My brother read God’s Politics, and failed to understand it.
Not all of Jim’s ideas are great ideas. Not all of Josh’s ideas are great ideas. Not all of mine are (just most). But the greatest idea (which isn’t mine) is that despite all that, we can still talk. And on the stuff that we agree on, we can work together in. We have a word for that: we like to call it Democracy.
Just like you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, you can’t convince all of the people all of the time. Just ignoring those who don’t drink the same Kool-Aid doesn’t help: you need to figure out a way to get things done, because if you can’t do that then all the bitching about what you do and don’t believe in is just that: bitching.
I’m not saying that we should just follow along and support whatever it is Jim Wallis says. On a number of issues I disagreed with him (cf abortion, censorship). But that doesn’t mean we slam the door in his face and never talk to him again (and calling him a fascist probably won’t help either). What we do is figure out what we agree on, and work from there. Helping the poor? That’s a great start. Peaceful solutions? Sure thing. Trampling on free speech? Sorry Jim, you’re on your own.
I am echoing The Moose and New Donkey here, but the Democratic Party is a Coalition party. Expunging people for infractions against your One True Faith™ will not help matters. When you’re losing popular elections, getting rid of people is the wrong approach. You need to get more people.
The thing is, I agree with a lot of what Josh wants:
For the record, the liberal discussion eschews framing its inherently moral discussion in religious terms because — get this — religious terms aren’t common to all parties of the discussion. That’s right, we have people that don’t believe the same things you do. In fact we have people who don’t believe the same things I do. That’s our whole gig — the celebration of different points of view, and the acceptance of the ambiguity of the universe.
That’s great. But there is a difference between eschewing the terms and mandating that they cannot be used. If they don’t work for you, don’t use them. But if they work for Jim (and I would argue that they do), let Jim do it. You can’t claim to offer a level playing field and then decide which arguments can and cannot be presented, based on whether or not you agree with them.
And that is why I liked God’s Politics: not that it gave me a new direction in life, but because it acknowledges that there are multiple sides to the arguments, and that on at least this one (morality, what-have-you), the liberals are losing. Is Jim’s way the way to win? Maybe, maybe not. But at least it’s a try.
