This election, some good people were elected and other good people lost. Some of these officials, newly elected and reelected, will try to find solutions to some of the great challenges facing our country today. Others will deepen the poisonous partisanship that has defined much of the past two years in politics. The polling showed, chillingly, that most voters came out to cast their ballots against candidates and policies rather than for anybody or anything. And it was a national election with deep emotions and many local races had little to do with who was running in that particular contest. I spoke to two friends tonight who lost their Congressional bids to (in my view) inferior opponents. The races weren't about the issues or even the candidates who were running but about national political leaders who had become negative symbols. Many people voted against whatever they could and not for anything they had hope in. Two years ago, people voted for change; and they still are.
A few weeks ago I spoke to another friend, a Republican Congressman who had lost his primary earlier this year. His voting record proved his conservative credentials and he disagreed with the President on almost every issue he could think of. But, he explained, he made a few mistakes that didn't allow him to stay in Congress.
He told me a story that sums up for me what happened in this election. During the health care debate his office sent out a press release entitled "Top Reasons to Oppose Obamacare." He took those reasons and blew them up onto a banner to hang behind him during town hall meetings on health care. He started every town hall meeting taking 5 minutes to go through his list of reasons to oppose Obama's health care plan. He then spent the next 85 minutes of those town halls talking about his vision for a conservative approach to health care reform that would cover people who didn't have health insurance. That, he explained, was the beginning of the end of his reelection campaign.
If he wanted to maintain his seat, he explained, he should have reversed his ratio and spent 85 minutes criticizing the President and only 5 minutes talking about his vision for a way forward. Unfortunately, it was "scapegoats" not "solutions" that many in his district were looking for. He explained to me that one of the key moments when he realized his campaign was in peril was when a supporter stood up and condemned the President for being a "socialist, communist, and Marxist; who wanted to be a dictator, open up the Mexican border and turn America into an Islamic state." And that Obama "hates America so much that he doesn't put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played." This brave Republican said that wasn't fair or true, that the President was a patriot, even if he disagreed with most of his policies. He explained that he thought there were lots of reasons to oppose the President but an internet rumor about whether the President puts his hand over his heart was not one of them. Talking like that cost him the election.
This November 2nd, most voters cast their ballot against something. Some people voted against Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Others voted against the Tea Party. My primary concern is not the electoral math but how our country approaches politics. When all our leaders are able to do is express opposition to the "other" side, we are in a crisis of leadership. We heard a lot of anger in this campaign, but not a lot of vision. And we didn't see a new paradigm for what it looks like to work with those with whom you might disagree. The new Congress will need to learn to paint a vision for moving forward that isn't based on what plays to a partisan base. The issues we face are too great and too important; the people effected too many, the responsibility to large for vision to be so absent and cooperation for the common good to be so politically impossible.
There was very little values narrative in this election. And there was almost no attention to the faith community and its concerns. But the issues we face now are profoundly moral questions. We have work to do.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, and CEO of Sojourners.
+Click here to get email updates from Jim Wallis
Then wouldn't an intelligent strategy be to recognize that as a huge factor? Regardless of what anyone wants to be true, that's the reality.
First, set aside the implied sense of intellectual superiority those who insist on nothing but rationality seem to feel. Democracy means having to deal with your lessers.
Secondly, recognize that the vast majority of Americans identify with some spirituality, regardless of your own personal preferences. Are those with whom there are disagreements automatically enemy?
Thirdly, allow room for progressives who are also religious. Instead of indulging in every opportunity to blast religion. As evidenced here and other posts by Jim Wallis. A person who has been at the front lines of social justice for decades. And not in word alone. But directly caring for the poor. Organizing to end war. Insisting on inclusiveness.
Divisiveness is a tactic the regressives use well. Raising hatred, fear, and anger. Surely we can do better. Ask instead: how can we all work together for the common good?
It takes courage to push for change. Like Gandhi and King; their faith basic to their causes. And they worked with everyone. Proof what is good can win. We must demonstrate alternatives to hatred, fear, and anger.
Say it loud: we are not afraid to LOVE! That's the future we envision.
Thank the lord and saviour L. Ron for that.
Moral questions are not to be answered by the government. The government has no morality. It is a concept created that is devoid of any emotions, so there is no morality in government.
