Top

My Political Memoir

Written by Steve Holt : September 16, 2008

(originally published on Steve Holt’s blog)

If you haven’t noticed, 2008 is an election year.

(Some of you just muttered to yourself, “So that’s why they keep showing that toothy guy and old man on the news!”)

A certain excitement surrounds presidential elections. Much of it is media-induced, as was evident by the earlier-than-ever start to the primary season (summer 2007). But a lot of it is, I think, a genuine yearning in the hearts of Americans to start fresh, wipe the slate clean, or move in a new direction. That’s why every candidate in the race is using buzz words like “hope” and “change” and “new direction.” I’d be lying if I told you I wasn’t more than a little caught up in the political fever myself.

But I’ve come to a point where I can no longer attach any of those adjectives - hope, change, etc - in their deepest, truest meanings, to the political process. Though I am still a deeply political person, I refuse to be political in the way we are told to be political - by voting, by supporting one of two major parties, by pushing for legislation, by seeking to leverage my own power and strength.

It hasn’t always been this way, however.

My parents raised my brother and me to be good Democrats. We denigrated Reagan economic policy around the house and rooted for Dukakis to defeat George Bush and the Republican machine in 1988. The 1990s were political glory days around our house … Bubba could do no wrong. He was a guy to whom my dad, who has spent much of his life in Arkansas’ neighboring Memphis, could relate. In his smooth, Southern accent, he spoke of compassion and peace and health care for all Americans. Even Clinton’s legal woes with Watergate and Monica-gate didn’t diminish the big guy’s celebrity around the house. Heading off to college, I had received more than my fair share of political indoctrination - not in a heavy-handed way, but in the subtle way parents pass along their own ideologies to their kids. Needless to say, I went off to college in Texas with my mind made up about whom I was going to vote for in the 2000 election.

In fact, when I arrived on campus at my overwhelmingly Republican university, I immediately joined the tiny but faithful College Democrats club. At the first meeting, I was even selected to serve as the vice president during the 2000-2001 year. That election year, we would show up for debates against the College Republicans (a veritable machine on campus…), sign folks in town up to vote, attempt to broaden the debate on campus from just two issues dealing with sexuality to issues of justice, the environment, and the economy. Looking back, this snot-nosed freshman really didn’t know what the heck he thought about much of anything, certainly not enough to deserve the VP position in the college Dems. I think I was more concerned with being different from my “war-loving, vitriol-spewing, poor people-oppressing, trust fund baby” (my perhaps misguided thoughts at the time) Republican friends. (you should have seen my Al Gore Halloween costume, though…)

I think we all remember what happened in the 2000 election.

“Projected Winner: Al Gore” … oh, wait. Hanging chads. Gore wins the popular vote. Florida Supreme Court. Bush wins, weeks later, by a hair. Gore cries (has he stopped?).

We were all devastated.

Most of our friends were electrified. A Texas boy had made good and gotten to the White House. Bush’s supporters at the university that gave him an honorary degree (along with Charlton Heston) could finally say they knew him when…

I developed a much more robust personal political philosophy over the next few years, primarily because I had so much material to work with. Right out of the gate, George W. Bush’s cowboy attitude just rubbed me the wrong way. (and as a writer, the Bushisms annoyed the heck out of me!) Then came 9/11, which I helped cover for the school newspaper of which I was a member, and the political poo hit the fan. We were staging an all-out retaliation in a country that had little, if anything, to do with what happened to us on that Tuesday morning in New York. America’s leaders, led by Bush himself, took a page from the Toby Keith school of foreign policy and threatened to “put a boot in the ass” of anyone who crossed us.

Patriotism was also at an all-time high. One could see flags everywhere, and often they were accompanied by pithy statements like “These Colors Don’t Run” or “Freedom Isn’t Free.” Even many so-called progressives rallied behind the flag and our president and supported returning the slap that Islamic terrorists had given us. Through all this flag-waving, though, I kept thinking, “What about the Afghan children? Are they less precious than our own children? Is our own ‘homeland security’ more important than Afghanistan’s?”

