"Politics...it's about governing"

Henry Clay once said: “Politics is not about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness, it’s about governing. And if you cannot compromise you cannot govern.” For his role in helping reach an agreement on the Nullification Crisis and slavery, Clay was dubbed "The Great Compromiser." Now, on the brink of a government shutdown, it looks like we could use another "Great Compromiser."  As I look at our government right now, I see one side that absolutely fails to compromise and another side that is really bad at compromising. 


As we approach this shutdown, Tea Party members of Congress are refusing to budge on the budget. They absolutely refuse to compromise at all. (I will note that a number of Republicans seem to want compromise, but are being pressured by the new Tea Party members to refuse any compromise)


On the other side, the Democrats are really bad at compromising. Up to this point the Democrats, led by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, were giving all the way.  It seemed as if compromise to them meant give in so that a deal can be made. In all the "compromises" so far, it seems as if the Democrats gave in and the Republicans held strong. 


Now, as a shutdown looms, Democrats have changed their game, deciding not to give in anymore.  The problem is that since they've given and given all this time, they have little to work with. Compromise is about having something to offer that the other side wants, and them having something you would like in return. 

Webster's dictionary defines compromise as: "a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute."  The problem for the Democrats right now is that they don't really have bargaining chips, and the Republicans (guided by the Tea Party) refuse to give anything up. 


I think if Henry Clay's quote could be revised today it would be something like this: "Politics SHOULD NOT be about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness, it SHOULD BE about governing.  And if you cannot compromise you cannot govern."  The problem is that politics right now is entirely about ideological purity, not about governing. Rather than compromising in order to actually govern the country, our politicians on both sides are fighting for their ideological purity.  


What has happened? Why are we unwilling to compromise?  


I think part of it has to do with the fact that we have become so focused on a single issue. Rather than saying "We have a budget problem and we do need to address it, HOWEVER, we also have a country to govern," the Tea Party is saying "We have a moral crisis that has led to overspending, and if we don't address this now, our country will collapse." 


I agree that we need to cut back on spending, but we need to be responsible about it. The more I look at proposed budget cuts (including Paul Ryan's proposed FY2012 budget) I see cuts across the board, with little thought as to what is actually being cut.  This leads to trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. It's fairly clear that those who will be hurt most by the proposed budget cuts are those who rely on government services and a social safety net for their livelihood.  Now if we want to say that these programs need to be fixed so that people aren't dependent on them and can support themselves I'm all in and I'll jump right in and help.  However, what I'm hearing sounds more like "these programs need to be fixed so they don't cost us so much...so we should cut them."  


I feel like I'm starting to ramble, so I'm going to try to end this soon, but I just can't get over the fact that the House of Representatives seems to be ignoring the fact that these budget cuts have real human impact.  People are actually affected by these cuts, and people will suffer if these cuts go through. 


We need to fix the budget. Blind slashing is not the way to fix it. Let's be responsible about this.  Start by cutting programs that we don't need (such as fighter jet engines that the military doesn't even want).  Then let's look at fixing programs what we need, but aren't working right. This won't happen immediately, but if we take our time to do it right our future will be much better than if we rush to slash the budget. 

God Is Love

I heard a sermon today in Church that sparked in me the desire to write about it.  It’s not something I haven’t heard before, but I think something that we often forget. 

Since living in DC I’ve been going to a church that meets in the basement of a coffee house around the corner from where we’re living.  It’s a fairly young church, with I think 4 or 5 other campuses around DC. 

Today’s sermon was on 1 John 4:7-21 (click to read it).  One of the points of emphasis of the sermon was that God is love.  The pastor started out by reading the passage, then talked a bit about how we define love.  She got us thinking by saying “what if we replaced “love” here with “nice?”  Instead of “God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.” It would be: God is nice.  Whoever is nice lives in God and God in them.  When we change that, it loses so much meaning, not to mention the implications it would have for our faith, and for God being a just God.  See, if we really think about it, God is not nice.  God is love.  God is just.  God is not nice.  If God were nice he would not punish sin.  If God were nice, Ananias and Sapphira would not have been struck dead.  But God isn’t nice, He’s just.  It reminds of a scene in “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.”  You can see the video if you click here and start at the 6:00 mark.  In the book it happens far earlier, and here is the text from the book (a bit more meaningful)

“Ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man. Is he—quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”
“That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver, “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”
“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver. “Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”

Then, being typical me, I started thinking about how this applies to social justice.  If God is love, and being born of God and knowing God means we must love, then shouldn’t we show the same love to others that Jesus showed to us? 

John says that “whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar.  For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen” (1 John 7:20).  We see the poor and suffering all around us, yet we continue to allow them to suffer in their poverty, and we allow people all over the world to suffer in justices because we sit by idly and do nothing.  

At a time when so many political issues are related to the budget and there are talks everywhere about cutting spending, I wonder about how this applies to foreign aid and welfare spending.  Republicans in congress claim that we need to cut foreign aid from the budget, and reduce spending on social welfare programs, yet I ask, in this, how are we showing love to our brothers and sisters?  If we are called to love our brothers and sisters, and if God says that if we know Him, then love will flow out from us, how can we justify cutting programs that help those most in need?

Those are some thoughts for now.  I’d love to see comments on this and have a conversation about it.