Morality belongs in churches and synagogues and those barns that hillbillies practice their religions in.
Morality lies in the hearts of free thinking, non believers of sky gods, in greater abundance than any
sky god believers I have ever met.
The only really consistent thing is that morality is always relative regarding oneself. Stealing or lying or even murder, for example, may be "bad" in general, but there are times when all people can justify them as being "good".
Marco Rubio, I thought, was spot on when he said that we will make a big mistake if we think these results are an embrace of the Republican Party. If they now don't deliever and do what they promised to do, this second chance will be squanered and they will go the way of the Whigs.
True Americans are not monolithic. To imply otherwise is insulting to your fellow American.
You missed the first comma in his sentence; what MaineCon meant was "I agree with you and you're accurate that Americans want change, but."
Let's here it for the Party of Repeal/NO - PORNO!
Explicitly implies that the inverse is also true in your opinion. Some BAD people were elected and BAD people lost. Judgemental ? Divisive ? Christian.
Why not go beyond the implication about "bad people" and state it, right?
At least write something like "some bad people lost, but some good people won."
But they were at that time, under the illusion that the votes of the majority held sway over the aims of the minority. When it eventually became evident that this was a democratic pipedream, the smoke finally drifted from their eyes.
“85 minutes criticizing the President and only 5 minutes talking about his vision for a way forward”
When votes count for naught, some sort of sop must be sought. To fill up the senses, and assure that no sensitive issues are explored. Such as, if we voted for you what should we do if you didn’t do what you said you would?
“he doesn't put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played."
Rupert, on the other hand, never fails to do so. Though I fear he may just be feeling for his wallet.
“a new paradigm”
If politicians were faceless, wouldn’t the population be compelled to calculate the merit of their mettle through consideration of their words? But if we could extract the distraction of presentation out of the message, why not go the whole way? Permit direct selection of policies by the people, and thus force them to concentrate their minds on what actually matters.
In all fairness and even more chillingly, Mr. Wallis, many candidates didn't tell voters who they were or what they were for, but what and who they were against -- in tones that were often uncivil, disinterested in consensus and, sometimes, even untrue, unpatriotic and criminal. Alluding to armed insurrection, stepping on the heads of opponents and handcuffing journalists show a poverty of ideas and a lack of human spirit that will do our country and the world no good.
And, speaking as a Christian, I have to say: it's high time for some very vocal segments of "the faith community" to stop chasing after wealth and power, cease letting politicians use it to garner points and then discard it, realize that our country's problems go far beyond its pet "moral issues," and get to doing God's work without the government. You don't need connections in Washington to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, house the homeless, care for the sick and visit the jailed, as Jesus commanded. You do need to dig deep in your own pockets and your own heart to do so -- and that's precisely why so many don't.
As a Christian, (and maybe it's just inherently inbedded in my soul without Christianity) I feel a deep responsibility "to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, house the homeless, care for the sick and visit the jailed". I try to do that, and I also believe most Americans feel the same way. I also, however, am offended when someone in Washington mandates, or better yet, takes what I have and does those same things without my consent.
If I see a homeless, hungry person in need of medical care huddled over a city vent trying to keep warm, it is morally right for me to help. If I pull a gun and take money from another passerby and use that money to help that homeless person, that is not morally right, even though the homeless person gets the help in either case.
Government has no right to take from one and give to another, but we, as citizens, certainly are responsible to help those around us in need.
Just my opinion...
You clearly do not understand what our government is supposed to be.
Or, if you realize that it has become "They, the Corporation" you don't seem to be willing to do anything about it.
Your opinion is wrong.
Now that the fury of the pendulum has swung again, what's next?
Where are the grand solutions?
Tax breaks? Repeal health care reform? De-regulate further?
Let the 99ers rot? S.crew the jobs bill?
We have a HUGE issue in the country RIGHT NOW.
Americans are willing to "kick the bums out" every few years, but not willing to make them work while they're in office.
How many of the gloaters made calls to their local politicians about anything?
"We sure showed him. In 2012 we'll really show him."
Show him what?
That every few years we can get enough votes together to elect somebody else, but not enough to affect change while a politician is IN office.
Let's kick them out so we'll have someone else to be p o'ed with!
the word "used" comes to mind.