Welcome, theologian in residence
Every liberal blog needs a theologian in residence. Kevin Drum has Amy Sullivan. Now, Majikthise is proud to present Jed Willard.
Jed is a Harvard-trained freelance theologian and entrepreneur based in Boston.
One of the best ways to understand Lakoffian framing is to show it in action. In this essay, written shortly after the 2004 election, Jed evokes the values the nurturant parent in terms that can resonate with liberals and conservatives alike:
Democrats Must Punch Below the Bible Belt
By Jed Willard
November 7, 2004
The November 5 cover story of the UK's Daily Mirror exclaimed in hyperbolic terms what billions of people around the world are probably thinking now: that America has voted for "carnage and isolation and the unreserved contempt of most of the rest of the world."
Polling data shows this to be untrue. The vast majority of Americans, including Bush supporters, embrace the Democrats' internationalist platform.
The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations finds that 87% of Americans support "working through the UN to strengthen international laws against terrorism," while the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland reports that 60-80% of Bush supporters not only want the US to participate in the Land Mines and Nuclear Test Ban treaties, International Criminal Court, and Kyoto Protocols, but that - remarkably - they believe Bush shares their views.
The nearly 60 million Americans who voted Republican this month did so not to support "carnage and isolation and the unreserved contempt of most of the rest of the world." Nor did they do so to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy. Rather, as reported by every exit poll, they did so in the cause of "values:" Christian, conservative, "family" values.
America, over the past four decades and for a variety of demographic, sociological, and geo-political reasons, has shifted religiously rightward.
Among Democrats, this should be seen as cause for hope.
Religious Christians, despite whatever faults one may ascribe to them, are avid readers of the New Testament. As the center-left Christian Democrats of continental Europe have shown over the last two centuries, most of the New Testament is Progressive. Directly engaging society's ills; caring for the downtrodden, the broken, and the oppressed; neighborly generosity; and living by, rather than merely pronouncing, a clear moral code are Christian standards exemplified by Jesus and His Apostles. Christians should be voting for the Democrats in droves.
But they are not. In fact, they form the base of support for Bush's radically un-Christian, unilateralist agenda. This is due to Karl Rove's ingenious Christian messaging, which the Democrats must now learn to copy. Their only other choices are to radically alter their own core policies (a dramatic shift leftward has been proposed), or else languish in opposition.
What would the American version of Christian Democratic messaging sound like? Domestically, Democrats must begin by nominally denouncing "Big Government." Big Government - the meddling of Northeastern-elite-controlled Federal Government in the affairs of individuals, families, and states - is anathema to the GOP's western base, and the Bush Republican's deficit-running ways leave them newly open to this avenue of attack.
Public renunciation of "Big Government" should be accompanied by a call to return to "The Golden Rule." For the purposes of messaging, this can be stated as simply as "love thy neighbor." In terms of policy, it harkens back to Liberal political theory: the rights of the individual end only where those of another individual's begin. Similarly, the rights of local government end only where those of neighboring localities begin, and the rights of states end at their own borders.
Loving thy neighbor means being personally generous, and forgiving toward others. It also means agreeing that localities have a collective interest in, for instance, education, the improvement of which benefits all. It means that a state should not pollute a river that flows through its neighbors. Local, state, and federal regulations should and must exist, but "merely" to regulate brotherly love.
Loving thy neighbor can extend beyond national borders, as well. Exploitative trade practices, arrogant foreign policies, and an enormous per-capita polluting record are expressly non-Christian.
"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you."--John 13:14-15
American conservatives, while declining to set a Christian example through their policies, often recount America's Christian heritage. Without forgetting the Enlightenment inspiration of the Founding Fathers, Democrats would do well to seize the notion devised by America's earlier Christian fathers: the Puritan's goal to be a "City on a Hill" - to shine as a light among the nations and change the world by example. As applied to foreign policy, the City on a Hill model is not only inspirational to Christians, it is arguably an effective policy in a global battle for "Hearts and Minds."