Then we invaded Iraq. The rationale never quite squared with me. Tension had been building for months over supposed WMDs inside Iraq, but to date, none had been found. Then came Dubya on the TV set during primetime saying we had begun a “shock & awe” attack on Baghdad in an effort to free the Iraqi people from tyrannical Saddam Hussein. No mention of WMDs. There was, however, some connection made to what happened to us on 9/11, but I couldn’t (and still can’t) see how any of that rationale adds up. All I saw was an emboldened empire seeking to expand its reach using military might. It was way beyond retaliation at this point … this was pre-emptive war. I saw it then and I see it now.

The night of the shock & awe campaign, I wrote an editorial for the school newspaper applauding the US for attempting to root out Saddam quickly and without much collateral damage. A quick in and out procedure. Five years and 60,000 deaths later…

These events, as well as the ongoing war, kick-started my disillusionment with the tactics of the U.S. Government in foreign policy. I began to see that the American project doesn’t exactly square with my primary identity as a citizen in God’s kingdom, and that both political parties (not just one, as I’d previously thought) were guilty. Sure, the parties talk a good game with regard to justice and values, but in the end, the status quo must be maintained. (which means people around the world and right under our noses are squeezed to the margins or destroyed) These realizations were further underscored when I began investigating the un-reported intimidation, extortion, dishonesty, and even murder US officials were committing around the world to bolster the wealth and power of the nation. (John Perkins’ memoir, “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” was especially eye-opening) This is about when I began referring to America as an Empire. That’s right, empire - like Egypt, Greece, Rome, and Great Britain. (watch this video if you’re not convinced)

Indeed, the lily-white history of the United States I received in elementary school was, for the first time, in question in my mind. As my eyes were opened to the reality that my fellow countrymen and women were killing my brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan while the American church stands behind such action - even cheering it on - a new light was shed on how the last 200 years or so have proven to be a slow march toward empire-building for America. In light of these realities, how could I comply with the political system, as is? How could I put any hope in a system that, at its very essence, places nation over the Cross? Furthermore, how could I continue to support candidates and parties that support economic systems that run counter to God’s economics policy of Jubilee?

In the 2004 election, my wife and I placed opposing votes in Texas in order to cancel the other’s out. This was our first act of political subversion, albeit largely insignificant. It was, however, significant for us personally, setting us on a pathway of deepening our identities as citizens first and foremost in God’s kingdom, not man’s.

For the last four years, my political theory - in light of my theological convictions as a follower of Jesus - has been shaped and formed, and the writings of Yoder, Hauerwas, Wright, Claiborne, and others have impacted me greatly.

Many have traded the political ideologies of the Religious Right (a failed experiment) for more progressive political views, still informed by faith. Leaders in this movement, which include Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo, among others, have correctly called Christians to broaden their view of justice and righteousness from a couple sexual issues to include the environment, poverty, economic disparity, consumerism, and peace. In many ways, I have these thinkers to thank for sparking the conversation about the problems in the current political system and foci among Christians. I have come to see, however, that these leaders are still calling for participation in the politics of Empire in order to attain societal justice. And while the movement claims to be “non-partisan,” anyone with their eyes open can see that it has become the Christian Left. And because the Left is just as hell-bent as the Right about maintaining and expanding empire, maintaining a consumerist economy, and waging war, I cannot with a clean conscience adhere to this movement. (though I consider many who do my friends)

I recently read Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw’s new book, Jesus For President, which to a great degree spells out where I’ve come politically. It’s the book I would have liked to have written.

JFP maintains that Jesus was in fact political (it is a common misconception that he wasn’t), but not in the conventional way of the time. He subverted the Roman Empire with his words and deeds and even the names people ascribed to him, which were all dripping with political irony and meaning. He continually established and underscored his own kingship (not Caesar’s), and promised that true, sustainable change would occur when people fix their eyes on Jesus and join Jesus in the work of reconciling all things. A thorough and open-minded reading of the Gospels sheds light on this convincingly, I think. So it’s not a question of whether Jesus-followers are to be political, but how this is done. (more on this in the days to come)

Furthermore, God knew that too much power in the hands of sin-proned humans was a dangerous thing. (see the Old Testament for example after example) Yet the cries of the people - “We want a king!” - prevailed, and God gave them over to their wishes. (with a not-so-subtle warning, of course) Today, millions of Christians are yelling, “We want a king!” Their ideal king may have an (R) or a (D) after his name, may make promises that fit their values to a T, and may in their minds hold the last hopes for a just and righteous society, but in the end, the candidate is an imperfect, frail human. And I’ve said it before, but I’m convinced that the office of President - or state rep, senator, congressman, mayor, or any political office - shapes the person much more than the person shapes the office. In the end, Barack Obama and John McCain will be just as interested in Empire-building and war-mongering as any other president who has come along. The machine simply cannot be stopped.

