|
Dear Readers of the Website:
Originally this was Chapter Nine of the book, Jesus Rode a Donkey. Since we needed to cut for the published book, we cut this chapter because most of what is here is somewhere else in the book. The original idea of this chapter was to interview some Christian Democrats from various denominations, and ask them why they had chosen to be a Democrat, and what policies of the Democratic Party attracted them, as Christians. Here you'll hear their voices, as well as the story of my journey, growing up in a Republican household and finding that the Democratic Party better fit my value system.
WHY I AM A DEMOCRAT
"All of you are the children of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus, since every one of you that has been baptized has been clothed in Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female - for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3:26-18
We could add to the Bible verse above - nor Republican or Democrat, nor Baptist or Catholic, nor Liberal or Conservative. The members of each Party come in all types. The Republican Party has those in their party we might not expect - homosexuals and scientists and those who are Pro-Choice. The Democrats also defy stereotypes with their members including successful businessmen, the very very rich (such as Ted Turner), evangelicals, missionaries, soccer moms, cowboys, as well as the expected members of the Party such as some scientists, scholars, theologians, and thousands of our favorite actors in Hollywood. Christ embraces us all, and expects us to do the same.
If we become overly identified with a Party, a position, or a label, we have lost the point of what it means to be a Christian. The only label we, as Christians, should be carrying is one that says "In Service to Christ." The only question that is truly important is the one that Jesus posed - "Do we love God and do we love our neighbor?"
This does not mean that we don't work through the Party that best expresses our values and our approach to life. We are conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, not only because of how we prioritize our values, but partly because of our personalities and lifestyle.
I am not a conservative. Neither am I a radical. It's just who I am. Anyone who knows me knows that the clothes I wear, the imagination I bring to my work, the way I relate to people, the books that I find intriguing, the questions I ask, the curiosity I have about other cultures and other religions, are not part of either a conservative or radical approach to life.
I do, know, however, that conservatives, fundamentalists, radicals, liberals, and moderates are able to get along. I come from an extended family that includes almost all of these.
My father was a staunch conservative - in the best sense of the word. He had no need for change. He believed that our little town of Peshtigo, Wisconsin was the center of the Universe, so there was no need to travel anywhere else. He was content going to his drug store every morning, filling prescriptions for the 2500 people from the town, most of whom he knew. He didn't confront. He didn't make waves. He played it safe, never took risks, never questioned. He never took a stand even, at times, when it seemed that it was important to stand up and to be counted. He was never hateful, would never willingly hurt anyone, and was one of the most generous people I've ever known. From the time I was born until the day he died, I never heard him say an unkind word about anyone.
My mother was a liberal in outlook. She was curious about the world around her and the world outside the boundaries of Peshtigo, of Wisconsin, and the United States. She believed in "seeing this world before the next" and, although she never saw as much of this world as she wanted to see, she kept her positive outlook until the end of her life. She believed in possibilities, potential, imagination, what might be. She was willing to analyze and ask the Big Questions - about people, about values, about our lives. Before I went to college, she told me, "It's all right to question your religion. If your religion can't hold up to questioning, it's not much good anyway." She believed that Christianity was strong enough for any of my little, but important questions, and that by questioning, my faith would become stronger, rather than weaker. She raised us to believe in ourselves, to go after what we wanted out of life, and to not be afraid to move beyond conventions. She was willing to think outside the box, and to make unconventional decisions when necessary. She believed that if a child is nurtured and grows up in a house of values, that meeting people from other countries, other cultures, other religions would not threaten who I am. She encouraged us to respect others, while still being ourselves. We never tried to keep up with the Joneses, nor to compete with others, but our own identity was affirmed. She helped us understand that nurturing our own potential and nurturing the potential of others was a worthy goal to make the world better.
I took after my mother. My sister took after my father.
My sister is a conservative - in dress, in her approach to others, in her approach to religion and politics. She rarely questions how things are, and isn't one to discuss and analyze issues. But she is not a push-over. She would not follow a Party line just because someone told her to. Although she has, almost always, voted Republican, she told me very clearly, when I started writing this book, that she was an Independent. Holly is also the nicest person I've ever met.
I have seen the best of both. I know that there is nothing inherently wrong with conservatives or liberals or fundamentalists or radicals. I know, because of my own family history, that we can get along, and that we can respect each other. I also know that we are drawn to certain ways of thinking and certain approaches to problem-solving and that is partly why we choose one Party over another.
