Immediately following Wednesday’s inauguration ceremonies, talking heads began analyzing, characterizing, and criticizing the President’s address. Initial reviews proved decidedly indecisive. Within 24 hours, Obama’s speech was everything from “one of the best second inaugural addresses in history” (David Brinkley) to “flat, partisan, and surprisingly pedestrian” (David Ignatius).
It’s way too early to know how or whether this speech will be remembered in history. It’s not in the same league with Lincoln’s “malice toward none and charity toward all” or FDR’s “we have nothing to fear but fear itself,” but is there any phrase or line from Obama’s speech that will become lodged in our cultural memory?
I can’t answer that question, but one line that made an impression on me came near the end: “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”
With these words, Obama summed up the primary political problem of our time, an era that I believe future generations of historians will look back on as the “age of polarization.” Rooted in the culture wars of the 1960’s, this age sprouted in the 1990’s when the two major parties rapidly moved toward ideological purity. It reached full flower at the beginning of this decade. It is the era of brinksmanship and legislation forced by “triggers” that everybody wants to avoid. Strong vocal minorities in both Houses of Congress hold hostage every significant piece of legislation in order to force their own agendas. The refusal to compromise is celebrated as a virtue, even though it results in complete paralysis and threatens the nation’s economic health. People who are not really interested in governing are elected to every level of government, which is ground to a halt by stubborn absolutism, grandstanding spectacle, and mean-spirited name-calling.
How long will this era persist? There are some signs that it won’t last much longer. Congress’ historically low approval ratings are finally compelling a growing number of legislators to call for more compromise. On the other hand, a great many Congressional districts were so gerrymandered after the 2010 census as to ensure that hard-right and hard-left politicians will be easily elected for the next decade. I don’t know if we can afford another ten years of “true believer” politicians.
I appreciate Obama’s distinction between “absolutism” and “principle.” The most intransigent politicians in Washington like to say that if they compromise, even a little, they are betraying their principles. In other words, the only way to be “principled” is to be “absolutist.” I reject this assertion on biblical grounds.
Jesus was no absolutist. His sharpest critics accused him of compromising the Law of Moses by healing on the Sabbath and not requiring his disciples to follow rules for fasting. Jesus’ response was the essence of pragmatism. “The Sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). If the purpose of the Sabbath is to increase the quality of human life, why would you not violate Sabbath rules in order to save or improve a life? (Matthew 12:11) He also said that fasting served no purpose unless it was appropriate to the times. When circumstances call for a celebratory feast, why fast? (Mark 2:19-20)
Jesus also displayed a pragmatic approach to marriage and divorce. He said in no uncertain terms that divorce was wrong, completely inconsistent with God’s plan for human relationships. But he also allowed that in certain cases, divorce might be less wrong than a couple remaining together (as in cases of “unchastity” or porneia, a broad term that may refer to any number of ways a relationship has been fatally polluted [Matthew 19:9]). Similarly, the apostle Paul permitted divorce when a husband and wife lived by covenants so different they were mutually exclusive (1 Corinthians 7:12-15).
You could say that the entire New Testament is part of an effort in early Christianity to transform the fledgling Jesus movement from a rather absolutist apocalyptic Jewish sect into a more pragmatic religious tradition that would be durable across generations. The reason we have the Christian scriptures is because leading followers of Jesus realized that, since the original expectations of Jesus’ immanent return had not been fulfilled, the church had better prepare for the long run.
It is more than possible to be pragmatic and remain principled. In fact, principled pragmatism (rather than absolutism) is necessary for any institution to stand the test of time. That goes for American democracy, too. In fact, our whole system of government is the result of compromise. Had our founders dug in their heals and refused to compromise, there would be no Constitution, no system of checks and balances, and no means of adapting our government to the needs of each succeeding generation. In short, there would be no United States of America.
I’m well aware that the most recalcitrant partisans in Washington will never be drawn out of their absolutist, obstructionist positions. But we can always hope that the will of the people will prevail, and that the President’s words will indeed resonate across party lines. I am hopeful that the age of polarization has nearly run its course, and that our nation will reject absolutist politics in favor of principled pragmatism.
Copyright 2013 by J. Mark Lawson
Amen! Well said, Mark.
Posted by: Elaine | 01/25/2013 at 10:15 AM