THE REPUBLICANS AND SAINT PAUL (no, not their convention site last year): The biggest question for the pundits and political analysts right now is whether the Obama Revolution is for real. Is the USA swinging away from laissez-faire capitalism, international unilateralism and government enforcement of “traditional values”, towards Euro-cosmopolitianism, higher taxes and socialism-lite? I am not ready yet to make a call on that one. It’s still possible that Barack Obama’s election was more a combination of his own talents, the faults of his opponent, and the unique circumstances of the 2008 election (i.e. the financial and economic collapse of autumn), than a change in American political philosophy at large. But then again, maybe things are going in a new direction. There are big demographic changes underway in the voting age population, changes which favor the Democrats. Also, the recession / mini-depression that we will be dealing with over the next few years could have lasting effects on politics, a leftward impact, just as the Great Depression had in the 1930s.
The Republican conservatives, led by Rush Limbaugh, are carping day and night about Obama as the next Vladimir Lenin. But thus far the public doesn’t seem to be buying it. Joe the Plumber’s cries against creeping wealth re-distribution and central economic planning don’t seem to be getting much traction.
If so, the GOP as we know it is in for several decades of eclipse. It will become a minority party in the House and Senate, with only an occasional shot at the Presidency (e.g., if an especially skilled candidate comes along and a third party splits the Democrats; the inverse of Bill Clinton and Ross Perot in 1992).
That is, unless a St. Paul comes along within their ranks.
I recently read and re-read an article about Paul of Tarsus in The Atlantic magazine. It was by Robert Wright, entitled “One World, Under God”. Wright’s theory is that globalization of trade can bring about a kinder and gentler world, a world of inter-ethnic tolerance consistent with the idealistic notions found in some of Paul’s epistles. Wright postulates that such notions were driven by Paul’s involvement with long-distance trade in the Roman Empire, where ethnic and national differences were put aside in the name of doing business. Wright points out, more as a side-point to his theory, that Paul still considered himself a Jew and a Jewish reformer. Paul’s reforms (i.e., extending the franchise to gentiles in the name of Christ, the slain but risen messiah, without imposing Levitical laws upon them) were ultimately unrecognizable to the mainstream of Judaism. When reading St. Paul, it is hard to imagine that he presumed to speak to Judaism, although he repeatedly implied that he was (e.g., he often preached in temples during his three missionary journeys). However, Paul was successful in establishing a new world movement, even if that wasn’t what he had in mind.
So, will we see a GOP version of a St. Paul? And will something new evolve from it, as did Christianity from Judaism? If the Dems veer too far to the left, perhaps we will. Sarah Palin will not be embraced by the public as the alternative (thank goodness). Some of the younger Republicans like Michael Steele and John McCain’s daughter Meghan are discussing their openness toward more centrist ideas regarding government (e.g., support for universal health care) and the “values” questions (e.g., stem cell research, gay marriage). John McCain himself was almost a Saint Paul; had he stuck with his earlier, more centrist positions, the GOP might have started the great debate, an internal debate that will be necessary for it to stay relevant in a changing America. But unfortunately, McCain cravenly veered back to the neo-conservative platform; and as such, the Republicans went down to defeat in unity.
But perhaps within five or ten years an attractive, viable candidate will emerge who will challenge the now-stale Reagan / Bush doctrines that the GOP clings to, in favor of balancing government involvement and personal / economic freedom. And it’s not impossible that the core of the Grand Old party will ultimately reject and disown this movement, much as Judaism in the first and second centuries eventually chose to deny the growing Christian movement. We might then see a viable but forever-minority Republican Party (led by Sarah Palin), and the growth of a popular centrist party in America, as has been anticipated by some writers for years.
Actually, that’s still a long-shot scenario; the Democrats would have to really push their “power to the people” (THEIR people, anyway) big-government initiatives before the public would take a new centrist movement seriously. But there are certain money interests, such as quasi-Republican Michael Bloomberg, who might be attracted by such a scenario. You never know when the next “black swan” will come home from ancient times to roost again.