How Did I Become a Democrat?
In the 1950's, like most of the country, I liked Ike. I inherited these feelings not just from my parents, but from my entire little town in northern Wisconsin. Everyone was Republican, although I vividly remember our mock elections in 1952 in the second grade, when all of us small second-graders voted for Eisenhower, except for one little girl. I was shocked, and wondered what was wrong with this child sitting across the room from me. At that time, those who were different were simply strange, and beyond understanding.
My father was always a solid Republican. My mother became a Democrat during the Vietnam War, due to the influence of her brother, Norman Graebner, and our Lutheran minister who questioned our foreign policies. The minister was deeply upsetting to our little Lutheran church, which had no idea what to do with a minister who was part of protest marches. A deal was finally struck between the minister and the congregation - he could march, but had to be clear that he was doing this based on his own personal belief system, and not as a representative of our church. An uneasy peace prevailed until he left a few years later.
I was won over to the Democrats by John F. Kennedy. Although I was a Nixon supporter in 1960 (although I couldn't vote), and had the same stereotypes and concerns as others - that the Pope might move into the White House if Kennedy was elected, I soon changed my mind. I admired Kennedy's vision for America, his humor, and the elegance and dignity he brought to the office of the President. I was pushed back to the Republican side by the bully tactics of Lyndon B. Johnson. Although, in retrospect, I have discovered the many good social legislations that he did for our country, I was not fond of him. I would have voted for Nixon in 1968, if I could have figured out where to find an absentee ballot. But within a year after his election, I became increasingly upset by the governments' attacks upon anyone who didn't agree with their policies. Vice-President Spiro t. Agnew was particularly divisive. Known as Nixon's "hatchet man", he called the protesters of the war "elitist pigs" and coined a new term for protesters in a speech in 1970 in San Diego -"Nattering nabobs of negativism" to describe supposed intellectuals who attack American policy. "Natter" means "to nag, to find fault peevishly." When I began to question our government's policies, for the first time I realized that my government hated me, because I didn't agree with them. This struck me as particularly un-American, since I had always understood democracy to mean free debate, the balance of power between different parts of the government, checks and balances so no one branch of the government had absolute power and authority.
In the 1970's and 1980's, I moved back and forth between registering Independent and registering Democrat, not thinking very reflectively about politics, but eventually becoming a Democrat based on two observations that I made. As I became more focused on religion, I began developing a clearer sense of how Jesus operated within society. Politics is social action -- regulated and legalized and propelled into social policy. I began to move outside of my own sense of looking out for the self, into thinking of others in our society. As I reflected upon the ways that my society either hindered, or helped me, I also began to see ways that society hindered or helped others. I had been discriminated against in the 1970's and welcomed the work of Title IX to try to help women equalize their place in society. We haven't come close enough yet, but programs that help our government encourage the contributions of women, ethnic groups, of the poor, can only help strengthen our country. I have seen that the Democrats are more apt to be concerned about the civil rights of its citizens, trying to extend them to everyone. I looked at a number of social policies, and felt that the Democrats were more apt to support the extension of rights to everyone. During my years in graduate school I was very poor, just scraping by, and only made it with the help of Food Stamps in spite of working two very low-paying jobs. I recognized that I would get out of my poor status, because I was white and smart and educated and had support of others, but that others would not be so fortunate. As I began to do well in business, instead of that leading me to identify with others who had wealth, I began to recognize my responsibility to help those who had not had the advantages that I had. I learned more about oppression, and made conscious decisions to work on my sensitivity to the poor and oppressed, as I began to recognize that this is what Jesus commanded us to do. As my spiritual life expanded into this new understanding of the Gospel, I felt that the Democratic Party best expressed my religious life and Christian values.
As I listened more to each Party, I began to notice a level of nastiness among the Republicans in the last twenty or thirty years. Republican Christine Todd Whitman in her book, It's My Party, Too believes that the nastiness began at the 1964 Republican convention when Barry Goldwater's supporters booed and heckled Nelson Rockefeller, who had also run for the Republican nomination. She says, "Looking back, it is clear that Goldwater's nomination was just the first rumbling of the full-blown battle between moderate Republicans and the new breed of much more conservative Republicans that would play out over the next forty years and is plaguing the party more today than at any previous period."1
The Democrats had their own eras of nastiness and divisiveness, mainly during the Vietnam War and particularly leading up to the 1968 Democratic Convention with the violent protests that led to beatings by the police, arrests, and tremendous dissension within our country.
