Love Your Political Enemies: A Response to Jimmy Carter’s Comments on Racism

by Valerie Elverton Dixon 09-17-2009

I love my fellow citizens who have taken to the street against President Obama and his plans for health-care reform. I love those who carry signs that compare him to Hitler and depict him as the Joker in Batman. I love those who show up to his town hall meetings wearing guns. I love Congress members who show disrespect for the first African-American president by shouting out, texting, and not giving him their attention. I love those citizens who say that President Obama is not a natural-born United States citizen. I love talk show hosts on radio and television that seek to divide the nation with pronouncements that bear little resemblance to the facts.

President Jimmy Carter has said that many of these good people are motivated by racism. Each woman and each man has to look into her or his heart and decide the truth of this. Racist or not, I love them. I love them because the teachings of Jesus command it.

Christianity is a hard religion to live. We do not tell people this when we open the doors to the church and invite them into salvation. It is easy to talk the talk of being saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost. But it is difficult to walk the walk, to turn the other cheek, to walk the extra mile, to give up coat and cloak, to pray God’s blessing upon people whose actions are hateful. It is difficult to pray that God will walk with them and demonstrate God’s love and presence in their lives. I cannot do this in my own power. I can only do this through the power of God’s own Holy Spirit.

I value my heard-headed realism that tells me to be clear-eyed about everything. I dare not forget my history, a large part of which is the history of struggle against the congenital deformity and the internal contradiction of America. From the very beginning our founders used the rhetoric of liberty and equality but did not consider their slaves or women to be equal persons under the law.

This racist thinking corrupted every aspect of American life — science, society, culture, economy, education, politics and religion. In-group identities and loyalties, common in human social organization, become dangerous when one group considers itself superior to the other. I must stay vigilant and work to exorcise this danger from the world. I have to release my resentment.

Moreover, my faith requires that I wrestle with the spiritual wickedness that is racism, but not with the individuals who are trapped by it. And racism traps everyone it touches. Love, radical love, is the first work that is ours to do. Biblical wisdom tells us that perfect love casts our fear (I John 4:18). This perfect love is not a flawless or error-free love. It is a complete, mature love — a love that loves even enemies. Thankfully and blessedly, it is a love that also shelters me and protects me from my own fears.

Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School.

Categories: Activism, Faith and Politics, Race

Tags: African-American, America, anger, Batman, Christian, equality, Ethics, extra mile, Healthcare, healthcare reform, holy spirit, Jesus, Jimmy Carter, peace, Politics, President, Racism, racist, slaves, town hall, United States

cpd

So how do I disagree with an African-American president without being called a racist? I don't care if he's polka-dotted, I disagree with his *policies*. Does this mean a white person can never disagree with Obama?

What reason do you give all the people who disagreed with every other president we've had? Can't be racist (at least not the white people who disagreed)...

How about we start doing what MLK said - judging people based on the content of their character. In this case, I'm judging the President based on the content of his policies and I don't agree. That doesn't make me a racist. It makes my opinions different.

BlueDeacon

So how do I disagree with an African-American president without being called a racist?

Give specifics as to why you disagree and then propose alternatives that might be acceptable to all sides. Obama's enemies have no intention of doing either because they don't like the idea that someone they didn't choose is making decisions; besides, they've never been interested in rational arguments.

lionsbru

Obama's enemies have no intention of doing either

How do you know they are NOT giving reasons and alternatives? If you read the "right wing" blogosphere (esp prominent spots like a Powerline or NRO) and talk radio -- which are, I assume, the main forums you have in mind --you will find them constantly giving reasons and alternatives.

They may be good alternatives, or bad, or more likely a mixture, but to claim they don't exist? Have you actually been trying to LISTEN to them?

By the way, isn't it a bit unreasonable to ask ONE side of the debate to "propose alternatives that might be acceptable to ALL sides" (as if that were even possible) ?

BlueDeacon

Notice the term I used -- "enemies," not simply "critics." The critics may very well have legitimate alternatives, perhaps deserve to be heard and oppose Obama's plans for some very good reasons. But that's not what we're talking about here -- in my city one man even flew an old Soviet flag in protest, and I recently learned that the ouster of Van Jones was actually precipitated by a right-wing anti-environmental group which feared loss of income were his very effective policies were actually implemented (besides embarrassing Obama).

xfree9

You don't consider right-wing talk radio his "enemies" and not merely his critics? Who do you consider his true "enemies"? Glenn Beck (who is the ouster of Van Jones you mentioned) repeatedly says that Obama is his president, and that he is everyone's president, and when we disagree we do it respectfully, and we ignore and call out the racism in those who also oppose him.

Obama's critics, at least given a few days, come up with their own solutions, or at least counter ideas. Some of them are worthless, some are worth considering. But Obama has refused to truly have all options on the table with health care.

BlueDeacon

Then explain the "tea party" on Saturday, attended by only 70,000 but claiming millions.

xfree9

Where did you get that number?

