The urge to dominate, the urge to influence

 

Many individuals and institutions—in Illinois and throughout the nation—are privileged to work with Sen. Obama and his office. He stays in touch with them and they with him and his senatorial office. Keep doing that. He seems to want to follow in the long line of distinguished Illinois legislators (Paul Simon, Adlai Stevenson, Paul Douglas, Everett Dirksen, Abraham Lincoln, others). And citizens seem okay with that kind of distinguished yet practical leadership to get good things done. Help his office to stay informed.

Of late he has been quite sensitive to the legitimate concerns of the evangelicals, in Illinois and the rest of the U.S. That word “evangelicals” does not here refer to the dogmatic fundamentalism of the radical right. See Sen. Obama’s 'Call to Renewal' Keynote Address. 

Along with other card-carrying Democrats Obama continues insisting in letters and speeches that religion and things spiritual must necessarily be incorporated into the thinking and actions of the Democratic Party. Everywhere religion seems to have an understandable and persistent claim on our attention. The percentage of religion topics in the print and broadcast media has increased at least two-fold in the last ten years, and for many reasons.  

One reason for the increase? Because there is nothing better to do with our time? No. Because it's clear that religion informs politics and politics informs religion. There's a certain electricity in that exchange, as there might be in any authentic exchange of information and perspectives. That fact of interdependent life is not in danger of going away anytime soon. 

Nowadays few deny that real reality of interconnection. Religion and politics each seem to need each other. What is the difference in a culture of bedeviling pluralism between the robust desire to influence people and the robust need to oppress people? Or, what is the difference between studied moderation of purpose and exactitude of dogma? No easy answers there. 

Differences make a difference because, well, they are different. While both politics and religion are uniquely distinctive spheres of knowledge and action that must be honored as separate, one of the jobs of integrated thinking—and the action that flows from integrated thinking—is to make the connections between politics and religion.  In a manner of speaking, both those spheres of knowledge are about the art of influence in everydayness. Politics influences the immanent and the existential—temporal things. Religion (or the spiritual) influences the transcendent and the intrinsic, especially those imaginative things that enlarge the capacity to somehow see the good and purposeful beyond the pressing present, including oppressions of self and others. 

Ultimately both politics and religion are about affirmations of the human spirit—and about getting good things done through the affirmation. You know—saying yes perhaps when cynics and cynicism seem to demand a knee-jerk no. 

In one sense, politics stresses the secular social, and religion stresses the moral social. Each has in common the social, meaning each has in common how citizens treat other citizens and neighbors, how we engage genuinely, how we learn from each other as citizens of awareness. What both good politics and good religion seem to have in common is ethics—meaning broadly  those values and principles governing good conduct in response to higher ideals. Ethics is about behaving in the name of cherished spiritual values that, if necessary, one if really willing to fight and die for. Generally one hopes of course that things won't have to go to that extreme. In one life-giving sense, ethics asks that both politics and religion remain flexible, open, vibrant. In the second sense of mutual respect, good politics and good religion each need to remain culturally sensitive to the realistic urgencies of the other. 

Both good politics and good religion ask for studied compromise (politics) and studied reconciliation (religion) in ways that can genuinely benefit all. That form of moderation is always hard to accomplish, made even more difficult in these times of urgent identity politics that often separates out in the name, ironically, of democratic unity. Why does separating out happen? Among many reasons: Because all we are human, flawed, full of self-interest, and preoccupied with getting what we think we need to survive in an intensely competitive culture. But there's help and hope here. Hardly is all lost. 

Studied compromise and studied reconciliation means each of us doing those things of mitigation and amelioration in the name of realism and—in important practical terms—in the name of a common, higher good. And that higher good is to achieve a little more harmony than has seemed possible in tumultuous times. One day at a time, one person at a time, one legislator at a time, one religionist at a time. 

Both the practice of good politics and the practice of good religion bring about improved harmonies of purpose and improved practices of the robust virtues of persistence, patience, toleration, kindness, and even forgiveness of each other's peccadilloes of personality as well as our own manifest weaknesses of character. More of that forgiveness, please, for all. All have played unique roles in creating the mess of our political and religious enmeshments. 

No question that there are even more compelling ideas here worth studied engagement...but for now that "more" must be left for another time or to someone else. The nature of the beast is that supper awaits. It's nearly 8 o'clock and we two need to have dinner. In the breaking of the bread! A big warm smile, both political and religious. 

Jim Boushay and Rickey Sain
June 30, 2006

Back