To digress for a moment: Hearts and Minds is a (poor) slogan for the increasing need to win support not only from the heads of nation states, but from the majority of the globe's inhabitants. Burgeoning communication and transportation networks, not to mention the globalization of commerce, have empowered individuals and other non-State actors to a degree unrivaled since the spread of printing. Not only have ideas and individuals become portable, so also have conflicts that in earlier centuries would have remained regional. (An attack on New York City by a Saudi dissident with primarily regional grievances is, among other things, novel.)
In such a world, real politik loses appeal, and Jesus' encouragement to live up to pronounced morality should be re-examined. The US must engage with the world whole-heartedly, encouraging democracy, even Islamic or French democracy, and discouraging tyranny.
Just as the "multitudes" of the gospels harkened to Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees' hypocrisy, so does world opinion (as reported, for example, by the Pew Global Attitudes Project), recognize the hypocrisy of the United States government. Only by "washing the feet" of the poor and troubled globally while simultaneously distancing ourselves from non-democratic regimes, will we begin to shift the tide of anti-US sentiment sweeping the rest of the world and remove much of the human and financial support that now flows to those espousing the ideologies of medievalism and anti-modernism.
This is not to leave open a "weak on terror" argument. It is to more simply state the concept, held though not articulated well by the Kerry campaign, that the "War on Terror" is an ideological conflict - one of Hearts and Minds, if you will - rather than an exclusively military one. Americans, who in recent generations have won ideological struggles against Fascism and Communism, will understand this. Just as they will understand the intrinsic importance to this battle of being a true "City on a Hill."
Global engagement, care for the underprivileged, neighborly love, progressive activism, and living up to your own moral standards are Christian values - preached and practiced by Jesus himself. They are American values, as well, shared by both the Progressive left and the conservative Christian right. And they are the values that will make America stronger at home and respected in the world.
That they are not the Republican Party's values exposes a chink in the GOP's electoral armor, one that the Democrats would do well to make the most of.
Oh sure, tell me that right after I let my blog's thealogian run off. Thanks a bundle there.
Posted by: Dr Pretorius | April 07, 2005 at 07:10 PM
Every liberal blog needs a theologian in residence.
Uh-oh. I guess I've got an opening, then.
Are there any flaming atheistical theologians out there who think religion is a complete crock, an evil and corrupting influence that has dogged humanity for far too long? Call me.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 07, 2005 at 11:34 PM
Oh, sure, PZ... there's a bunch of ethical people who don't want to be chained to a religion. Maybe you need an "Atheologian"... Surely, somebody wants to flame for the "A" team... surely. ^..^
Posted by: Herbert Browne | April 08, 2005 at 01:55 AM
My first time reading this blog, like it so far...
Is this article explaining to us Democrats we need to appeal to the religious masses searching for a "values" candidate?
You know what? I think those that support Bush are stupid (except those at the top 5% income level, that is), in fact, your article details they don't even know Bush's position on most issues!
I think he is a classic enabler: And the idiots he enables adore him and embrace him as one of "their own" that actually succeeded*.
You won't win these fools over, no matter what. Unless, as a candidate, you can be embracingly goofy to them, and count on the media BUSH OWNS to not point it out when you "convert" back to an intelligent person when speaking to intelligent Americans. Like they do for Bush. See, it is all smoke and mirrors. They rig the vote, they own the press. Amazingly effective, and simple.
* Please ignore the University study released this past week, proving Bush being elected depended somewhat on this scenario:
Two men, one tall and intelligent, the other spookystupidsmirky, held a duel for the office of US president.
The rules: They were to stand motionless in an open field, 20 paces apart.
A Black (wtf, it's my story) helicopter hovers 100 yards in the air above them, with a huge sack hanging from its open door. The sack is filled with 981,999 blue ping pong balls, and one red one.
At the count of three, the sack opens, the balls float down.
