God’s Politics: A New Vision for Faith and Politics
in America
By Jim Wallis
(HarperSanFrancisco, 384 pages, $24.95)
After John Kerry’s presidential loss and their discovery of
“values” voters, Democrats have tried to find religion. But unless
the Democrats can engage people of religious faith who worry about
cultural decline, they will continue to lose elections — even in
the midst of an increasingly unpopular Bush-led war.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, at least, most of them simply
don’t “get it,” as Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourner’s
Magazine, puts it. Wallis is both an orthodox evangelical and
a political liberal, an abortion opponent who lives among the poor
in Washington, D.C. He demonizes neither Bush, whom he likes
personally, nor religious conservatives. People may join the
latter, he writes, “less to do with wanting to take over the
country than being desperate to protect their kids from the crass
trash and degrading banality” produced by America’s media
conglomerates. God’s Politics is his worthwhile but not
entirely successful attempt to get beyond a politics that pits
faithless left against faithful right.
Wallis understandably takes aim at those on the religious right
who see themselves as the Republican Party at prayer. And the
target is huge. Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, in between
defending Liberian dictator Charles Taylor and advocating the
assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, early last year
said of President George W. Bush: “I think George Bush is going to
win in a walk. I really believe I’m hearing from the Lord it’s
going to be a blowout election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed
him…. It doesn’t make any difference what he does, good or
bad.”
Robertson has long been an embarrassment to anyone who takes his
Christian faith seriously. Little more positive is the political
record of Jerry Falwell and many other leaders of the Religious
Right. The problem is neither their theology nor their politics
(though I would disagree with both in important areas). It is how
they mix the two.
Wallis advocates a nonpartisan God and desires to retake a faith
that has been “co-opted by the right” and “dismissed by the left.”
He particularly derides the assumption that the alternative to the
Religious Right is the Religious Left. Rather, he correctly
contends, “the best public contribution of religion is precisely
not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan.” Instead,
raising moral issues “will challenge both left- and right-wing
governments that put power above principles.”
IT’S AN AMBITIOUS undertaking. But Wallis finds it difficult to
surmount two serious obstacles. His first assumption is that there
is an obvious third way between today’s Republicans and Democrats.
For instance, in 2003 he offered his nonviolent solution to Iraq:
the Security Council should establish an international tribunal to
indict Hussein and his top officials for war crimes and crimes
against humanity. This would send a clear signal to the world that
he has no future. It would set into motion both internal and
external forces that might remove him from power. It would make
clear that no solution to this conflict will include Hussein or his
supporters staying in power. Sure.
Two disastrous wars (Iran, U.S.), two violent oppositions
(Kurds, Shiites), years of U.S. support for coups and dissidents, a
decade of devastating economic sanctions, and persistent diplomatic
isolation could not oust Saddam from power. But an international
criminal indictment would do the job. In fact, I joined Wallis in
opposing the war and believe that the bloody aftermath has
vindicated my arguments. But there really was no third way. One
either had to forcibly eject Hussein or contain him. Neither choice
was necessarily correct or incorrect in Biblical terms. Certainly
the Gospel would seem to contradict the bloodlust and enthusiasm
for war evident in some circles. But it would not foreclose a
judgment that the existing evils and potential dangers posed by
Hussein’s regime warranted war.
Wallis’s second problem is that he politicizes the Gospel
message, just in a different way from Robertson, Falwell, and
others. For instance, Wallis offers “the political problem of
Jesus.” In his view, Jesus’ sermons rule out much of the
conservative agenda.
How could a savior who lifted up the poor support tax cuts for
the rich? Moreover, writes Wallis, “Jesus says, ‘Be not afraid,’ an
attitude that could undermine the entire basis of our current
foreign policy.” In Wallis’s view, “most of the important movements
for social change in America have been fueled by religion —
progressive religion.”
Thus, the political vision that he advances is largely
indistinguishable from that of the average Democrat. Not entirely,
since Wallis opposes abortion, worries about preserving family
values, and does not endorse homosexuality. But most of his policy
positions, ranging from Iraq to foreign aid to welfare, conflict
very little with Democratic Party orthodoxy. That does not mean
Wallis is inherently wrong. But it suggests that he has not
developed a new, nonpartisan vision for people of faith in
politics. Whether he is right or not in his politics, Christian
theology no more demands that result than a conservative
result.
WALLIS PRESENTS HIS VISION as a fourth option to conservatives,
liberals, and libertarians. In his view it “follows from the
prophetic religious tradition.” In sum, “it is 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.”
One can make good prudential policy arguments on behalf of all
of these positions. But while God says much about people’s
relationship to him and each other, he says very little about when
people should coerce each other — that is, what government should
do. And this failure to distinguish personal moral imperatives from
prudential political concerns places him squarely where he does not
want to be: standing between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
Perhaps no where is this more evident than Wallis’s reflexive
rejection of “tax cuts for the rich.” However, the money is not a
“public good” to be spent either on government projects or gifts
for the wealthy. Rather, the money has been collected from the very
people to whom it is being returned. In fact, the rich pay the vast
majority of income taxes: for instance, the top one percent pay
more than a third of revenues. So any fair tax cut means that the
rich will receive more than will the poor. One can justify
progressive taxation and social spending, but one must make the
argument, rather than simply denounce “tax cuts for the rich.”
Similarly flawed is Wallis’s discussion of poverty, both
domestic and international. No faithful Christian can ignore the
enormity of the problem of poverty. But a requirement that one help
the poor does not authorize one to force others to help the poor.
You will search Scripture long and hard to find such an
authorization.
That doesn’t prevent government from creating some form of
welfare. But experience has demonstrated that good intentions are
not enough. The perverse incentives of government programs did much
to destroy families and ultimately communities. Rules such as the
minimum wage and licensing destroyed jobs. Indeed, so many of the
problems that Wallis seeks to address ultimately grow out of
misguided government policies. Wallis worries, for good reason,
about inadequate affordable housing. But state and local
regulations, through zoning and building codes, have done more than
anything else to raise housing costs. He recognizes that “perhaps
the greatest scandal of all is the absolutely inferior education
that poor children in America are subject to.” Sadly true. Yet
there is no mystery on what is necessary to help poor children of
color learn — that’s why so many black Baptists end up in
inner-city parochial schools. The evidence is overwhelming that the
fundamental problem of education is a lack of competition and local
accountability, not money.
HE PUSHES HARD FOR foreign aid, debt relief, and “fair” trade. Yet
over the last five decades foreign aid has devastated poor nations,
strengthening recipient governments that themselves posed the
primary barrier to economic growth. There is a logic to debt
relief, but only if the beneficiaries adopt necessary reforms and
borrow no more money. Moreover, applying first world environmental
and labor standards to Third World nations actually protects
industries in the former, ensuring that the latter will never grow
and ultimately prosper to where they can adopt such standards
voluntarily.
Still, Wallis deserves praise for his effort. Today’s political
debate is impoverished since Christianity does not mandate
conservatism. And a truly prophetic stance by the church would
confront all citizens and politicians in their behaviors,
attitudes, and policies.
But Wallis is better at issuing a challenge than providing an
answer. He closes God’s Politics by arguing that “we are
the ones we are waiting for.” The leaders are here. Yes we are. But
the right religious-political synthesis has not yet arrived, at
least in God’s Politics. Unfortunately, neither the
Religious Right nor the Religious Left understands that God is
nonpolitical as well as nonpartisan. Instead of giving us policies,
he gives us wisdom so we can work together to develop good
policies. Using that wisdom is our responsibility.
