Role Reversal in Politics 2008
GoogleGroups Oct 26, 6:49 pm
From: rs2405@hotmail.com
It's sort of a role-reversal for the two parties.
A liberal who loves God and preaches up a storm when the Spirit moves him. A Republican who at one point seemed leery of ultra conservative Christians, of the religious right agents of INTOLERANCE and power politics.
And some on the left are a bit frustrated that Obama is reaching out to middle America.
Actually, a lot of criticism has been leveled at Obama for his evangelistic style, his rhetorical ‘pulpit charisma’ - that is. He has a stage presence for sure, a poise that seems to come right off the sawdust trail. In another time, another place, he well may have been an eloquent brush arbor evangelist. Who knows where it comes from? Those preachers (evangelists) had the ultimate "people skills." Either they loved the people. Or knew how to "sell their message." America’s history is FULL of it.
McCain even alluded to this CHARISMA, moving and impressive; Obama is almost a celebrity status, a preacher of the old school. All he needs is a soft toned altar call and you got another Billy Graham, maybe a Martin Luther King.
On the left, some of the Naderites seemed to take offense at Obama’s evangelistic style, threatening to bolt the Democratic Party altogether. Is Obama embracing middle America and the folk (or populist gsopel) traditionalism? On Father's Day, Obama took another lurch to the right preaching up a rather stern lecture to the black community, preaching up the high calling of fatherhood, and more of the all-too-familiar Obama Biblicism. (And Jesse Jackson, more notorious in his own biblical fervency than even Obama, was overheard, like Jeremiah Wright, criticizing Obama for it.)
I came across an article by Gene Healy, mildly chiding Obama's camp meeting, revival-style campaign, the cult of personality all too reminiscent of the bible-thumping oratory of days gone by. This is the American west for you. We love it, we hate it. Our literature abounds with satire and drollery on the subject of our religious pretentiousness. I am not accusing Obama of pretentiousness, but our great writers from Mark Twain to James Baldwin again and again delve into the prevalent phenomenon of America's gospel religiosity. America's "gospel" religion is not all positive. Evangelicalism had deep roots on the frontier, the slave camps, a populist epidemic sweeping America, shaping our consciousness. It offered hope and cohesion, barn-building and corn-husking, social support and sometimes healing, the miraculous tales of how the West was "stormed." But yes, there was the negative, the hypocrisy, the moralistic pressures to conform.
Now we got a gospel Democrat, and a Republican (divorced, a true American hero, PTSD, seldom goes to church, but vows to pursue closer relations with evangelicals). In a way I love both these guys. And also, in a way it bugs me that the public divides so emotionally against one or the other. It offends me that some Christians feel they have to demonize "liberals" or pin a 666 on Obama.
Do we Americans love the mud-slinging nastiness of our politics? A free-for-all at times. So much exaggeration. I see some of it on both sides, but more of it coming from McCain. I realize they have to "fight hard" so to speak. Sounds like an excuse for nastiness. Now and then there is graciousness -- for example when both Barack and Michelle said ENOUGH, as far as the attacks on Palin's unwed daughter (teen age mother) Bristol.
But if they think an attack works, they keep it up. Obama went to Iraq and actually praised the success of the past two years. He came back to the states and let Bill O'Reilly interview him, and with even more directness said the surge succeeded beyond our wildest expectations.
Then McCain for the next three weeks repeatedly runs these ads claiming that Obama never admitted he was wrong about the surge. It was about as close to outright untruth as could be, but apparently McCain thought he was onto something. Was it not dishonest, at the least? In my opinion it is an act of integrity and character to do as Obama did, going to an arch-conservative (O'Reilly) and freely, frankly conceding the other side's point. Reminds me of Lincoln writing to Grant, "You were right and I was wrong, and I want to admit that to you."
What if on social issues Obama actually turns out more moderate than once thought. The belated support he gained across a range of independent voters, cross-overs, swing populations, red states and tranditionalists will seem well vindicated. A smattering of strategic voices, after the election, urged him to do exactly that. I cite T.D. Jakes, James Clyburn of South Carolina, and even Nancy Pelosi, calling on the President Elect to govern from the middle, to chart a centrist course.
While not always outspoken on political issues, there are a considerable number of Black Pastors who have expressed negative views on the strident lobbying by gay marriage advocates nationwide. Holding a somewhat stern Biblical attitude some of these otherwise liberal preachers would strongly oppose unlimited marriage legislation for homosexuals.
The debate has simmered for years. Conservatives have tried to claim that Martin Luther King was more traditionalist, especially on gay causes, than what the gay rights activists have claimed. Indeed, going only on his sermons, Dr. King was typically a Bible-based traditionalist, a gospel conservative. Andrew Young conceded this social conservatism which tinged Dr. King's outlook which was otherwise so liberal on economic issues, and so prophetic on Civil Rights.
But Coretta Scott King strongly insisted that her husband Martin has consistently championed the cause of the afflicted, the underdogs in our society, just as Christ taught. The debate persists.
On issues of economics, what is going on? There is cause and effect here? Could it be, say, God's wrath against America (and Republicans)? During the campaign, I pointed out that McCain had the "experience" factor on his side. I also conceded that McCain has had a reputation (prior to the campaign) of often working with Democrats. But during the campaign, it seemed like he was kow-towing to the hard right conservatives (except as far as the economic debacle). On economics he distanced hiself from Bush, called himself an OUTSIDER, and his rhetoric often made him sound like Obama or Biden.
| The only possible way a nation can become the greatest nation on earth is to be the greatest servant of mankind, to seek to bring happiness and security to the entire human race, with all selfish politics eliminated. [Annalee Skarin] |
