A Few Thoughts on the Recent Election

There are many lessons to be drawn from this election. As everyone acknowledges, it is a rebuke from the American public for the current war in Iraq, where we are in the ultimate damned if we do damned if we don't situation; As I heard it said on the radio this morning, there is not much support for bringing the troops home immediately because it would probably make things even worse, but at the same time there is not much support for keeping the troops there much longer because they don't seem to be making things any better. So the vote had less to do with arguments about what to do next than it did with frustration at the Bush administration for putting us between this rock and a hard place.

But there is more to it than that. Bush's fatal political mistake this year, one he belatedly attempted to correct in the final weeks of the campaign when he publicly disavowed his "stay the course" rhetoric, was an inability to connect with the American public about the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq. The American public might have been able to stomach the situation in Iraq if Bush had more effectively over the past year acknowledged the problems with the military campaign and called upon America to make the difficult but important step (from his perspective) of continued sacrifice to overcomethe setbacks in Iraq. But Bush until very recently, when it was already too late politically, continued to paint a rosy picture of progress and approaching victory in Iraq that was out of joint with the actualsituation on the ground. The American public was left with two possible conclusions. Either their President was not being straight with them, or their President was ignoring reality. I believe that this impression, from the American public's perspective, was as much if not more important in this election than the actual state of the war inIraq.

Another problem the GOP had in this election cycle was the taint of scandal. Democrats are as prone to scandal as Republicans, but this time it was almost exclusively the Republicans who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that the GOP has had its hands on the steering wheel for the past 12years in Congress, and as we all know "absolute power corrupts absolutely...."

But astute observers of this election will realize that there was more to this election than just GOP gaffes. Bill Clinton's political genius was his ability to capture the political center. The party that captures that political center is the party that will lead in America, and in this election the Dems exhibited a renewed capacity for holding the center. They strategically ran candidates in conservative strongholds that allowed them to win House and Senate races in places like Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Montana. The radicalized bases in both parties make it difficult for both of them to hold to the center for extended periods of time, so usually the center goes to the party that is hungrier. Right now the Dems are hungrier, and have, for today, nailed a formula to appeal to the political center.

The story for '08 will beif that center holds. Losing a national election in the fashion that the GOP has is necessarily a time of identity crisis for the losing party. The question right now for the GOP is simply "who are we?" For 5 years the GOP's definitive identity has been strength in the war on terror. Due to a confluence of circumstances, that identity does not have the traction it once did (the reasons why would make an interesting debate for another day). The GOP is now tasked with the inevitable political chore of redifining itself to correspond with the chamging political landscape. To do so successfully it must negotiate some tensions within its own ranks, having to do with the aforementioned radicalized elements and the political center. To cut to the chase, the GOP must make the most difficult decision it has made in some time, ie. parting ways with the Rovean politics that has empowered its hold on the majority and the oval office for the past 6years. Hilary Clinton is oft criticized as a polarizing figure, but shehas nothing on Mr. Rove, whose avowed strategies are energizing the GOPbase and getting just enough moderate votes to hold power. This strategy worked like a charm for 5 years. But the landscape has, as ever, shifted, and I don't believe that Rove, as powerful a strategistas he has been, has shifted with it. Rove was an (evil) genius for a time, but his performance this year makes it highly dobtful that he can lead theGOP to victory in '08. His art does not capture the center.

On a final note, I believe the McCain or Guiliani campaigns are moretroubled than appears on the surface. I don't see how either of them appeal to the GOP base without alienating the very centrists who give them their crossover appeal. Perhaps a lesser known mainstream conservative like Romney is a safer bet to capture the center. As for me, where do I get an Obama '08 sticker? His politics may not be centrist, but I believe he has the charisma to make up for that with thevoters. Time will tell....

Some Recent Thoughts on Religion

Here are some of the religious questions I have been wrestling with:

The Jewish messianic expectation that shapes how we encounter Jesus. In my opinion Jesus did invite those who would follow his way into a new kind of relationship with God. Jesus’ relationship with God was real, but because Jesus was a cultural human being existing within his Jewish milieu, the depth of his relationship with God led him to the only meaningful conclusion within his experiential framework. For Jesus to encounter God as he did, and to draw others into this relationship along with him, was to live out messiah-ship, to coin a phrase. But in casting Jesus as messiah outside of his time-bound Jewish cultural framework, the only framework in which it really makes sense, we are stuck with an image frozen in time, and we lose the, in my humble opinion, deeper significance of what Jesus accomplished, which is to draw us into deeper relationship with God. Jesus as messiah is, then, a cultural anachronism that is more hindrance than aid, as it fixes Jesus as something otherworldy, strange and supernatural when Jesus’ project and meaning is really about that closest reality of all, everyday waking life.

The meaning of the resurrection. Anyone engaged with Christianity has to come to terms with this. I prefer to leave it clouded in mystery as historical event. But the meaning to me is clear, as victory over suffering, evil, and their trump card, death. Whatever the events actually occurred that have come to be known as the resurrection, what was accomplished was that the relationship with God that had been opened by Jesus, Jesus’ continuing role as guide, our continuing opportunity to experience this relationship, was in no way defeated by the evil, suffering, and death suffered by Jesus. The resurrection symbolizes that our guide Jesus is with us still, that our relationship with God is intact in the face of ongoing evil, suffering, and death, and that to relate to God through our guide Jesus is to partake of this eternal life guaranteed by the resurrection. The actual literal events of the resurrection, if recorded on videotape, probably would appear to have little to do with this victory.

Here’s where the going gets choppy: The Christian claim that God acted decisively in human history through the life and resurrection of Jesus. Christianity gets into even more trouble than it does with its messiah-trip when it goes on its “final answer” trip. I am irredeemably from the one truth, many paths spiritual school. I get off the Christian bus whenever it makes any exclusive truth claims. Jesus’ truth was to draw us into relationship with God, not to proscribe what form that relationship must take. Unfortunately the Christian “God acting decisively…” claim falls far too easily into this dismal trap, and this Christian claim is the albatross wrapped around the faith’s neck, with appalling evangelism its foremost symptom. I don’t see how you separate Christianity as it is preached and practiced from this claim, and I don’t see a way forward for Christianity as a helpful religion without extracting the church from this claim. Like it or not, saying that God acted decisively through Jesus elevates the Christian’s spiritual life above others. Of course, the old all-religions-are-equal solution is equally unsatisfying, because if that is the case then why bother practicing any of them, it would seem to be little more important than picking your favorite flavor of ice cream. This problem is the question for religion in the 21st century. If we do not find a creative answer to it all that shall be left of religion by the end of the century will be warring fundamentalisms. This question haunts me every day.

The second coming. Sorry, Jesus is not coming back. Jesus, our guide to relationship with God, will rejoin us when we on earth rejoin him by following the path to God’s kingdom that he pointed us towards. Jesus lives eternally on this path, and we will meet him again together when we make it a good bit further down this path. A problem for Christianity is pushing the work of salvation work onto Jesus. I disagree that the world is broken, only to be saved by Jesus. Whatever is broken is only going to be fixed by us chickens. “Savior” imagery must give way to “guide” imagery if Christians are to contribute to that work. Jesus points the way, but we must walk it.