Sometimes, Perhaps, It All Depends

A recent headline demonstrates how difficult it is for all of us to understand those on the other side of the religious/cultural/political wall that divides us.

The headline was simple and accurate. “GOP House hard-liners won’t compromise. They’re losing key fights because of it. Missing is the understanding that in the minds of those members, if they had compromised, they would have already lost.

Writing from a political perspective, the reporter focused on the political results. From a religious, ideological perspective, the members followed their convictions. For them, anything less would have been a personal defeat, far more important than a political setback for their party.

The all or nothing mentality – there can be no compromising, no watering down of principle, no accommodation of a competing value – has its roots in a form of Protestant Christianity that emerged in the late 19^th and early 20^th century.

The Bible, every word, was inspired by God and inerrant. The stories were understood literally, not metaphorically. Creation took place in six 24-hour days. The Bible was believed in its entirety.

I can remember as a teenager, a sermon my father preached. You can’t pick and choose. It was all or nothing. You were a believer, or you were not.

As I grew older and couldn’t accept it all, I left the Church altogether, unable to embrace any alternate theology that understood that the truth of Scripture comes wrapped in mystery, myth and metaphor. Early socialization lasts. The thought still lingers that anything other than a literal understanding of the Bible is something other than Christian.

The question is one of authority. Do standards, values, morals come from an entity, power, or belief system that tells us how to act? That we resist at our own peril. Or do we as humans create the standards, values and morals that make living together possible?

The question is also one of attitude. Does one believe with complete certainty that what one holds to be true is true not only for them but for everyone and reflects an eternal Truth that does not change? Or is there some humility? Some recognition we are flawed, fallible, there are many truths and Truth is hidden?

Is there an authority that tells us what we must do? Or does the power (“kratos”) to decide lie with the people (“demos”)?

Democracy or authority? We can choose either, but the two don’t live well together. Politics and religion (or any ideology) don’t mix. Politics – the art of bringing people together to decide – is the essential democratic act. With religion and ideology, the answer is given. You either accept or it is imposed.

The political mind is pragmatic, focused on building public support, focused on getting stuff done. How many votes do I need? Where will they come from? What do I have to do to get them? How much of what I want can I get?

The ideological mind is focused inward, on maintaining a position, sticking to principle, following the Truth, not settling for anything less.

The inability of Republicans to agree among themselves on how to fund the government demonstrates the disconnect between the two.

When asked by Speaker Mike Johnson to “give me something that will pass”, members of the Freedom Caucus couldn’t, nor would they join with others.

Johnson called them “rugged individualists” and “deeply principled”. “I love that part … except when you have a one vote margin.” There is always that “except” when authority and politics clash.  

That clash was on full display after Johnson did what he had to do and joined with Democrats to pass a bipartisan bill to fund the government. The attacks by Republicans on other Republicans were harsh. “I serve with some real scumbags.” “After each sellout … the self-serving lies begin.” There were calls for punishment and threats of supporting primary opponents.

The Republican Party has become increasingly more  ideological, more overtly religious and Christian. The calls to submit to Christian authority have increased.

In a speech at Notre Dame, then Attorney General William Barr said, “Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.”  They are “God’s instruction manual for the best running of man and human society.”

In a commencement address at King’s College, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told the graduates to stand for Christ’s lordship, and seek the obedience of the nation. The democratic idea that individuals have the capacity and freedom to adopt their own purposes is a heresy that  was condemned by the Church in the fourth century. For Hawley, the belief that people can “fix their own destinies” and “create themselves”, is the cause of our current social, economic and political problems.

In recent elections Republicans have courted the vote of Christians, particularly those who embrace a more conservative theology, and have aligned themselves with Christian beliefs and cultural attitudes. This has been particularly true with abortion as Republican office holders have almost universally championed the right-to-life cause.

Abortion illustrates the hazards of mixing religion and politics particularly over the long run. Precepts don’t change. Circumstances and attitudes do. What may initially be an advantageous marriage can become a problem.

As long as access to abortion was constitutionally protected Republicans could be right-to-life without saying what that meant in practice. Does life begin at conception? Are there other values, circumstances that should be recognized?  The right-to-life vote, however, was secure.

For those who believed access to abortion should be legal, the Republican stance was more theatre than threat. Roe v. Wade provided a constitutional barrier.

With the repeal of Roe v. Wade everything changed.

The majority became energized to protect a 50-year right. Republicans were forced to specify what a right-to-life meant in actual practice. At conception? At six weeks? At 15 weeks? At viability? Without or without exceptions? Democrats won a string of elections.

When the theatre ended and real decisions had to be made, the mix of politics with religion curdled. The necessity for votes could no longer coexist with church teaching.

The Wall Street Journal, sometimes called the Republican in-house newspaper, editorialized, “Republicans had better get their abortion position straight, and more in line with where voters are, or they will face another disappointment in 2024.” 

After the Wisconsin Supreme Court race last Spring, Ann Coulter the militant conservative commentator wrote,  “The demand for anti-abortion legislation just cost Republicans another crucial race … stop pushing strict limits on abortion, or there will be no Republicans left.”

Trump shifted his position, tossed the problem to the states and attacked “hardliners” who were making it “impossible” for Republicans to win competitive elections.

Mike Pence, his former vice-president, responded, “Too many Republican politicians are all too ready to wash their hands of the battle for life … However much our Republican nominee or other candidates seek to marginalize the cause of life, I know pro-life Americans will never relent until we see the sanctity of life restored to the center of American law in every state in this country.”

The 1864 Arizona law that outlawed all abortions from conception, except to save the life of the mother, was repealed earlier this month when three Arizona Republican state representatives and two state senators voted with all the Democrats.

The shout from the gallery was harsh. “One day you will face a just and holy God.” A Republican senator pleaded, “Why can’t we show the nation we are pro-life? We will have the blessing of God over this state if we do that. Our only hope is Jesus Christ.”

 The single answer, the certainty of being right, even to the details, makes politics impossible.  

Public opinion is mixed. We are a diverse nation. Moral values compete. Some have to give way to others. We have to choose in the moment with each decision that comes to us. Which opinion to follow? Which value to elevate?

The answer is not given to us. Not written in stone. Circumstances matter. Perhaps, sometimes, it all depends, is where we start. We have to figure it out. Politics is how we muddle through. Community is the goal.