Whitman mentions nastiness in relationship to Goldwater, but I have seen this same level of nastiness from Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay as well as with a number of Republican supporters who seem to care more about the Party than the issue, the person, or simple human respect and decency.
Certainly we should be able to demand the same level of professionalism and respect from our President and Congresspeople that we expect in other professions. In any other profession, from the legal to the medical to education to business, vehemently attacking each other's colleagues and spending energy on politics rather than effectiveness would be considered unprofessional and would be seen as ineffective. Perhaps this is why so many people are so cynical about politics and government.
After hearing rhetoric from Republicans that implied they are the only people of faith, which I knew was not true, I asked a number of Christian Democrats why they believe the Democratic Party policies best expresses their spirituality and religious values. I wanted to know their stories and why they had chosen the Democratic Party as the best expression of their Christianity.
I began my research with my uncle, a professor of American History and American Diplomacy, most recently at the University of Virginia. As an author, a thinker, a teacher and one of the most respected scholars in his field, he was a Democrat as long as I knew him, and long before others in our family switched parties.
Where is the Wisdom?
"I was non-partisan growing up", Norman told me. "We never talked politics at home. Even as late as 1950 when I was involved in getting my PhD, I paid no attention to politics. Only when I started to study Roosevelt's New Deal in detail did I develop a view that the Democrats were closer to the truth than the Republicans. I believe the Democrats are more intellectual and more thoughtful. It's interesting that most historians at universities and colleges are Democrats - the study of American policy leads us in that direction. They have open minds. I sometimes wonder why the Democrats feel, in order to recover their status as a majority party, they have to play the Republican game. I say 'forget that and be a solid Democrat' because if you're right, truth will come to the forefront. Those of us who criticized the Iraqi War are demonstrating that we were right. Same happened in the late 1920's and 1930's. When the Depression hit, it was all revealed that the Republicans had been wrong.
The Democratic Party is more committed to principles of democracy including the principle of equality. This is not just a moral problem, but an economic problem. It's been said that you judge a society not by how it takes care of its rich but by how it takes care of its poor. The poor need governmental support, the rich take care of themselves.
Most of these important social movements come from the Democrats - such as the New Deals from Roosevelt, and then later the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty, under Lyndon Johnson. If you have a lack of equal distribution of money, individuals and the country go deeply in debt. It's a moral problem because it's not good to have so many rich people and so many poor people, but you can't keep an economy going unless you have a better distribution of money and power.
The environment should be protected, and it's not being protected. There's a culture of poverty that too many people can't break out of. We need to help them become a contributing part of society. They need education. They need to be able to read. They grow up hopeless. Live hopelessly. They prepare themselves for nothing. I don't know how you penetrate that, but we aren't doing a good job of it."
...Dr. Norman Graebner, Episcopalian
Presbyterian Bobbie Sue Nave is the mother of one my good friends. My friend told me I must talk to her, since she is a solid Southern Democrat from North Carolina. What did she see as important? She sees that the democrats "reflect democracy by endorsing social equality". She sees "the Republican philosophy as intent on staying in the 20th century and the Democrats have moved the American people into the 21st century."
Equality is a major issue also for Yolanda Tan who is on the same Board of Directors as myself - for the Women's Economic and Earth Foundation (WODEEF) in the Philippines.
Yolanda is from the Philippines, the sister of the founder of WODEEF, who came to the United States many years ago. She sees the Democrats as more inclusive and therefore one that offers more opportunity and equality. "I am a Democrat because it's a political party that is inclusive of all people no matter what their race, gender, religion, or socio-economic status. I believe it's a political party that continues to offer opportunity, educational access, and a governmental structure that sees its role in improving the lives of people.
I am a Democrat because it doesn't matter where you are today, but the dream you have for tomorrow. I am not always a fan of Jessie Jackson, but his slogan, "Keep Hope Alive" is very profound and is the epitome of Democrat principles which gives faith to those who struggle in this society with courage, who strive for success and never give up."
...Yolanda Tan, Roman Catholic
The Democratic Social Agenda as a Deciding Factor:
A number of Christian Democrats I talked to saw a major difference between how the Republican and Democrat parties dealt with the poor. They take the example and commandment of Jesus seriously, and see it as a driving force to their political action.
