Prophetic Politics (moral, Earth, tradition, homosexuality, choices)

[lunamoth]

I'm reading God's Politics by Jim Wallis. He suggests that there is an unrepresented 'fourth option' for American politics, what he refers to as Prophetic Politics. The first three political options are Conservative, Liberal, and Libertarian. Here's his description of each:

1. Conservative on everything: from cultural, moral, and family concerns to economic, environmental, and foreign policy issues. Differences emerge between aggressive nationalists and cautrious isolationists, corporate apologists and principled fiscal conservatives, but this is the political option clearly on the ascendancy in America, with most of the dominant ideas in the public square comeing from the political Right.

2. Liberal on everything: both family/sexual,/cultural questions and economic, environmental, and foreign policy matters. There are certainly differences among the liberals (from pragmatic centrists to green lefties), but the intellectual and ideological roots come from the Left side of the cultural and politcal spectrum--and today most from the liberal/Left find themselves on the defensive.

3. Libertrian: meaning liberal on cultural/moral issues and conservative on fisca/economic and foreign politcy. The "just leave me alone and don't spend my money opton" is growing quickly in American life.

4. Prophetic: traditional or conservative on issues of family values, sexual integrity and personal responsibility, while being very progressive, populist, or even radical on issues like poverty and racial justice. It affirms good stewardship of the earth and its resources, supports gender equality, and is more internationally minded than nationalist--looking first to preacmeaking and conflict resolution when it comes to foreign policy questions. The people it appeals to are very strong on issues like marriage, raising kids, and individual ethics, but without being right-wing reactionary, or mean-spirited or scapegoating against any group of people, such as homosexuals. They can be pro-life, pro-family, nd pro-feminist, all at the same time. They think issues of "moral character" are very important, both in a politician's personal life and in his or her policy choices. Yet they are decidedly pro-poor, for racial reconciliation, critical of purely military solutions, and defenders of the environment.


The fourth option sounds pretty good to me, and I hear a lot of other people say that they don't feel represented. It's fiscal policy is driven by compassion and a search for the common good, that balance between individual and societal needs. I'm not at all interested in legislating morality, but I think there is much room for improvement in policy that help famlies (issues like a living wage, public schools, adoption policies) and are focused on eradicating poverty and making sure children do not go hungry and slip through the cracks, ending up with little or no hope. I really like the idea of getting away from single-issue/litmus test politics.

Is this just a dream, too good to be true?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Your Group 4 sounds very much like British Liberal Philosophy.
This is totally not Socialist.

As I look out to my Garden wall I can see a liberal poster for our local elections.
I have been working for them for the past 52 years.

[Dr. Nosophoros]

I love the prophecy of it but at least give the Libertarians a chance now, I think it might muddle the situation if you want people to walk before they can crawl, Libertarians have to win first, then we can go from there, you pushed the FFW button in American politics, they aren't mentally ready for that yet. Through evolutions we will finally realize our dream unless we are satisfied with what we have and if we continued to be satisfied with it, discontent breeds change, satisfaction breeds stagnation, the discontented were never accused of being "good citizens" yet they were the ones that brought about the most positive changes.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Is this just a dream, too good to be true?

To me, prophetic politics is liberal politics. The basis of my liberalism is to stand up for the oppressed and to bear witness to unnecessary suffering. I do place a high value on personal character, moral integrity, etc., as do the other liberals whom I know.

I am aware that for some "liberals," liberalism means "I can do whatever I want." I don't agree with this and will fight to retain what I believe to be its true meaning.

The one issue where liberal politics and Jim Wallis' politics go separate ways is on BGLT rights. Perhaps he doesn't spend time scapegoating, but he's definitely not in favor of marriage equality. His heart is good. Maybe there's hope for him yet.

In my church, we talk about being prophetic all the time. Basically making this call:
God is on the side of the oppressed. Who's side are you on?

