Thank God for people like Kid Oakland and Jeffrey Feldman, whose thoughts are so fertile they’ve fed an entire generation of bloggers by now. I’ve discovered that it’s worth reading these gentlemen, if for no other reason than what ideas they spark in my own head.
Just as one example, in Kid Oakland’s post from the other night, “the buck never stops”, I came across this list of what K.O. is thinking about as the 2006 election cycle approaches:
- Accountability.
- Reality.
- Pragmatism
We are the party of “the buck stops here”, and we need to trumpet that from the rooftops.
When I first read the Kid’s post, I didn’t see a place in his thoughts for religious progressives. Certainly many people would see faith as the opposite of “reality-based”. And yet, I’m convinced that there is a place for progressive religion in the next cycle–at least to the extent that other voices can be heard within the Democratic party.
So the question becomes, how can we reconcile these seeming opposites?
Well, one could take a stab at it through the philosophical sense of pragmatism, but I think the key here is accountability.
Or more properly, responsibility. I believe that the contemporary Republican party is deeply, profoundly, irresponsible–in more ways than one might suspect when we use that term flippantly.
To help us understand that, I want to introduce you–very briefly–to the work of the theologian H. Richard Niebuhr, brother to Reinhold and uncle (father?) of Gustav Niebuhr, the longtime “Godbeat” reporter for the New York Times. Niebuhr believed in what he called “the responsible self,” essentially that who we are is constituted in response to other people or things. For example, he proposed that the way we know of our own existence is by seeing others respond to our presence.
I swear I’m going somewhere with this.
Theologically speaking, Niebuhr thought that we live in response to God’s initial action. Furthermore, he asserted, that action created a framework for responsiveness: community. The basic nature of humanity is communal, he argued (specifically for Christians, it is the ekklesia, the gathered body). Community provides support and nurturance–but also structure and accountability.
You still with me?
If you are, notice that for our purposes, it’s not necessary to claim God at work in community. Philosophically, it’s enough to say that human nature is communal.
Where it begins to get interesting is in Niebuhr’s description of the responsible self. It acts in response to interpreted action. Interpretation is as basic as breathing for Niebuhr; there is no “safe space” in which to escape to absolutes or absolutism in his thought. We perceive action taken upon us, and we respond accordingly; but perception is faulty, and so we must interpret.
Another aspect of the responsible self is its accountability. By this, Niebuhr means something of an expansion on the golden rule. It’s not just “do unto an other,” but “to others.” Since we exist in community, our moral thought necessarily takes into account not just individuals, but webs of people. If you’ve ever led a group of people, you’ll understand how this works. If I say x to y, y will take that to z, who will then use it to make z1 cry…In order to be truly moral, Niebuhr says, you have to learn to think in terms of the community, and indeed, of how communities interact with one another. (Much of his work was written in the 1950s, when there was a heightened awareness of the need for different cultures to work with one another for the good of the global community. We’ve lost some of that these days.) Responsibility involves social solidarity, the ability to identify and work on behalf of, groups of people larger than oneself, larger than just one’s tribe.
So here’s the kernel of the difference between the Democratic approach to politics and the Republican: Democrats are able to respond to people, to communities, outside their own. Think of every time you’ve ever thought of the current administration: “these folks must have really sucked on the ‘plays well with others’ criteria.” What have we been saying for the past five years? Broken treaties, broken alliances, broken promises, broken laws, broken responsibilities. These folks are irresponsible because they don’t respond to other’s actions, nor do they understand (or care about) the response their actions elicit from others. They are unaccountable because they have divorced themselves not from facts, but from other people. They have limited the horizon of their responsibility to a frighteningly small group of people: the Bush family and those who owe it loyalty.
Furthermore, I believe, this is the con game behind the con game that Republicans have been running ever since Nixon: in the short run, being irresponsible is a net gain. I can, if I want, leave my dirty laundry laying around the house in the hopes that Mrs Pastor will pick it up. But in the long-term, irresponsibility is a net loss: if I leave my laundry laying around too long, Mrs P is not only going to stop cleaning it, but she’s going to divorce my sorry ass.
(Please take note: I do NOT leave my laundry laying around. I do however occasionally “forget” to clean the bathroom.)
The Republican version of this game has been to split communities off from one another. First it was blacks and whites. Then it was blacks and whites, within undertones of Christians vs. everbody else. Then it was gays and lesbians vs. Christians, and lately Muslims vs. “civilization” and the French World vs. the Anglo-American World. Through it all has been the pulse of Republican division: the rich vs. the poor. It’s a neat trick, actually: they’ve been able to convince who knows how many poor folk to vote for them on the promise that they’ll get some of the rich folks’ pie, all the while stacking the deck to make sure that that will never happen.
Nice work, if you can get it. I’m beginning to hope that you won’t be able to for much longer.
Ah, but there’s more…to be accountable, in Niebuhr’s thought, is exactly to be reality-based. You have to know and understand how you affect other people in order to be accountable. You have to ask yourself, “To whom or what am I responsible, and in what community of interaction am I myself?”
Who does that remind you of?
To my ears, that sounds an awful lot like Martin Luther King. I haven’t researched it, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that the connection between the two was Howard Thurman, a black theologian and strong advocate of the community.
In any case, it’s following that lead that shows us how to break the frame (thank you very much, Mr. Feldman), and be responsible where the Republicans are not.
- When it comes to questioning Judge Roberts or any other SCOTUS nominee, we need to say: “We are being responsible to the community of our great nation, which deserves a full and honest disclosure of this nominee’s thoughts.” Ditto Josh Bolton or any other nominee.
- When it comes to bringing to light the misbehavior of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, we need to say, “We are being responsible to the world community, who deserve an accounting of our leadership in the War on Terror.” Or, for the religious-minded: “We are being responsible to the community of the children of God, who deserve to know what has happened to their brothers and sisters in their name.”
- When it comes to bringing to light the misbehavior of Downing Street, we need to say, “We are being responsible to the community of our partners, who deserve to know what we have gotten them into.”
- When it comes to Social Security, we need to say, “We are being responsible to our own community, of those about to retire, and those still looking forward to retirement. They deserve to know that their years of hard work and contribution to the greater good is not being squandered for the benefit of the few.”
- When it comes to pushing the issue of the formation of Dick Cheney’s energy policy, we need to say, “We are being responsible to the community of all who live within the borders of the United States. They deserve to know that their own nest is not being fouled by recklessness and greed.”
- When it comes to pushing the issue of the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity, we need to say, “We are being responsible to the community of the brave men and women who risk their lives on behalf of this country. They deserve to know that their sacrifice will not be sold on the cheap for political gain.”
We could go on like this all night, I’m sure, and I encourage you to add your wrinkles below. Responsibility draws people together in solving problems; irresponsibility divides them and leaves somebody else to clean the carpets. It’s that simple.
So in every act of malfeasance, in every act of injustice, arrogance, pettiness, or simple dumkopfery, we need to stand up and answer the question “To whom am I responsible?” with: “I am responsible to the Beloved Community” and the question “In what community am I myself?” with “the American community, where leaders are accountable, realistic, and pragmatic, the women are strong, and the children are above average, each and every one of them.”
If that’s the only contribution progressive religion makes to contemporary politics–and I’m not saying their only ones who can make it–then I think we will have done much toward the healing of our nation.