"Up until last November's election, I had slid into a kind of apathy for years, not caring terribly which presidential candidate would be elected, not bothering to keep up my voting registration" said Margaret Smith. "But because of Bush's arrogance toward the poor and toward foreign cultures he didn't even try to understand, I was fed up with this president and wanted a change. I voted the Democratic ticket because the social gospel of Jesus (feed the hungry, be kind to the stranger) is much more apparent on the Democratic side at this point in America's history than within the Republican Party."
...Margaret D. Smith, Presbyterian.
Although I knew that about one out of four evangelicals were Democrats, I had the stereotype that the most conservative were Republican, since we had been told this by the media and by other Republicans. I was surprised to find a Democratic Southern Baptist missionary, although by the time I finished writing this book, I had learned this wasn't as rare as I had been led to believe. Marilyn, like several of my other interviewees, asked that her last name be withheld since she works with many Republicans and didn't want to offend anyone.
Baptist Marilyn said, "I am a Democrat because I prefer being on the side of the needy and the middle class and like to see the majority benefit rather than the moneyed. Neither party is perfect and sometimes I take the privilege to vote for the person rather than the party."
...Marilyn _____, Southern Baptist Missionary
Jim Nave is an unaffiliated Christian, who grew up in the tradition of the Southern Democrats. He is one of the teachers of the famous "Artist's Way" writing workshops (originally started by writer, Julia Cameron). He considers himself more spiritual than religious, since he is not always at ease with the rigidity he finds in many organized religions. He is open-minded about other religions, and this same open-mindedness also keeps him from totally identifying with the Democratic Party. Yet, he sees that both Parties often transcend stereotypes, and he tends to vote the issues, rather than the Party.
Like Margaret, he focuses on the social agendas of the Democrats. He is also concerned about fiscal responsibility, and tends to vote the party which he finds is both socially conscious and fiscally responsible - which has tended to be the Democrats.
"I've always voted the Democratic ticket because my value system is more in line with their sentiment than with some of the Republicans that I know. Mostly, these revolve around social issues. And yet, I'm finding as I get older that I'm not necessarily willing to carve my rock all the time on the Democratic side. Some of the Republican ideas appeal to me, since I try to follow fiscal responsibility in my own life. I believe that this is one of the primary responsibilities that we have as a nation, because if we blow our fiscal stewardship, we erode our democracy, erode our nation, and lose our opportunity to be leaders in the world. However, what I see from the so-called conservative Republicans these days does not square with the traditional conservative view of fiscal responsibility. I'm sometimes amazed that these people who claim to be conservative are squandering the nation's resources. The Republican Party as we know it today is fiscally irresponsible. Bill Clinton balanced the budget. The Republicans have not.
Although the traditional Republican policies have advocated keeping government out of our private lives, the current Republican Party has done just the opposite - they've given up their ideas of restraining the government from being involved in our personal lives. I feel that my life is more invaded than ever. I feel that I've lost my right to live a personal life, unobserved. I don't feel that I can speak my mind in public without being recorded. I don't see those attacks coming from the Democratic side, but from the Republican side. I feel that I have lost the right of free speech. The Republicans might say I'm still able to speak my mind, but I feel that's true only as long as I don't say certain things.
As far as government programs, I think that both Parties believe in governmental programs, and both believe in welfare, but Republicans tend toward a welfare state for business and Democrats tend toward a welfare state for human beings. Conversely, the Democrats are more inclined to have the government promote programs that will benefit the human condition."
...Jim Nave, unaffiliated Christian
The Abortion Issue:
Some Christian Democrats struggled with the abortion issue. Several told me they would be a Democrat, except for that issue, and we're surprised when I told them about the Pro-Life movement in the Democratic Party. Others criticized how the Republicans deal with the abortion issue, since they find their viewpoint hypocritical because they don't have an over-all consistent life ethic. They see that many Republicans might be against abortion, but are for capital punishment and war. To some, this seems to say that the Republicans care more for the cells that begin life, than the lives of the living human beings.
