On the trashing of Jim Wallis
Students of Richard Hofstadter will recognize what he meant by the paranoid style: a "sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy." Wallis is, unfortunately, not the only one who has recently been subjected to this style of polemic in the main posts. "Style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed," wrote Hofstadter, "than with the truth or falsity of their content." Small-minded posters who are hyper-sensitive about "ad hominen" rejoinders can apparently dish it out but not take it, another sure sign of the style. One should think that those living in big tents would be able to accommodate diverse and even conflicting views. Fuzzy thinking, contentiousness, and grandstanding are, of course, well-known impediments to living with diversity.
I have known Jim Wallis for more than thirty years. I respect him especially for his protests against unjust and immoral wars (often including civil disobedience), his longstanding concern about the environment, and his persistent outcry against the poverty that kills. While I do not entirely share his views on abortion, I believe they too are worthy of respect. His stance on abortion is not so different from that of Nat Hentoff. Mine is closer to that of Yale law Prof. Jack Balkin, that there are two rights to abortion: "The first right to abortion is a woman's right not to be forced by the state to bear children at risk to her life or health. The second right is a woman's right not to be forced by the state to become a mother and thus to take on the responsibilities of parenthood, which, in our society are far more burdensome for women than for men." I think Balkin is correct about the limits of the state. But abortion is also a moral issue, not merely a matter of "rights." Like many others, I believe (mainly on moral grounds) that we should work for a society in which abortion is safe, cheap and rare. To that extent I am with people like Wallis and Henthoff. Be that as it may, my main point is that it should be possible to engage such people in conversation and debate without descending to overheated rhetoric and phantasmagoric polemic.
The Democratic Party will not easily consolidate its recent electoral gains if it continues to be perceived as unfriendly to religious people. That is not only part of Jim Wallis's message. It is also a deficit that few are better positioned to do something about. As a progressive Evangelical, of which there are still precious few, he has enormous potential to help Democrats make inroads into the Republican religious base. The significance of that potential may be lost on some who frequent this site. Fortuntely, it does not seem to be lost on the Democratic leadership, which asked Jim Wallis to give this week's radio address. Excepts are included below.
Jim Wallis
December 2, 2006
I'm Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics. I was surprised and grateful when Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called to say his party wanted to set a new tone and invite, for the first time, a non-partisan religious leader to deliver their weekly radio address and speak about the values that could unite Americans at this critical time. ...Most Americans know that the important issues we confront have an essential moral character. It is the role of faith communities to remind us of that fact. But religion has no monopoly on morality. We need a new, morally-centered discourse on politics that welcomes each of us to the table. ...
Who is left out and left behind is always a religious and moral question. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the health of a society was measured by how it cared for its weakest and most vulnerable, and prosperity was to be shared by all. Jesus proclaimed a gospel that was "good news to the poor."I am an evangelical Christian, and a commitment to "the least of these" is central to my personal faith and compels my public actions. It is time to lift up practical policies and effective practices that "make work work" for low-income families and challenge the increasing wealth gap between rich and poor. We must find a new moral and political will to overcome poverty that combines personal and social responsibility with a commitment to support strong families. ...
This week, President Bush met with Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq, seeking solutions to the rapidly deteriorating situation in that civil-war torn nation. Nearly 3,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. The cost and consequences of a disastrous war are moral issues our country must address. Leaders in both parties are acknowledging that the only moral and practical course is to dramatically change the direction of U.S. policy, starting with an honest national debate about how to extricate U.S. forces from Iraq with the least possible damage to everyone involved.
Our earth and the fragile atmosphere that surrounds it are God's good creation. Yet, our environment is in jeopardy as global warming continues unchecked and our air and water are polluted. Good stewardship of our resources is a religious and moral question. Energy conservation and less dependence on fossil fuels are commitments that could change our future - from the renewal of our lifestyles to the moral redemption of our foreign policies.
A culture that promotes healthy families is necessary to raise our children with strong values, and the breakdown of family and community in our society must be addressed. But we need serious solutions, not the scapegoating of others. And wouldn't coming together to find common ground that dramatically reduces the number of abortions be better than both the left and the right using it as an issue to divide us?
| < Torture's cancerous spread | Bush v. Dodd: The Race To Not Change Military Tribunal Law > |
