On the eve of the nation’s first primary for the 2012 presidential election, six Republicans are vying for the opportunity to challenge President Barack Obama. The outcome of the New Hampshire vote tomorrow is hardly in doubt. Frontrunner Mitt Romney has been consistently outpolling the rest of the field there since the race began last summer. But a lot of attention will be paid to who comes in second, third, and fourth, because at this point, there are three primary races within the Republican Party.
First, there is the race for the “conventional” or “establishment” wing of the party. That contest is between Mitt Romney and John Huntsman, and represents about a third of the national party vote. Second, there’s the race for the “libertarian” wing of the party. One could argue that this is not a race at all. Ron Paul is the only real libertarian running, though in New Hampshire, some of that vote is split with Huntsman. It accounts for 10-15% of the party nationwide. Finally, there’s the race for the “social conservative” wing of the party. This vote has been splintered between four candidates – Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann (who dropped out after her poor showing in the Iowa caucuses). The national polls suggest that this is the largest wing of the current Republican Party, accounting for upwards of 40% of the party vote.
Only two things unite these three party factions and the six remaining candidates. One is that they all loathe the incumbent President. The other is that they all believe “true conservatism” is the salvation of America. Each candidate is making the claim that he is the “true conservative” in the race. But what does that mean? Traditional small-government conservatives often have a libertarian sensibility that leads them toward a liberal stance on social issues. But today, these traditional conservatives find themselves at odds with purist libertarians who question the value of any government – including the Federal Reserve and a strong military – as well as with social conservatives who are libertarian when it comes to the economy but favor government enforcement of moral codes that are consistent with their religious beliefs.
I doubt the Republican primary process is going to help clarify the meaning of the word “conservative,” but even if it did, where would that get us? “Conservatism,” as well as “liberalism” and all other ideologies, are necessarily dualistic. In other words, they cast the world as black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, and seek to place every person in one or the other category. Dualistic thinking is what has ground Congress to a halt. It has also poisoned our public discourse. Dualism, by its very nature, divides.
Furthermore, I find it impossible to reconcile my Christian faith with lock-step allegiance to any partisan (dualistic) agenda. (Whenever one political party is identified as the Christian party, it weakens the Christian witness in the long run.) Any “ism,” in fact, is a form of idolatry, because it places ultimate faith in a belief system. We know this about fascism and communism, but it’s also true of socialism, capitalism, liberalism, and conservatism – all of which are, in their pure forms, utopian worldviews. That is, they all assume that, if fully implemented, they will lead to perfect societies. None of them takes seriously the reality of sin and therefore none of them is humble enough to acknowledge that, ultimately, no human system is capable of correcting all injustice.
The older I get, the less value I find in dualistic labels. Am I conservative? In many ways I am, but I am not enslaved to a conservative belief system. I also hold views that are usually considered liberal, but I reject much of the liberal worldview as naive. And besides, an important part of maturing is transcending dualism. Brain studies indicate that as our bodies age, the left and right sides of our brains begin to blend more easily. As we mature, we learn to see the world as a complex whole, which in part means appreciating all sides of an issue. (The stereotypical “bitter old man” is someone who resists this natural process, clinging stubbornly to dualistic biases that no longer make sense.) Of course, conservative purists would say that “holistic” thinking is really just another name for liberalism – and liberals might agree! Experience tells me both would be wrong. I have been just as disillusioned by fundamentalist thinking among liberals as among conservatives. Every bit as crucial as what you believe is how you hold your beliefs. Both liberals and conservatives can be harsh and unforgiving. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul said, “Though I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, if I have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” The content of your particular beliefs matters little unless those beliefs are subject to the love you have for others.
I suppose it is too much to expect that political discourse be spoken with love. But in this country, political rhetoric has gotten so noisy that it has become irrelevant. There is literally no substantive public discussion about the major issues facing our nation; only rehearsed talking points, half-truths, distortions, market-driven rhetoric, and catchy sound bites. Love is nowhere to be found – at least not in public speech.
I frankly do not care which electoral candidates are the “true conservatives.” Nor am I interested in electing “true liberals.” (I don’t know what that means, either.) Ideologies will not save us. I long for public servants who transcend partisan worldviews and study the big picture; who remind us of our global responsibilities as well as our obligation to the most vulnerable in our own society. I long for honesty about our most pressing challenges, for government that represents the whole nation and not one partisan half, and for government policy that is responsible, realistic, and compassionate. I long for more love and less noise.
Copyright 2011 by J. Mark Lawson
Comments