Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

A Little After-Election Perspective

As President Barack Obama was mopping up his successful campaign to lead the country for another four years, I was polishing off Walter Isaacson's biography of Benjamin Franklin. For me, personally, it felt like a fitting conclusion to the evening—and really, to this hard-fought election season.

Franklin was America's first Renaissance man—its best-known inventor, philosopher, writer and statesman before the United States officially cut the cord with the British Empire. He was also a man with an ability to get along with folks of all political persuasions (except for his own son, who sided with Britain during the war). That makes him, I think, an inspiring character in an age of bitter partisanship. And even though the guy was not particularly religious—many atheists (wrongly) claim him as one of his own—his spirit of compromise actually had some deeply spiritual underpinnings.

In 1987, four years after the Revolutionary War and as the United States struggled under its Articles of Confederation, an 81-year-old Franklin was asked to participate in a convention to "revise" those articles. As it turned out, the convention opted to scrap the thing altogether and craft a new form of government. But here's the thing: They were creating it from scratch. After all, they had just rebelled against a monarchic government (so in vogue at the time) and had no interest in creating a petty dictatorship. There was no country in the world from which they could model the sort of government they wanted, and there were some wildly different ideas on how it should look. Franklin, for instance, hated the idea of a sole President, preferring a cabinet for the new nation's executive branch. And the legislature? Forget two congressional houses. One will do much better.

Most of the delegates were equally opinionated, and in-house fighting grew quite heated. But as things threatened to spin out of control, Franklin made an interesting proposal: Why don't we pray about it? Writes Isaacson:

Franklin was never known to pray publicly himself, and he rarely attended church. Yet he thought it useful to remind his assembly of demigods that they were in the presence of a God far greater, and that history was watching as well. To succeed, they had to be awed by the magnitude of their task and be humbled, not assertive. Otherwise, he concluded, "we shall be divided by our little, partial, local interests, our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a by-word down to future ages."   

Franklin didn't get his prayer: The convention didn't have the money to hire a chaplain. But the point was made. The convention, naturally, went on to craft the United States Constitution—a document that was a product of compromise and imbued with the understanding that none of us are perfect. The Constitution's divisions of power and its system of checks and balances tells us, more than 200 years later, that absolute power cannot be entrusted to one man, or even one body of man. We all need help. We all need guidance. And we work best when we understand there are other, higher authorities watching us.

I wonder, sometimes, if we could use more of an attitude of prayer—not just in politics, but in our daily lives. Prayer is great for a lot of those reasons, of course … but one of the biggest is how it puts us—emotionally, spiritually and often physically—in a posture of humility. It reminds us that we're not as great and cool as we sometimes imagine ourselves to be; that we're dependent beings that need help and guidance. It reinforces that it's not all about us: We're a small piece in a much bigger picture.


Franklin died three years after the convention, leaving behind one of the greatest epitaphs of all time. Though he opted to use something a bit similar for his tombstone, his original seems far more fitting for America's premiere 18th-century wit:

The body of
B. Franklin, Printer:
(Like the cover of an old book,
Its contents worn out,
and stripped of its lettering and guilding)
Lies here, food for worms.
But the work shall not be lost:
For it will, (as he believed) appear once more,
In a new and more elegant edition,
Revised and corrected
By the author. 

Monday, November 5, 2012

Voting Values ... And Valuing the Vote


I love politics. I really do. But even I’m about ready for this political season to be over.

I’ve read the stories, watched the debates, heard the ads and felt the spin. Even in September, my enthusiasm for this hallowed tradition was still running strong. But you can only hear so many times that the other guy’s a jerk before you just start rolling your eyes and losing just a wee bit of hope in our political system. George Will of The Washington Post offered a great quote from Woody Allen Nov. 2: “One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

Christians should do a lot of praying this time of year. It’s a big responsibility, this voting thing. We’re asking these folks to handle some pretty hefty responsibilities, and we should be equally grave in deciding who’s the best fit for the jobs at hand.

But sometimes, I wonder whether in our zeal to select the right folks, we might go a little overboard.

When I was a religion reporter in Colorado Springs, I had a chance to cover the 2004 election, when “moral values” was (according to the exit polls) the biggest issue of the election. Evangelical voters turned out in droves to vote for George W. Bush, which helped push him to a narrow victory over Sen. John Kerry.

But during that election, I was surprised by a handful of Christians who told me a vote for Dubya didn’t just better reflect their values: Anyone who voted against him was voting against Christian values. It wasn’t just that God had a political preference (these folks insinuated): He had a vendetta against the other guy ... and the other party. Many were probably amazed that the election culminated in a vote and not a bolt of lightning.

Now, I’m all for Christians voting their values. Anyone who thinks that people of faith can somehow separate their faith from their politics—well, they don’t have a great handle on how faith is supposed to work. My beliefs filter into every area of my life, and for me, pert near everything on the docket—health care, the environment, the economy—all are “values” issues. How I think about those issues reflect my priorities, which in turn reflect my faith.

But I dunno. It feels that sometimes, we Christians can get our politics and religion a little confused. I’m not saying that God doesn’t care who wins elections … I’m just saying that, important as they are, they are “just” elections. And all the folks in ‘em are all God’s creation, whether you agree with their politics or not. And as such, they deserve our respect, if not our votes.

I just finished reading ReFocus, the new book from Focus on the Family’s Jim Daly. Now, he’s my boss (Plugged In, where I work as an entertainment reviewer, is a part of the ministry), so I hope this doesn’t sound too much like a plug. But I really appreciate his belief that Christians should be humble, even in the realm of public discourse and debate. Now, Daly’s as staunch a defender of the values evangelicals hold dear as anyone; he definitely encourages folks to take an active part in the political sphere. But he understands that the Christian faith isn’t inherently synonymous with one political party. And sometimes, during a particularly heated political season, we can all get so wrapped up in winning the argument that we forget we’re supposed to be winning hearts as well. Writes Daly (with collaborator Paul Batura):

Sometimes we might do what’s right—but for the wrong (usually selfish) reason. I am reminded of the story of the philosopher Diogenes. He was once seen sitting on a curb eating lentils and bread, a meager meal. A fellow philosopher, Aristippus, a man who lived well because he flattered the kind, approached him and mocked his circumstance. “If you would learn to be subservient to the kind,” he snarled, “you would not have to live on lentils.” Diogenes looked up with a smile, tilted his head, and replied, “Learn to live on lentils, and you will not have to cultivate the king.”

When politics and religion have grown too tightly connected to one another, the results have not always been particularly successful. I can’t help but feel that governments—all governments—are fallable, potentially falling prey to either corruption or weak leadership or any number of ailments. The Church is, I think, at its best when it stands just a bit outside the halls of power—speaking boldly to the issues of the day without the need to cultivate the king. Or, for that matter, the President.