[Sunstone]

I'm too liberal on social issues for option #4. I don't want politicians in my bedroom telling me what to do or not do with my beloved Acme Latex Love Doll. The same politicians who think they know what's better for my sexuality than I do are big enough idiots to wreck the environment, disenfranchise the poor, and invade countries almost at random. I don't trust the kind of politician who wants to be in people's bedrooms -- and I don't care whether they call themselves "prophetic" or "social conservatives" or "neocons".

[GeneCosta]

traditional or conservative on issues of family values, sexual integrity and personal responsibility,

I am left to assume what the author means by traditional views is the message pushed by Religious Right for the past thirty years: decapitating sexual expression, withholding mothers from their careers, censoring anything viewed as inappropriate, and emphasizing the death penalty. I could be wrong, but calling on the terms "conservative" and "family values" usually brings up the image of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, and company.

Even if done kindly, I don't see myself falling in the "fourth" bracket. To me the "liberal" side, community working for the individual, individual working for the community, is the best option, as opposed to the individual working in the interest of himself [what I view libertarianism], or the individual working in the interest of the community [what I view conservatism], or the community working in the interest of the individual ["Third Way" politics], which many have mistaken as the heart of the liberal movement.

I appreciate the "traditional" values of integrity, honesty, selflessness, and commitment, but those messages are largely replaced by the more specific examples I listed above [though I believe they're just as modern as they are traditional].

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

I am left to assume what the author means by traditional views is the message pushed by Religious Right for the past thirty years: decapitating sexual expression, withholding mothers from their careers, censoring anything viewed as inappropriate, and emphasizing the death penalty. I could be wrong, but calling on the terms "conservative" and "family values" usually brings up the image of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, and company.

I would NOT put Jim Wallis in the same category as Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and Ann Coulter. For one thing, he's much more intelligent. For another, he really does care about social issues like poverty/classism, environmental concerns, and the war in Iraq.

He is pro-life, but he's not in favor of keeping women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. He does have issues with homosexuality, but he doesn't spend time demonizing anyone. You will not see him making a big deal about these things for political leverage. He is sincerely trying to live his Christian ethics. The UUA is about as liberal as one can get, and we work with him and other "Red Letter Christians" on a number of social issues.

For anyone unfamiliar with Jim Wallis, check out his website: http://www.sojo.net/

I think what Wallis means by traditional views, more than pro-life and anti-gay marriage, is what he sees as the breakdown of personal responsibility in society. People thinking that they can do whatever they want without thinking of the well-being of the community. I agree with him.

The thing is that we liberals do believe in these same things - integrity, honesty, selflessness, and commitment - but are often so afraid of losing personal freedom, because conservatives are constantly trying to take them away, that we will excuse poor behavior instead of holding people accountable. We need to stop doing that. We need to stop letting the conservatives be the only ones who talk about morality and community.

As you said, true liberalism is about the community working for the individual AND the individual working for the community, BOTH.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

I am left to assume what the author means by traditional views is the message pushed by Religious Right for the past thirty years: decapitating sexual expression, withholding mothers from their careers, censoring anything viewed as inappropriate, and emphasizing the death penalty. I could be wrong, but calling on the terms "conservative" and "family values" usually brings up the image of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, and company.

I see that there is not really enough material presented in my OP to dissuade you from concluding that when he refers to 'family values' that he is not pushing the RR agenda, but from what I've read that is not the case. The book, God's Politics, actually does not focus too much on sexual ethics but he does say that he has spoken out in favor of civil rights for gays and pro-choice with respect to abortion. Unless he's being sneaky about it, I don't see where his views on these things are any different from mine, and I am pro-choice and pro-civil rights for gays. Basically I think he means that we address issues like poverty and do things to really help families economically rather than peaking in bedroom windows and trying to legislate morality. He says in the book that sexual ethics are basically being used as a political football to distract from issues that can really help families be more stable and get kids out of poverty.