Beth Dotson Brown, a Roman Catholic says, "I believe very strongly in respecting life from conception to death. In my opinion, even though the Democratic Party tends to be more Pro-Choice, in pretty much all other issues relating to life, such as the death penalty, taking care of the poor, and those kinds of things that address quality of life, the Democrats do a better job. The Republican Party might be pro-life when it comes to standing against abortion, but they are not pro-life across the board. Just look at how many people have lost their lives in Iraq. My belief, which I draw from my Catholic faith, and the teachings of Jesus - is in favor of life. This includes good policies to take care of immigrants to our country, making sure that everyone has health care, an opportunity for gainful employment, avoiding unjust warfare and ensuring that the quality of life that we have, while we're on the earth, is good. That's why I think it's very important to look at the entire spectrum and not just vote on one issue."
...Beth Dotson Brown, Roman Catholic
I met Tawnee Stinson when I was teaching at the Blue Ridge Christian Writer's conference in North Carolina. The Conference was made up mainly of conservative Republican Christians. During one of the morning announcements, I asked the group if there were Christian Democrats that I could interview for this book. About 200 people broke out in spontaneous laughter, as if such a thing simply did not exist. Immediately after, Tawnee came forward, along with several others. As the conference went on, several others would stop me in the hallway or the lunch line to confess that they had voted for Kerry. One person said that he couldn't vote for Bush because Bush refused to sign the Land Mine Treaty which would eliminate land mines. Others, such as Tawnee, voted Democrat because she finds them more realistic about how they deal with the abortion dilemma. Tawnee told me that she was a Presbyterian, but was currently looking for another spiritual home.
"Even though I registered in 1984 as a Republican, I have been unable to vote for any candidate from that party since that time. I hesitate to support the Republican Party because they continue to eradicate services for the most silent and under-served population of the United States: women. They may succeed in overturning Roe v. Wade, but they will not eradicate abortion. They will only succeed in eliminating safe and sterile conditions for the poor of our country. Abortion will always be available to those who can pay a premium fee. Will each individual who presently stands arm-in-arm against abortion agree to adopt one of the children born from women who are denied abortion services? I doubt it. What process, then, has been devised by the Republican Party, that will deal with the babies that are born as a result of the overturning of this law? Any? Are Republicans hoping that thousands of years of lust and fornication will cease by teaching the love-starved and disenfranchised to "Just Say No?" Sexuality is a God-devised part of our humanity - and so is adultery and fornication, as we know from studying our Biblical history. Certainly David was after God's own heart, but he was not exempt from his lust for Bathsheba. Not only did he fornicate and produce a child, he also had her husband killed to cover-up his actions. There are many examples of this sort of ungodly behavior in the Bible that God-fearing constituents ignore. These are stories of God's "saints" and their choices and consequences. So, can we expect more from our children or from the children of "those other folk" than we could from Biblical saints? It is not intelligent to devise a single teaching plan that eliminates intercourse as the only method to prevent pregnancy. Let's educate our children about the dangers - and the pleasures - of a sexual union, ever bearing in mind that women will and do get pregnant and teach them how to avoid that condition, along with the insidious diseases associated with sex. Additionally, there has been almost no advancement in birth control since the Pill was marketed in the 1960's. Why? I urge Republicans to look at the bigger picture of dealing with unplanned pregnancy, and then abortion will be a non-issue. I believe the platform of the Republican Party is myopic, self-serving and dangerous.
"I find the rhetoric of the Republican Party frightening. It's too exclusive, and about who's in and who's out. I find the Democrats more nurturing, and more for the person.
I fear leaders who believe in the resolute correctness of their actions - especially when there is a belief that God dictates those actions. For democracy to thrive there must always be checks and balances by dissenting insiders and respected third parties thus setting up a continual evaluation of government strategies according to the long-range needs of all the people - not just the wealthy individuals of the Republican Party. I see this evaluative process as a key-missing component of our present administration specifically, and the Republican Party in general."
...Tawnee Stimson, currently Presbyterian.
The Iraq War:
Some found the Iraq War and President Bush's global policies determined their political position. James Davis, who had been a Presbyterian minister and is now non-denominational, is concerned about the lack of global vision in the Republican Party. He says, "My position has a good deal to do with my faith. I believe the Democrats offer the only possibility of a global vision for the United States in the world today, and everything that Bush does has to do with a very narrow understanding of our place in the world. I believe it is intrinsically spiritual and Christian that we understand that we live in a huge diverse world and our spiritual faith takes place in that larger world. Since you are talking to me around July 4th, I was thinking about how patriotic I had been as a child. I'm 65, so I'm old enough to be influenced by all that post World War II glory that came from having won the war, the glory without the gore, of being a kid in that time. I lost all that during Vietnam. In a strange way, Bush has made me feel patriotic again, because I'm so angry about what he has done to this country that it has made me more patriotic than I've ever been since Vietnam. I've had to re-think the core values of this country. I want my country back. I want the ideals of my country back, and I think those ideals are global and not so narrow".
