How to evaluate our time of crisis.

On the Fox News Channel, Glenn Beck’s editorial program presented this comment made by Senator John Conyers of Michigan concerning the massive health care bill proposed by the Obama administration:

“You have these members who get up and say, ‘read the bill!’  What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”  Beck commented that Conyers could consider the novel idea of actually telling his colleagues and the administration that he cannot finish evaluating the bill and therefore they are going to have to wait.  As it is, it seems that political pressure to maintain unity in the party pushes many current congressman to neglect the one task for which they were voted into office: govern. 

The current climate of political animosity and insanity, so often animated by the hijinks of Beck, could easily lead the citizenry to cynicism.  And this cynicism can lead to two actions.  On the one hand a citizen can despair of ever accomplishing the necessary tasks of self-governance, which is to educate one’s self of the facts at hand and apply the appropriate principles.  This citizen then resorts to following the emotional impulse of blind and un-reflective party loyalty.  Such loyalty usually results from upbringing where the citizen votes the party of their parents, or against it.  Or, they may rally around a charismatic national celebrity, with a good narrative, and emotionally invest in the success of that celebrity as one would if they were participating in American Idol.

On the other hand, cynicism can lead a citizen to dismiss themselves from the political process altogether.  The citizen can feel as if their vote makes little difference since neither of the major national political parties satisfy the citizen’s criteria.  If the citizen voted for the other options, that person would be “throwing their vote away.”  This feeling is not without foundation.  Indeed, the progressive political deference of the local and state governments to the federal has created a new political system very different from the kind formed in 1776.  A citizen did not just vote.  A citizen held free associations, volunteered, ran for office, wrote to his statesman, considered local politics far more relevant and, most importantly, engaged in heated political, philosophical and religious debate at the local pub or at the dinner table.  As it stands now, it appears as though much of the political process has been removed from the citizenry by at least 3 degrees of separation.

In the midst of this current political climate, where does the Christian citizen find herself?  A Christian can easily say none of this really matters since Christ is coming again.  Or, a Christian can say this question carries the heaviest weight…that salvation depends on it.

The Naked Public Square, the seminal work produced by the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus, offers this Christian perspective: 

“In our world-weary moments we may agree with the observation…that history is just one damned thing after another.  While history contains much that is eminently damnable, however, that view hardly accords with a Christian understanding of God’s intent in time.  An awkward consequence of the Christian view…is that we are frequently unsure what that intent is with respect to specifics at hand.  We are not disinterested observers, we are not an audience, but, however large or small our role (and we can never know that for sure either), we are both the subjects and the objects of our inquiry into what may be happening.  Our Lord cautions us in no uncertain terms about unwarranted certainty.  We are not to say, “Lo here! or, Lo there!”  Yet we cannot help but say, “Maybe here, and, Maybe there.”  And then we must act in the courage of our uncertainties.”

Neuhaus continues by saying that what gives us the courage to engage politics and the public square is faith.  It is faith that God does not waste his time and he does not waist history.  It has a definite direction and purpose.  The purpose is salvation and the direction includes the public engagement of Christians in politics and in the public square.  The insanity and uncertainty of the current time of crisis do not change the story of humanity that God pens in his providence.

The American Catholic Voter

Is there such a thing as an American Catholic voter?  Do Catholics allow their faith to shape ALL that they do, including their politics?  This question is ultimately multi-faceted.  First, there arises the question of the nature of American politics in general.  Second, there arises the question of the nature of American Catholicism in general.

As to the first question, I think that much of one’s political persuasion comes from one’s family background.  One is conservative if one’s parents are conservative, and vis versa if one’s parent’s were liberal.  Or, if one is rebellious than one would be the opposite.  In any case, many people adopt their political perspective from a super-ego construct that stems heavily from up-bringing.  Less of an influence comes from doing actual homework, research, and trying to answer the tough questions.  There are exceptions to this.  Those exceptions have nothing to do with how intelligent one is.  A person can be quite intelligent and yet still be ruled by their super-ego, especially when it comes to something so opinion-based like one’s political point of view.  The exceptions about which I speak are those who KNOW their super-ego construct…those who are self-aware.  Then they are little more capable of distinguishing themselves from outside reality.  They are little more driven to truly become informed of facts and to weigh opinions (those who are the swing-voters are not necessarily these people.  I suspect that many of these merely come from a background where the parents have no solidified persuasion but I would not know the statistics on this).  In conclusion to this first paragraph, I suppose that most of the work of self-formation towards true political opinion invovles managing one’s super-ego so that one’s political decisions are not merely emotion-driven and so that one’s discussion in politics are less shrill and loud (ala Hannity and Colmes).  More tomorrow…