidence over the last several decades that Republicans
    benefit electorally from staking the middle ground. That just hasn't played
    out.
  • You're any better?
  • I think that folks like Pat Toomey, Steve Laffey, Michael Steele, Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindal are the future of the party.

    Then the future of the party is bleak indeed. Toomey is as extreme as it comes -- he was president of the Club for Growth -- and doesn't have much of a chance to get elected because his kind pushed moderates out of the GOP in Pennsylvania.
  • With all due respect, you showed that, in this instance, you truly don't know
    what you're talking about. And I have a problem with that.

    For openers, you mentioned that the Democratic Party was the true oppressor of
    African-Americans; however, that was true only in the South because the
    Republican Party was quite literally persona non grata down there because it
    destroyed slavery. Blacks began to switch to the Democratic Party in the
    North thanks to FDR, which is why the national Democratic Party eventually
    became supportive of civil rights; in response, the reactionary right began
    going Republican, where it has remained today. This is historical fact, and
    if you don't want to accept it ... well, I can't help you.

    As for the "moral element," that's also ridiculous because those issues didn't
    come to light until the 1970s at the earliest. Roe v. Wade took place
    only in 1973 and gay rights didn't become an issue until about a decade later,
    and even there the folks who took the "conservative" side even today represent
    only a minority of voters. On top of that, even many African-Americans are
    anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage, but that doesn't stop them from
    supporting Democratic candidates.

    The point is that the conservative movement has always tried to run away from
    its shameful record on race and racism; if anyone is resentful here it's the
    right because it doesn't want to face the reality that it consistently has
    acted unjustly. This particular thread, because of the touchiness of the
    conservatives that have contributed to it, has proved that beyond a doubt.
  • Huntergreen
    BlueDeacon, I very rarely comment on blogs, mostly because I don't have the time, but partly because people are so blinded by the the rhetoric fed them. Once you swallow that pill your not your own person. For the record, I choose not to be D or R because it causes you to defend what you don't embrace.
    Each of your citations seem to be taken with narrow field of view as if you are trying extrapolate the tidbits from each that form your worldview. Do yourself a favor and dispense with the filters that form opinions and drop the resentments. I don't deny there are Southern bigots (as well as anywhere else) but that is not the primary reason of the migration. Its the moral element.

    Ask yourself why the Blue areas of this country are so bankrupt. Crime and corruption is many many times higher. Demographics alone should cause people to reassess developed opinions. I wish you well.
  • JaneinWNY
    Ho-hum. When all else fails, wave the anti-abortion flag. Irrelevant.
  • Thanks for the clarification.
  • These statements I did not make:

    The difference is that Marxists are not Christians and therefore liberals
    can't be Marxists because liberals are Christians. So it's okay if I call
    people racists, because, in truth, that's what they are. You see, when Barry
    Goldwater ran for president, and the civil rights act was opposed, Nixon ran
    on the southern strategy and all those white southerns became republicans, and
    then Reagan said states rights, and see, conservatives are racists. I once
    dated a white woman and she didn't marry me because I'm black.


    You see, the people I know are representative of others. We all have to
    live with our experiences. I've read books on this. You haven't. The African
    American experience is at the heart of it. You can't understand.
  • Which comment?
  • BTW, I didn't actually write this comment -- someone "borrowed" my handle to mock me. (And this has happened before.)
  • Almost all of those "Dixiecrats" eventually joined the Republican Party, beginning with Strom Thurmond and extending to such luminaries as Trent Lott and Phil Gramm. Those that stayed in the Democratic Party, such as George Wallace, moderated their views. (It is thus no surprise that the majority of white Southerners except in a few "border" states are registered Republicans and, in the last election, voted for John McCain for president.)
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008