Jim,
I read the “Atlantic” article and tho’t the analogy Wright tries to make is forced. I think he showed little real understanding of the early Church. For instance and specifically, I think it is a total stretch to compare Paul’s “reforms” of the Church with the Dems (specifically now Obama’s) reforms of the economy and more generally the gov’t.
In the first place Paul did NOT “reform” the Church. Actually, there really was no Church in the first century to reform; there were “house churches” in cities. And these “house churches” spread. But these “house churches” did not even all actually believe the same thing. (But this is too much to go into.)
Paul was really in a power struggle with the Jewish apostles. He wanted to spread the idea of Jesus of Nazareth who died on a cross to non-Jews; basically, he wanted to carve out his own little niche of power. The original 12 apostles initially thought in terms only of the Jews–almost a “Jews for Jesus” type of thing. (One might make an exception for Thomas who is tho’t to have gone to India and by implication would have been spreading his message to non-Jews.) And the apostles–all of whom were Jews, even Paul, never spoke in Temples. House churches were the rule. The aspect of the history of the first century Church is way too complex to go into here. I simply do not consider the analogy to be a good one at all.
I have noticed, however, that the Republicans (or some of them, what seems to be the most conservative of them) seem to have a serious case of anger at having lost the election. I am not sure what, if anything, can be done about that. I think those GOPs who are so angry could conceivably be a danger in a broader sense, i.e., will one of them cause someone to do something truly tragic? On the other hand they may just “fade away” after a while as their ideas lose interest with the people or as their ideas remain of interest to only a “cult-like” group of people.
I’ve seen times when the Dems were in the same situation the GOPs are in now–serious losers when it comes to getting elected, divided among themselves, appearing to have little or no hope for the future of their party. But the Dems came back; so will the GOPs if history tends to repeat itself (which it almost always does).
As to Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter (sp?), and the group represented by them: I sometimes wonder if they have ever in their lives taken a step back and said, wait a minute, let me examine what I just said. Why all the vitriole by these people? Can they seriously be so angry over the loss of an election? Are they themselves seriously so completely altruistic that their vitriole comes from a genuine concern for the good of others? Those who are truly altruistic tend to speak with concern and compassion for others; I can’t recall one instance of a truly altruistic person who spoke with vitriolic anger directed at those he/she disagreed with.
And for me, Limbaugh acquired zero credibility when he made fun of Michael J. Fox’s infirmity. I have no particular “love” for MJF at all; but I did think it was an extremely low blow for Limbaugh (an admitted drug addict) to mock and question Fox’s serious illness. Something is seriously wrong with that situation and so many more of Limbaugh’s words of record. (Rather like the preachers who speak fire and brimstone against “fornicators” and then are found in motel rooms with prostitutes doing drugs. And there are other types of examples of those who bring down the fire of heaven on others only to be caught in the same situation against which they so vehemently spoke.)
I also find the comparison of John McCain to St. Paul a stretch. For the same reasons I give above–I just find the analogy between the GOP political leaders and St. Paul one that I just can’t take seriously.
You are right, tho, that McCain had an opportunity to keep the GOPs relevant. However, early on in the election process I noticed that McCain was not consistent–even in his slogans. He changed his slogan no less than THREE times–always in some attempt to image Obama’s slogan. It was almost as if McCain, in running for president, had reached the level of his incompetence. (Remember the saying of some years ago that people rise to the level of their incompetence.) With all due respect, McCain I think was such an example.
I do think you are right that GOPs such as Michael Steele and Meghan McCain are the future and hope of the GOP. I’ve heard Meghan McCain speak on TV one time, and I must say I was completely impressed by her, young as she may be. If she can stay the way she presented herself when I heard her, she will be a terrific leader of the GOP.
And I must say that there were two other times GOP women have impressed me: Laura Bush, in the last days of her husband’s term, managed to get a voice and speak. I heard her speak a couple of times and found myself saying, SHE should have been the Bush who was president.
The second example: One time flipping channels, I happened on C-Span. There was this women’s group speaking about the poor of the world and the serious need for getting help to them. Since I had tuned in late, I had no clue as to who this group was. They were specific in mentioning countries and the help needed, even proposing ideas for getting that help to the people who needed it. I found myself thinking, this is a group with whom I agreed and whom I could see myself supporting. To my surprise, at the end of the speeches, the group turned out to be a conservative group of GOP women. Well, now, I tho’t; who’d’ve thunk this group had something I could agree with.
