Can we all just get along?
Election season is upon us, with all the rivalry and argument that goes with it. Competition may well bring out the best in us, but at election time, it also brings out the worst in us.
No wonder the early critics of young America said our idea (of government of the people) could never work. Every election was like a small civil war. Contrast that with the "peace" (to speak euphemistically) that often prevailed under the authoritarian despotism and dogmatism of Old Europe. The American experiment, in effect, scheduled a “fight” every four years. Or two years for Congress. Were those Americans insane?
Indeed, as the critics claimed, democracy is awkward and painful and messy. Ask the Iraqis now trying it out for the first time. Lo and behold, for the first time in 1,300 years, it is Shiites rather than Sunnis in the driver seat.
But settling our differences with words and votes is just a bit less vicious than resorting to violence and open warfare. An early defender of American democracy, Tocqueville, was so enamored with Yankee middle- class democracy that he prophesied that one day all the states would be like New England, and then one day all the world would be like America. These days many of us might say to other nations bent on emulating America's good life, “Are you sure you want to be like us?”
In America, our saving grace has been that Democrats and Republicans generally, given enough time, take turns. The public grows tired of one side, and (like a pendulum) gives the other side a chance. Ideally, there is enough continuity, or enough good sportsmanship, that healing and reconciliation can follow after the election- year quarrels.
What Lincoln said sounded like a warning to married couples: A house divided against itself cannot stand. Lincoln’s quote (from the Bible) is also a timely reminder for the left and right — for Democrats and Republicans. Each side has its message, its role to perform. But be gentle with each other. [7.6.08]
ResponseDate: Jul 25, 2008 8:37 pm
From: Stanley F. Nelson
American presidential elections have been described as "bullet-less revolutions." This is a fairly appropriate idea, and it has become more pronounced since adoption of the two-term limit (which should be extended to Congress). Although there is a great deal to be desired in the way we elect governments, it is very significant to note that America has never missed a scheduled national election (even during and after the Civil War and World War II), and we have never had a change of government under force of arms.
No other major nation can claim both such accomplishments.
May God bless those Americans who put their faith and trust in Him, and through them, may God bless America!
Stanley F. Nelson
A fun book I came across back in June 08, I think, is titled Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve It was written by Bernard Goldberg, a network esxecutive who in the course of his life has been (for a while) liberal, then (for a while) conservative, and finally rather centrist. Like so many others, time prompts shifts and adjustments. Winston Churchill is one of the most famous political pilgrims, having found himself for a considerable while a strong liberal, then an empire-defender, and finally a fairly staunch conservative.
Here in the states, this 2008 election is, to me, exciting. One candidate, Barack Obama represents a historic and unprecedented landmark for America. The first African American nominated by a major party for president, Obama is articulate, charismatic, and (to me) quite inspirational. (I'm not jealous .... much). His poise, his stage presence, and the calibre of his candidacy clearly place him in the top rank in terms of being "PRESIDENTIAL" material. If only he were stronger in the experience department.
Of course, we have had presidents whose experience in national security was weak, and they rose to the occasion. One thinks of Teddy Roosevelt. One thinks of John F. Kennedy. Lincoln was forced to be, for a time, his own General (of last resort), and historians credit him with having risen to the occasion. In classical history, Julius Caesar was a military neophyte, yet by some stroke proved to be a veritable genius fighting the Gallic Wars.
Obama also has problems with his own core constituency. Perhaps not realizing how moderate or "centrist" their man was, some more traditional liberals have been heard to grumble -- people like Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson. There is an implied threat here, the worst case being a with-holding of support. Lipstick Jungle : Obama, ironically, has been the whipping boy FIRST of Hillary Clinton to his left, and LATER of Sarah Palin on his right. One could smile at the twists of politics. (Talk about "women problems"!!)
John McCain has a lifetime of experience in the service of his country, is much more at ease in the foreign affairs and national security department. He had all too much first hand experience in war. He knows its horrors. His critics on every side have pointed out supposed weaknesses. He has been divorced. He shows signs of a crankiness all too symptomatic in the aftermath of abuse (or PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder). But as a survivor, McCain has achieved a fairly high level of functionality in many realms, despite the tortures he endured.
Politically, however, McCain was an exasperation to conventional conservative Republicans, often forging a rather independent path all his own. Often he found himself allied to Democrats, much to the consternation of the Republican core, who expected a greater loyalty than McCain was willing to give.
McCain has also had his problems with the Christian Right, whose focus on such social issues as abortion and gay marriage simply did not resonate to the same degree with McCain. As a result, the Arizona senator was suspect, seen as harboring sympathies too liberal for the hard right Christians. Now, the senator has made huge efforts to demonstrate his conservative credentials, seeking to mend fences with evangelicals, and affirming his "Biblical" position on the issues dear to the Christian right.
Not one to wear his heart on his sleeve
Though never glib in speaking about own faith (McCain prefers to keep his own spiritual convictions private), the Arizona Senator has been very outspoken in other areas. He sided with liberal Democrats on the immigration bill. He also has been a consistent advocate of Native American issues. For example, he led in showing his Senate colleagues a documentary, "In the Light of Reverence," which depicts the Wintu tribe's struggle for religious freedom.
Personal opinion (Robert Shepherd): What strikes me about Barack Obama is not so much his liberalism, which like JFK's is moderate and rather centrist. What personally strikes me about Obama is the quiet depth of his spirituality. To me, despite whatever lacks or lacunas one sees in his resume, I find the sincerity and warmth of his spiritual side to be a breath of fresh air on our present political landscape. Surely we need the other types too, the doubters and hard-headed wits and critics. But after so much coolness toward matters of the heart, how represhing to hear the word faith spoken with so much appreciation from a candidate's lips.
John McCain, who appears far cooler in his expressions of faith, has sought to mend fences with the Conservative Christian Right that he so long has been at odds with. He has reached out to evangelicals and biblical Christians, and has sought to hear their concerns. In early September the latest scandal to rock the McCain candidacy has been Sarah Palin, whose daughter Bristol has been targetted by Democratic bloggers. Barack Obama has reprimanded the Democratic bloggers, coming to the defense of Palin and her family. (Thank you Senator O.)
The Republican Convention, slow to get underway due to McCain's call for Republicans to act on behalf of Gustav-beleaguered New Orleans, will try to make up the damage done by the Palin scandal. As one teen-ager asked, "How can Palin control the country when she can't even control her own children?"