For the tall guy to win, all the blue balls must hit him AND the red one not it Smirkyshortstupid.
And so, kiddies, we all know the red ball REALLY DID hit W. Right?
Posted by: gwbushmalecheerleader | April 08, 2005 at 05:36 AM
"Freelance theologian"?
Posted by: bombadil | April 08, 2005 at 08:51 AM
"Freelance theologian" = unemployed Harvard Div. School Graduate
Sorry you feel that way, PZ. Religion has nothing to do with science of course, but do you know any thoughtful, educated Christians. They do exist, I assure you.
Some of them are even physicists who don't deny evolution.
Posted by: Abby | April 08, 2005 at 10:07 AM
Jed's agnostic about more dieties than I've even heard of.
Posted by: Lindsay Beyerstein | April 08, 2005 at 10:14 AM
Will an atheist-buddhist-utilitarian-hedonist qualify?
Posted by: linus | April 08, 2005 at 11:02 AM
I thought it has been established that it was not "values," but security that tipped the scales (along with a little fraud). The values thing was shown to be right-wing pundit hogwash.
Posted by: /b | April 08, 2005 at 11:45 AM
The primary problem here is understanding what motivates most Christians. Sadly, I fear what motivates most of them is a spirit of authoritarianism and judgement (of others). They may accept Jesus's words in John 13 is some abstract way but not in a larger, world view kind of way.
Posted by: Bulworth | April 08, 2005 at 11:56 AM
The primary problem here is understanding what motivates most Christians. Sadly, I fear what motivates most of them is a spirit of authoritarianism and judgement (of others). They may accept Jesus's words in John 13 is some abstract way but not in a larger, world view kind of way.
That observation should be more accurately applied to those in Christendom. One can, of course, argue over even the definition, and application of the definition, of "Christian."
Start with Kierkegaard, for example.
Posted by: Robert M. Jeffers | April 08, 2005 at 12:02 PM
So, homoousion or homoiousion?
I figure this is the theological equivalent of "Elvis or the Beatles?"
Posted by: Njorl | April 08, 2005 at 01:22 PM
But wait, I run a liberal blog and I AM a theologian. What should I do? Do I need to hire an atheist? Damn it! Why aren't these rules clearly laid out somewhere?
Posted by: Scott Paeth | April 08, 2005 at 01:45 PM
Why do people keep promoting the myth that Bush won because of values? On election night, Wolf Blitzer announced that 22% of voters voted because of "moral values." He didn't say that 19% voted because of terrorism and that these 19% voted even more overwhelmingly for Bush than the moral values 22% did. He didn't say that in CNN's polls about the most important quality for a candidate, only 8% said "religious faith." He didn't say that in an open-ended poll done by Pew Research, only 14% said that their most important issue was moral values.
Posted by: Alon Levy | April 08, 2005 at 02:07 PM
"What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"
Richard Dawkins
Posted by: dc | April 09, 2005 at 10:03 PM
RE:Michelle Malkin is certainly not a cunt »
04/07/2005
I don't think Christian Conservatives are real eager to join forces/dialogue with those who post things like this.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Christian Conservatives and the Left talk about the 'poor', believe they have a moral obligation to the poor; but neither walk the walk.
When the needs and interests of poor black inner city children conflict with the interests of the teachers unions, the Democratic Party always makes the same choice.
In the Gospels Jesus speaks of the poor but his focus was spiritual not social. It is that focus Conservative Christians connect with.
Example of their perspective.
The Director of the local charity most involved with the homeless, lectures high school students on compassion and care for the homeless.
She spends her entire talk trying to convince the students to volunteer or in some other way aid the homeless.
From the Christian Conservative perspective what she should be doing is talking to the students about what they can do to avoid becoming dependant on welfare themselves.
She might do the students a lot more good telling them to not drop out, avoid drugs, gangs and pregnancy.
I do not see the two perspectives even talking together, much less working together.
Posted by: Jonah Johansen | April 09, 2005 at 10:08 PM