The Problem With Political Ideals
by Denise
Last night, President Barack Obama won another term as President of the United States. Although the enthusiasm going into this election was decidedly lukewarm compared to 2008, measuring by the electoral college results, it was a landslide. Many liberals are rejoicing and perhaps breathing a sigh of relief, only to be met with indignation and cynicism from disaffected conservatives who thought that Mitt Romney might represent the potential for a “turnaround” of values in the United States. Though the beliefs of many politically conservative Christians were challenged by Romney’s Mormon faith, many considered things like “family values,” a pro-life ethic, and fiscal conservatism as being best represented by Romney and his running mate, Congressman Paul Ryan.
By contrast, most liberals and many independents saw the Romney-Ryan team representing something else entirely: instead of family values, they saw forced conformity; instead of a pro-life ethic, they saw an attempt to control women, coupled with ignorance about women’s reproductive systems; and instead of fiscal conservatism, they saw only cuts to valuable social programs coupled with breaks for the wealthiest and ramped-up defense spending. Romney’s offhand remarks about 47% of Americans implied that he saw half of the population as lazy and entitled–which only further damaged his image with those who already felt he only truly cared about the wealthy.
But just as the perceived virtues of the Romney-Ryan team appeared garish when viewed through the lens of liberal analysis, so did the perceived virtues of the Obama-Biden team wither under the heat of conservative principles. Where liberals praised Obama for “coming out” about his support for gay marriage, conservatives saw a degradation of the family. Where Obama was seen as championing women by defending Sandra Fluke, conservatives saw tacit approval of sexual promiscuity. And where liberals hailed Obama’s success in achieving comprehensive health care reform through the Affordable Care Act, most conservatives balked at the looming expansion of government resulting from it; which expansion represents less individual freedom.
The rhetoric on both sides centered on “values.” For conservatives: belief in God, freedom from government, and “personal responsibility” are the main themes. For liberals, “equality” and addressing systemic injustice are the main motivators. And holding to these principles, the candidate that signals them the most draws those voters. While I believe that principles are paramount, I think that often focusing on these broad ideals prevents us from thinking and reflecting well on the policies being advocated.
On the liberal side, I find the concept of “equality” to be problematic–if only because it remains undefined. There’s a website I’ve come across that poses a pop-up quiz every time you visit. One question: “Do you support equality for all?” My question in response is “Equality of what?” We live in a society that has many “inequalities”–our tax system is progressive, meaning that the some people pay a higher proportion of tax on their income than others. There are inequalities in professional status, salary, discretionary income. There are inequalities of status under the law based on one’s criminal record and even mental capacity. Clearly to simply speak of “equality” is not enough. What “inequalities” are people willing to accept and why?
On the conservative side, “patriotism” can be another principle that’s hard to pin down, particularly when it is so often closely tied to military endeavors. Does love of country demand that we not question its actions? Does love of country mean that we believe that our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren are more valuable than the lives of those in other countries?
My point is that broad appeals to lofty ideals are often used to justify without qualification policies and actions that–on their own, we’d have good reason to question the goodness or merits of. A good book on a similar theme is War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning by journalist and war correspondent Chris Hedges. The overarching theme of the book is that, through war, the noblest ideals are drummed up in society’s mind–and by emphasizing those ideals, actions are undertaken that can perpetuate injustice, destruction, immorality and the like. But because the ideal has been invoked, all those things done in its name become acceptable.
During the election, the candidates drew supporters around them by appealing to the ideals that tug the heartstrings of those wanting to hear it. But kinda like I wrote in the post “Don’t Convert Me!”, goodness is not ideological. It transcends our ideals and they can only serve it. We have to work for the best outcomes regardless of whether the policy needed to do so fits with our pre-formed ideas of how society is supposed to be.
Good read!
Thanks!
Arid, what do you think of the “complementarian Catholics” (or Christians in general)? Personally, I was converted because I saw someone’s admirable example of faith and humility at a Catholic Church I just stopped by at Mass. (It’s quite a long story, but my friend did not try to convince me that God existed by employing apologetic arguments to assail my rationalist, empiricist worldview; she was just being herself and served God faithfully with childlike faith.)
Hi, thanks for stopping by. Sorry for the delay in responding. (For others, I think you might be referring to my post “Why I ‘Came Home’ to Catholicism”) I’m not sure I know what you mean by “complementarian”. When I hear that, I usually think of gender issues (as in “complementarian” vs. “egalitarian”).
But in general, I think that many people are drawn by the Lord in a variety of different ways. We’re called to share our stories–to testify to the work that the Lord has done in us–and those who are compelled by His Spirit manifesting Himself through us will be drawn. And of course, the witness provided by virtuous character is something that we’re all called to.
Thanks for your reply,
I am averse when religious faith is used to advance a specific, political agenda due to my own experiences with religion. For many reasons, particularly those highlighted in your post “Don’t Convert Me”, it is not pragmatic to impose one’s religious and political views on others since any attempt would be vehemently rebuffed, although one certainly needs a means of educating the populace on the rudimentary aspects of the faith.
When I say “complementarianism”, I meant the ideology that supposes that the zeitgeist of modern feminism has led to a culture of hedonism and decadence, instead of frugality and chastity. (Of course, contemporary feminism did little to advance the economic prospects of most women, since it mainly liberate aspirational and talented women who have the cognitive and personality characteristics demanded by the labor market, as those women are a rare commodity. There, of course, is an economic element to complementarism, since it assigns men the economic role of supporting a family; therefore, they should advocate progressive economic policies that foster full employment and high wages, but they most certainly do not emphasize this nor do they address the challenges of neoliberal globalization — technological automation, free trade, free movement of capital, diminution of national sovereignty, and increased immigration.)
I mentioned my conversion experience with my friend because it corroborates your thesis about the distinction between love and ideology. Indeed, religious tenets are often deemed by people as a foreign, invasive pathogen intruding upon one’s intellectual identity that must be resisted by the full force of the intellect. This is especially true when those religious tenets are conjoined to an actual political ideology (such as complementarism). I was sitting in the back pew, just wanting to respectfully observe the Mass as a faithless detached spectator, and she approached me, an introverted autistic, and her faithful example started to make an impression on me. I returned the next few weeks and she offered to sit by me again. To reiterate, it was her faith, sincerity, and humility that I found admirable and contravened my cynical preconceptions on religious people being ignorant, irrational, bigoted, and reactionary hypocrites. She did not utilize any persuasive or eloquent intellectual arguments to subdue my restive mind, and she do not even put in any conscious effort (much like the Taoist maxim wei wu wei “effortless action”). Overwhelmed, I asked myself if I should imitate her, and approached the parish priest who then told me to pray, which I did. My encounter with her was the precipitating event for my conversion, although it wasn’t the sole cause, since I had many experiences that predisposed me to faith while my soul was lying fallow in a quiescent state of doubt and skepticism.
God bless you, CRJ!
This link might also be instructive:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2011/06/13/tf-how-not-to-do-evangelism/
(Evangelism should be like being a host to a guest, not being a sales men trying to sell some product.)