[Dialogue] Being a Republican

Sun Apr 2 01:54:02 EST 2006

I think I prefer to choose not to forward this piece. It's not just that it
is inaccurate and misleading in terms of how -by innuendo- it portrays
Democrats and Republicans, and it's not just that it oversimplifies complex
dynamics, but it seems to imply that Democrats and Republicans are
homogenous groups- that Democrats are "good, knowlegible and informed"
people and Republicans are "bad, ignorant and uninformed" people. When I
first read it, my hair bristled and my breath became shallow. Then I
breathed deeply and I reflected on why my hair bristled. I find this piece
conveys a tone of self-righteous arrogance that is profoundly disrespectful
to people who disagree with us as if because they disagree they deserve to
be disrespected or that we are entitled to denigrate their humanity.

In contrast, my understanding is that ICA values profoundly respecting all
persons and it values inclusive participation. How does disseminating this
piece reflect those values? If I were to recite these 17 points to a
republican- say my brother, for example, how would that create an opening
for serious, meaningful dialogue that might lead him to question some
assumptions he that holds? We can respect others and listen to their views
even if we disagree with them. We can also voice our own perspectives in the
conversation without making those with whom we disagree morally wrong.

Usually when this kind of stuff crosses my desk I just click "delete" and
move on. But at this particular moment I am reminded of how arrogant and
self-righteous the political left appears to many of its detractors and am
concerned that such an attitude is contributing to the fall of the political
left and the values for which it stands.

I am inspired by Rabbi Michael Lerner's new book, The Left Hand of God:
Taking Back Our Country From the Religious Right. I find it very timely. The
Central motivating thesis in that book is that the political left does not
offer a "politics of meaning" (sic.) to people. In his research
investigating why people have migrated away from the political left to the
political right, he found an overwhelming concern for a "politics of
meaning." Of those who have migrated from the left to the right, their
experience of the political left is that it does not inspire people with a
politics of meaning anywhere near to the degree that the political right
does. Therefore, Lerner asserts, the political left has a tremendous
opportunity to cultivate a politics of meaning by framing social, economic
and environmental issues and concerns in spiritual or religious terms.

Lerner suggests that the political right and the religious right have
developed a quid pro quo relationship that meets their respective interests.
The religious right (the Right Hand of God) is remarkable for thinking of
the world as a scary place in which survival depends on controlling one's
circumstances by dominating one's present and future enemies. The book of
Joshua is a great example of the Right Hand of God... Joshua, in that
account, smote this and that enemy time after time after time, chalking up
an impressive list of conquests. In my mind it's hard to distinguish Joshua
form a rampant tyrant! The religious right, according to Lerner, seeks to
dominate the conversation about meaning and religion by essentially
squelching other perspectives- like that of the Left Hand of God, for
example. Nevertheless, the political right helps market the religious
right's point of view and meets it's goal of bringing more and more "souls"
into its fold.

What the political right gets out of the deal is converts from the political
left and votes that increases its political power. Nevermind that the ethics
of warfare, corporate globalization, exploitation of the poor, and the plan,
procure, produce and profit mentality has been entirely removed form the
conversation about religion and people's search for meaning. The Religious
Right has skillfully crafted the view that ethics and meaning only involves
concerns about gay rights, a woman's right to choose and the role of God as
Creator in the cosmos. If the political left offers no politics of
meaning -in a religious context- many people, according to Lerner find some
meaning to be better than none at all- and gravitate to the political right.
The point here is that the religious and political right are not one in the
same. They are separate and distinct entities who recently got married, so
to speak; but all intimate relationships fall on hard times if the sole
motivating forces keeping them together are self interest and self service-
even if the foundation is a mutually agreed upon quid pro quo relationship.
The marriage of the political right to the religious right, says Lerner, is
neither inevitable nor everlasting. Indeed, many Republicans have trouble
with the perspective, interests and motivations of the Religious Right and
are open to a less fundamentalistic religious paradigm to inform their sense
of meaning as well as their politics.

Lerner argues that now is the time for the political left to cultivate a
politics of meaning by embracing the Left Hand of God. The Left Hand of God
represents "power with" through love and cooperation rather than "power
over" through domination and control. Power derived through domination and
control depends upon the weakness of others. Power derived through love and
cooperation empowers all, ultimately leaving the world a less scary place as
people, at once, fully embrace their diversity and common humanity through
building strong community with one another. The Right and Left Hand of God
seem to be two mutually exclusive paradigms- but the political left has not
even articulated the latter paradigm as something in which to ground its
politics.

This context that Michael Lerner has articulated that can shift the
political conversation of meaning inspires me a great deal. Through this
awareness, we can enter into a new political consciousness and encourage
others to join us. Much of what appears in ICA dialogue, in my mind, already
represents "Left Hand of God political consciousness."  Now we have an
opportunity to more intentionally widen the circles of conversation into the
public political space- seeking out those with whom we disagree, inviting
them to participate in political dialogue, grounding our politics as our
response to how we experience ourselves as called into Being... by God, the
Eternal, the Light, the Creative Life Force, Buddha Nature, our Core
Essence... or whatever language comfortably expresses transcendent reality
for us.

My concern about the 17 points of "What You Need To Believe To Be A
Republican" is that I think it does not serve to broaden the circles of
conversation about what has heart and meaning -especially among Republicans-
into the public political space. "Republican bashing" might be thought of as
a "Right Hand of God" tactic. In what ways can we carry the deep concerns
that underlay this piece- the awarenesses and concerns about public policy
that creates the conditions to exploit masses of people -especially the
poor- and our natural environment to enrich a handful of others- into the
public political space in ways that have heart and meaning? What "Left Hand
of God" approaches can we cultivate that would inspire anyone -Democrat or
Republican- to appreciate the spiritual or religious meaning in taking away
the occasion for war through developing human community: creating the
political will to end malnutrition and disease, making economic justice a
reality to the world's poor- making educational opportunity realistically
available to all- using monetary capital to help increase social capital and
environmental sustainability rather than to increase economic capital -in
the short term- at the expense of social capital and environmental
sustainability? Where can we find opportunities to carry on this this
conversation as a spiritual or religious conversation that truly nourishes a
politics of meaning? In my mind, finding ways to enter into dialogue with
those with whom we disagree serves our political interests far better than
merely -and perhaps smugly- bashing those with whom we disagree.

 -----Original Message-----
From: Dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
[mailto:Dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net]On Behalf Of hypnocenter
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 2:19 PM
To: iCA-DIALOGUE
Subject: [Dialogue] Being a Republican

  Ken Wiltse forwarded this to me.  I thought it a riot, albeit discomfiting
with its "truth."

  What You Need To Believe To Be A Republican:
  1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary
Clinton.

  2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney
  did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin
Laden" diversion.

  3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

  4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

  5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without
regulation.

  6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

  7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

  8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then
demand their cooperation and money.

  9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing
health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have
the best interests of the public at heart.

  10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

  11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable
offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.

  12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the
Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the
Internet.

  13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but
George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

  14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for
your recovery.

  15. Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who
will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)

  16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

  17. Support for hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing
orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.

  Feel free to pass this on. If you don't send it to at least 10 other
people, we're likely to be stuck with more (conservative) Republicans in '06
and '08.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060401/da3ae536/attachment-0002.htm