...James Davis, non-denominational
Eddie Jones was also a participant at the Christian Writers' Conference. Like others, Bush's policies in Iraq have turned him toward the Democratic Party.
"My comments regarding why I voted against Bush and for Kerry in the last election were based primarily on the President's determination to invade Iraq without probable cause. He assured us before the invasion that he had evidence of weapons of mass destruction. At the time, I told the men in my Bible study that the President had better be right because if he was wrong then the U.S. was no different than any other great empire that tried to invade and impose its will on another country.
Whether we agree or disagree with the policies of another nation, those leaders have the right to rule their country as a sovereign state provided they do not directly threaten America. Saddam may have been a bad man, but he didn't order those planes into the World Trade Center. When the U.S. crossed the line from defender of freedom to crusader of democracy we joined the list of great empires that sought to dictate their will on others. We can recite the names of great nations that are no more: Rome, Germany and Russia. We can recall that each fell when they over-reached and the people they sought to conquer rose up, united and revolted.
I fear that President Bush has endangered the sovereignty and security of the United States by invading Iraq without justification. The rest of the world has seen for the first time that we are willing to attack another nation purely for the purpose of imposing our values and beliefs. A country that is all-powerful but self-controlled can be a great comfort to lesser nations that need protection. But when an all-powerful force abandons restraint and rushes to war without provocation, then other countries will seek to unite and resist.
North Korea, already paranoid with regards to our intentions in Asia, now perceives America as a greater threat than ever before. I believe Iran has advanced their nuclear weapons capabilities because of the U.S. presence in Iraq. And China, a country that will need vast sums of oil to fuel their economy in the coming decades, has to be wondering if and when the U.S. will return Iraq to the people of Iraq.
Maybe the President's heart was in the right place. Perhaps he genuinely hoped to liberate the people of Iraq. History will show, however, that we disrupted the balance of power in a region that was already inflamed with hatred toward Americans. As such, we let lose a Holy War that continues to consume our energies, resources and military might. That was my main reason for voting against Bush.
In addition to the Gulf War, President Bush also just doesn't understand how the working middle class is losing its grip on the American Dream. When I lost my high tech job in 2004, I went from making the most money I'd ever made to making the same salary I earned my first year out of college. The President would say that I need to be retrained. But he can't tell me for what industry. I have attended the re-training meetings sponsored by my former company, and I've heard other co-workers speak of how, after two years of searching, they've accepted a position at Home Depot. And they're grateful for the chance to earn a paycheck again! You could blame it on NAFTA or CAFTA or the global economy but for the college educated middle class citizen who was told education and hard work would lead to the American Dream, unemployment is our reward for living in the most prosperous nation on earth. I'm not saying Kerry had a better plan. But at least, he had a clue.
Finally, Bush doesn't understand the health crisis that exists in the country. When you lose a job, as I have, you also lose your health insurance coverage. I certainly don't have the solution to the problem but I do know that the issue will not improve until we develop a policy that will allow all Americans access to decent health care. When your monthly health insurance premiums runs more than your grocery bill, then it's a sure bet you'll gamble on your health in order to feed your kids."
...Eddie Jones, United Methodist
An Approach from the Head and the Heart:
Pamela Jaye Smith is a mythologist, and an Episcopalian. She has an unusual business in Hollywood - analyzing the mythic level of a story for writers and producers and helping them deepen their scripts and their films by understanding the universality of their story and their theme. I had thought that Pamela was a Republican, but when I started writing this book, she informed me "Absolutely not!" She was one of the readers for this book, and was the most vocal in her anger at many Republican policies. She took a mythic approach to explaining why she's a Christian Democrat, citing King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table in her explanation. "As an Episcopalian (Church of England) and a professional mythologist, I take much of my approach to Civil Society from the story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and its interpretation from the Mystical Christian interpretation.
Mystic Christianity holds to the personal message of Jesus' life and words and applies them across the centuries, seeing the Christ that is greater than any dogmas and doctrines which may exist in specific cultures or specific times. This mystic, ever-present, omniscient Christ is egalitarian, ecumenical, and universality.