BlueDeacon

A colleague quoted it in his column on Tuesday.

xfree9

I googled it... there are ranges. The anti- tea party crowd wants to keep it 60-70k. Pic of any overhead photograph of the event on Saturday, and that number is the absolute minimum. The photos reveal a very large crowd. Some estimate upwards of a million, with the high end about 1.4, but not "millions."

kansasmennonite

It's only a very small fraction of the people who don't have health insurance. They're a loud minority group that is very "fringy". Extremely anti govt so some of the repubs didn't even want to speak and show up since they are part of the govt.

jonabark

So Glenn Beck says respectful things like"The President has exposed himself as a guy … over and over and over again … who has a deep-seated hatred for white people … or the white culture…. I don't know what it is"

Or this respectful question"Could Barak Obama be the anti-Christ?"

xfree9

I saw the second question on TV, and if you saw it, you wouldn't believe it was disrespectful. He was asking the question in a laughingly mocking way at the notion of calling Obama the anti-Christ. If you read the quote, yes, it sounds disrespectful, but in context it was very much, "Shut up you anti-Christ mongers!"

jonabark

I watched on utube and felt the tone was. Well we know this guy is evil but is he the antiChrist?... ha ha ha.
He is not respectful. He bullies anyone he can, and the picture he presents of the government is insane fear mongering lies. According to a Harvard and US government survey taken over 15 years 45,000 citizens are now dying annually because they have no health insurance. The statistics in California of those who do have health insurance show that 1 out of 5 claims are denied. The dark picture Beck summons of government health care is almost exactly the same as that predicted by Ronald Reagan for Medicare. 100 % wrong. They are spokesmen for the paranoid greedy lies of the rich and powerful.
Universal government health care is the only reasonable model and in the many countries that have it none has taken to murdering citizens.

lionsbru

Part of the problem in this discussion is that you seem to believe or act as if the nasty fringe, whose views I hope all here deplore, are a huge force -- that they are the driving force of opposition to Obama's policy, perhaps even the majority. That makes it all too tempting and easy to slip into smearing anyone who disagrees with the President as either holding such views, or cravenly letting those views determine their actions.

You illustrate that in the Van Jones case. It may be that there is some such group as you describe, and that they were concerned about Van Jones. In this vast and complex country I would wager that in just about every debate you can find some group or other with nasty or wacko ideas on both ends of the political spectrum. But the existence and efforts of such groups does not somehow prove they are the "real reason", the ones pulling the strings (apparently without those making the public argument even knowing it).

I would urge to check out the discussion and arguments of the more careful & responsible folks on the right (try National Review Online, Powerline blog, Hugh Hewitt, for example). See what reasons they are giving for opposing Van Jones, or various Obama policies. I doubt you'll hear even a hint that the sort of group you mention above has in any way influenced their thinking. In fact, I'll bet that, if real, it's a tiny fringe group these leading voices and most of the right have never heard of.

By the way, can you name this group? If you don't really know who they are, and can't find very solid evidence of their existence and activity (not to mention influence), I would be very skeptical of efforts to make them the 'real reason' or to charge some sort of conspiracy. I try to that when I hear charges about fringe groups on the left, and I would appreciate it if you gave the same care and benefit of the doubt to those on the right.

As for the Soviet flag story, I'm not quite sure I understood your point. Are you saying he flew that to mark his objection to Obama's policies? OK. I might not quite agree with his assessment (presumably that , or like his expressing this view in this way. But I don't quite see how that specific action is "racist" -- and I thought that was the point of this discussion.

BlueDeacon

Part of the problem in this discussion is that you seem to believe or act as if the nasty fringe, whose views I hope all here deplore, are a huge force -- that they are the driving force of opposition to Obama's policy, perhaps even the majority.

The fringe may not be the majority; however, no one denies that it does indeed drive the discourse beyond a rational discussion because it has the biggest mouths -- and access to major media. Besides, many of such groups are indeed underground but have the ear of the professional "haters." That's why they complain that the MSM don't bring such things to light.

By the way, can you name this group?

Americans for Prosperity.

As for the Soviet flag story, I'm not quite sure I understood your point.

Well, the very same charge of "Communism" was made towards MLK Jr., despite his repeated open denunciations of Marxism.

lumens

"he fringe may not be the majority; however, no one denies that it does indeed drive the discourse"

I deny it.

BlueDeacon

You see, MLK Jr. was once accused of being a communist. Any time a white man accuses a black man of being a communist, you can bet it's racist. In fact, any time a white man challenges a black man it's because he's racist.

mousehouse

BlueDeacon, you've just violated at least the third guideline in the Comment Code of Conduct.

BlueDeacon

This was a case of someone hijacking my handle.

irish_annie

so anyone with another viewpoint is identified as "obama's enemies"?!!!

is your scope so narrow that anyone who strays from the group think is named ENEMY? firmly entrenched in a self-righteous "us vs them", the new liturgical left has no more imagination or insight than the old religious right. two sides of the same coin.

BlueDeacon

No, that is NOT what I'm saying. In fact, I make the distinction between
Obama's critics -- those who have sincere disagreement based on
principle -- and his enemies, who want to see him fail due to pure
envy. And it's clear to me that most of the folks demonstrating him today
generally fall into the second camp, not interested even in negotiating with
him. And Obama has to know that too -- I mean, how do you talk to someone who
just won't listen to anything you say?