So this is where I’m at politically. I want to stand with the poor and marginalized now more than ever, but I don’t believe the voting booth is where I should stand. I want to see God’s “kingdom come on Earth as it is in heaven” now more than ever, but the Empire - with its penchant for war, expansion, wealth-creation, and being first (Jesus told us to be last) - is diametrically opposed to this dream. God’s peculiar people must continue the work set forth by our brothers and sisters throughout history to affirm that only God can create a new reality, establish justice, and sit on the throne - as King.

Author Bio:: Steve Holt is a disciple, writer, husband, and proud father to an apricot mini poodle, and he lives and conspires in East Boston, MA. You can find his musings about faith, culture, and mission at harvestboston.wordpress.com.




If you appreciate articles like this, consider making a donation to help Jesus Manifesto pay the bills.



Print This Article Print This Article

for further reading . . .

  • None Found

Comments

Viewing 10 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Steve,

    I hear you (and other Anabaptist/anarchist voices) saying "I don’t believe the voting booth is where I should stand." But how long are you going to "stand" for paying taxes that feed the Empire and "its penchant for war, expansion, wealth-creation, and being first"? Are you going to live below poverty level to avoid having to pay taxes? I know some are doing list. Are you willing to go that far? Choosing not to vote is easy.

    I don't doubt your sincerity and commitment to kingdom living, but saying that to vote is to participate in Empire is, in my opinion, a ridiculous oversimplification. I respect Shane Claiborne, Mark Van S., and others in this conversation immensely, but my concern is that thousands of "Jesus For President" fans will choose not to vote (based on these anti-Empire principles) but not do much else in the way of radically investing their lives in kingdom mission -- and by not voting, allow the same political party and political values that elevate the rich over the poor to continue its reign over this country.

    I'd much rather participate in BOTH the electoral process (and hope for a better outcome than the last eight years) AND radical kingdom living and mission. I think this either/or thinking is bollocks, if I'm going to be perfectly honest.
    • ^
    • v
    Great point, Steve (about choosing not to vote being easy). I'm not convinced (at all) that a vote for Obama will do anything at all to rectify the previous 8 years. You can say that either/or thinking is bollocks, but that (to me) grossly simplifies the position that I have.

    However, I think that non-voting is, by itself, nothing. To me, non-voting isn't useful as some sort of strategy for withdrawal or "opting out." However, it is useful if it is part of an overall strategy of alternative politics. To me, this requires creating alternative systems, engaging in community-building, protest, civil disobedience, etc.
    • ^
    • v
    Absolutely. Well said Mark, I respect your position far more for hearing that.
    • ^
    • v
    I would also say that non-voting is also non-support, and non-responsibility. I don't want to be complicit in the sins that the person I could have voted for commit. I don't want to aid in helping them have the power to order killing. I don't want to aid in them being paid a salary that is collected by force. I don't want to aid in them lying and pandering. etc.

    Rather, I want to encourage change through non-violent means, through the Kingdom and voluntary interaction, rather than via the Sword.

    And, Mark, I absolutely agreed about alternative systems. I am particularly reading a lot on various forms of mutualism and agorism, lately.
    • ^
    • v
    Hey Mark, I'd be interested in hearing more about this idea of "alternative politics" and "creating alternative systems." Are you guys really committed to "unplugging" from ALL of the Empire? I'd say more power to ya, but I'm still waiting to see how that works practically speaking. I mean, even the Amish pay taxes, right?

    I realize I'm being simplistic here, so touche on that point. I do realize that I'm writing a comment on a blog post, so this isn't exactly a systematic theology or anything (on either side). And I'm not trying to be cynical here (I'm voting the candidate who is touting "Hope," right?), but I am pretty skeptical that the majority of Claibornagains out there are really going beyond just "opting out" to the "overall strategy" you are talking about. My concern is that "Jesus For President" has become a rallying cry for the disinterested and disaffected to just not care about what happens in our present political/governmental system. This is honestly what I'm hearing from more and more people every day: "I just don't care about this election." With so much at stake, it troubles me that "Jesus For President" may just be a philosophical/theological/intellectual "Eject" button for a lot of people. Does this concern you at all??
    • ^
    • v
    Excellent post.