In Arthurian lore, this Mystic Christianity was embodied by the Knights of the Round Table and the laws of chivalry for those warriors.
Basically there are two ideas that guide the application of Christ to society. In Arthurian legend, these are called "the Noblesse Oblige" and the "Warrior Path." The definition of Nobelesse Oblige is "to whom much is given, much is expected." A knight's mission is to serve and to give.
The two commandments of the Warrior Path are:
- Protect and Defend the Weak and the Innocent (not the lazy and the stupid).
- Uphold and Promote the Good, the True, and the Beautiful (not the nice, the comfortable, and the pretty.)
These approaches are both idealistic and practical as is the core of the ideal of the Democratic Party, though these days, unfortunately, the Party seems not to meet the ideal. Ideally, as a Christian, I am a Democrat. It would be wonderful to see the Democratic Party once again embrace and embody the ideals of Christianity as laid out in the words of Jesus the Christ.
I simply can't wrap my mind around how the egalitarian, inclusive, loving, empowering, forgiving teachings and life of Jesus the Christ got subordinated by self-righteous, exclusive, hate-mongering, repressive, condemnatory politics and social policies - many of which I find in the Republican Party. Well, yes, I can, because I've studied history and that's what too often happens. Religion becomes a tool of repression rather than an aid to revelation of higher truths and freer living. More's the pity. But there you have it. This may be a bit bold, but I think unless more Christian Democrats become more active and wield more power, Christianity runs the risk of continuing to be one of the most repressive and bloody religions the world has ever seen."
...Pamela Jaye Smith, Episcopalian
One of the respondents asked me not to use her name at all, since she works with both Republicans and Democrats and doesn't want to alienate either. We chose the name of "Cathryn" for her.
She says, "I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but grew up Episcopalian and spent several years in a very evangelical Messianic Movement. I'm Pro-Life so I do not favor abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and I believe in seeking peaceful solutions to international conflict. Although I feel saddened that abortion is such a strong part of the Democratic platform, it is the most important thing I've had to give up by changing my vote to Democrat. However, I've found that I have chosen Democrats more and more over the last several years. The war in Iraq cemented that. Pro-life also means protecting lives from unnecessary war. The war in Iraq is a huge reason I voted for Kerry and was so disappointed when he lost. I often comment to people that I'm not sure whether I'm a liberal or a conservative. On issues such as sexual lifestyle, I tend to be very conservative, but I'm not sure that the government should be reinforcing what I teach my children. The United States has a diverse population. Adults who have chosen each other for partners and made a home together ought to have legal protections such as hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights. Homosexuals should have job protection as well. However, on other issues, people might consider me a liberal. I'm pro-environment and a pacifist. Having been in both camps at various times in my life, I find that I am less suspicious of "the other side". I can see that liberals can be just as knee-jerk and hysterical as conservatives. It does us no good to vilify each other. Why do we jump onto bandwagons and buy into party platforms? All we can really do is choose our issues carefully and vote with our hearts. Every vote is a sacrifice of some precious and important principle."
...Cathryn ___, Greek Orthodox
Writing this book and asking these questions has broken many stereotypes for me. I have talked to many Republicans who expressed fascination with this subject, and were far more open about this subject than I expected. Many of them, who seemed dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, agonized over the issues, and many times chose their Republican vote on one or two issues such as abortion and their hopes that the Iraq War would all turn out all right, while admitting that they felt the Democrats did better on other important issues, such as their dealings with the poor and fiscal responsibility. Some Democrats, who I thought were "dyed-in-the-wool" were thoughtful and affirming about historical Republican policies - such as greater States' rights, fiscal responsibility, and trying to bring about more opportunity for the middle class - but had changed their vote because the Republicans no longer seemed to be following these policies. Some of my most conservative Christian Republican friends, who I told about this book with great reticence, expressed support for the book, telling me this topic was important, hoping that it would help with more understanding between us, and that it was "wonderful" that I was writing it.
As followers of Christ, we defy easy labels. As Christian Democrats, we have good and valid reasons for our vote and our decisions. We live our faith through our vote and through our perceptions of what makes a society that is just, merciful, beneficial to all, and Good.
NOTES:
CHAPTER 9: WHY I AM A DEMOCRAT
1. It's My Party Too, Christine Todd Whitman, p. 42
|