So, I must say I find some of (with the exception of someone like Anne Coulter) the GOP women people I respect and could support.
And you may be right that there may be a growing centrist party that will eventually sink the GOP. If that happens, will the world really end? In the past political parties have come and gone, changed their whole and entire makeup (wasn’t Lincoln a Republican? or am I wrong?). In the end does it really matter? Isn’t it the person and his/her ideas and his/her ability to implement those ideas that is the important thing? (And here the implementation of ideas could go either way–“good” or “bad”–but this would take the discussion too far afield.)
And you are also 100% right that one never knows when the next “black swan” will come home to roost. Black swans have a way of putting so much in perspective.
MCS
Comment by MCS — April 5, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Jim,
I read the “Atlantic” article and tho’t the analogy Wright tries to make is forced. I think he showed little real understanding of the early Church. For instance and specifically, I think it is a total stretch to compare Paul’s “reforms” of the Church with the Dems (specifically now Obama’s) reforms of the economy and more generally the gov’t.
In the first place Paul did NOT “reform” the Church. Actually, there really was no Church in the first century to reform; there were “house churches” in cities. And these “house churches” spread. But these “house churches” did not even all actually believe the same thing. (But this is too much to go into.)
Paul was really in a power struggle with the Jewish apostles. He wanted to spread the idea of Jesus of Nazareth who died on a cross to non-Jews; basically, he wanted to carve out his own little niche of power. The original 12 apostles initially thought in terms only of the Jews–almost a “Jews for Jesus” type of thing. (One might make an exception for Thomas who is tho’t to have gone to India and by implication would have been spreading his message to non-Jews.) And the apostles–all of whom were Jews, even Paul, never spoke in Temples. House churches were the rule. The aspect of the history of the first century Church is way too complex to go into here. I simply do not consider the analogy to be a good one at all.
I have noticed, however, that the Republicans (or some of them, what seems to be the most conservative of them) seem to have a serious case of anger at having lost the election. I am not sure what, if anything, can be done about that. I think those GOPs who are so angry could conceivably be a danger in a broader sense, i.e., will one of them cause someone to do something truly tragic? On the other hand they may just “fade away” after a while as their ideas lose interest with the people or as their ideas remain of interest to only a “cult-like” group of people.
I’ve seen times when the Dems were in the same situation the GOPs are in now–serious losers when it comes to getting elected, divided among themselves, appearing to have little or no hope for the future of their party. But the Dems came back; so will the GOPs if history tends to repeat itself (which it almost always does).
As to Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter (sp?), and the group represented by them: I sometimes wonder if they have ever in their lives taken a step back and said, wait a minute, let me examine what I just said. Why all the vitriole by these people? Can they seriously be so angry over the loss of an election? Are they themselves seriously so completely altruistic that their vitriole comes from a genuine concern for the good of others? Those who are truly altruistic tend to speak with concern and compassion for others; I can’t recall one instance of a truly altruistic person who spoke with vitriolic anger directed at those he/she disagreed with.
And for me, Limbaugh acquired zero credibility when he made fun of Michael J. Fox’s infirmity. I have no particular “love” for MJF at all; but I did think it was an extremely low blow for Limbaugh (an admitted drug addict) to mock and question Fox’s serious illness. Something is seriously wrong with that situation and so many more of Limbaugh’s words of record. (Rather like the preachers who speak fire and brimstone against “fornicators” and then are found in motel rooms with prostitutes doing drugs. And there are other types of examples of those who bring down the fire of heaven on others only to be caught in the same situation against which they so vehemently spoke.)
I also find the comparison of John McCain to St. Paul a stretch. For the same reasons I give above–I just find the analogy between the GOP political leaders and St. Paul one that I just can’t take seriously.
You are right, tho, that McCain had an opportunity to keep the GOPs relevant. However, early on in the election process I noticed that McCain was not consistent–even
Comment by MCS — April 5, 2009 @ 11:19 am