    My only concern is your inclusion of "wealth-creation" as a presumably bad thing.

    Can you explain how the creation of wealth is a bad thing? Is wealth creation not how we feed and clothe an exponentially expanding population? Or do you presume that we can just get by with whatever exists right now forever?
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think there is a problem with wealth creation in a fundamental sense. In a community where everyone has access to exactly the same resources and the same training and ability, I guess there would be no opportunities to make money. Given that currency was originally a proxy for bartering work and products, inequalities are inevitable when some are more driven, intelligent, hard-working, creative etc than others.

    However, our economy is not based on rewarding the hard-working. Our economy is based on a global system of Apartheid where those who work hardest see least of the benefits and wealth is mostly accumulated in the hands of the few. If our wealth has been accumulated by the exploitation of people (and/or natural resources, which often goes hand-in-hand), it is undoubtedly a bad thing.

    Unfortunately, we all unwittingly participate in this evil, and it is hard to see how to break down the system. The millions who barely scrape together a life so that we can retail products to sustain our standard of living are simply disposable parts of the machinery. Those at the bottom (and there is a big bottom with almost 3 billion people below the $2 per day poverty threshold) are often directly or indirectly victims of our own vanity and greed.
    • ^
    • v
    "Five years and 60,000 deaths later…"

    That is a typo, right? I think the conservative estimate would be more like 600,000. The president's "shock & awe" speech in March of 2003 was what transformed my fear that Bush was no Christian from a "probably" to a "definitely." It wasn't simply what he had done by way of invading Iraq without real cause. What really got me was at the end of his speech when he asked the nation to pray for "our soldiers" and for the families of any them who had been injured or killed.

    Setting aside the troubling fact that Bush had already said God had personally okayed this course of action, one has to wonder how anyone could stand there and address the nation knowing full well that US bombs had already killed thousands (and most likely tens of thousands) of innocent civilians and, as the supposed born-again Christian leader of a supposedly Christian nation, not ask that nation to also pray for them and their families. And of course he closed his speech with a "May God bless America."

    I've often wondered how different things would have been had he actually been the type of man who could have genuinely asked his country to pray for all of the victims and then asked God to bless us as well as the Iraqis. And how different things would have turned out, given what he actually did say, had this supposedly Christian nation snapped out of its Rovian Stupor and realized that whatever god this politician was getting directions from it was way, way smaller than the one Jesus was calling Father.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree with you that "In the end, Barack Obama and John McCain will be just as interested in Empire-building and war-mongering as any other president who has come along." However, I disagree with your analogy of the President being the equivalent of a king. If you look back on the history of other empires you will notice that they were plagued with civil war. The succession of political power was almost always determined by force. Voting does not change the nature of politicians to pursue empire-building and war-mongering, but it does reduce the violence associated with the change of power from one faction to another. In my mind, voting promotes peace -at least domestically. While I agree that there are a lot of things wrong with our system, the fact that we have a constitution, that we can influence changes politically without resorting to violence is a giant step in the right direction. I like the fact that there is a public debate about issues. In some respects it is more important to have people thinking and debating how their country should be run than in the details of who actually wins the election. The public debate helps our leaders know what is important to citizens. It helps our leaders make better laws.

    In my mind the flaw with voting is that people view that as their only public responsibility, when in fact voting is what gives the citizen power to influence his government in other ways, i.e. letter writing, etc. It's not like our elected officials have made up their minds before being elected and then they won't change after their elected.

    Also, there is no rule that says we have to vote either Republican or Democrat. I think the either/or mentality has gotten us kind of stuck. Life just isn't so black and white. And the candidates aren't really so different from each other that we need to think that one or the other or both are of the devil.
    • ^
    • v
    الجزيرة للاستثمارات العقارية 5 days ago
    حيث أن الجزيرة شركة متخصصة في إدارة وتسويق العقارات من خلال فريق عمل ذو كفائة عالية في التخطيط والتنظيم والترويج للمشروعات العقارية لتحقيق أفضل الصفقات للبائع والنشتري في إطار تسوده الثقة والمصداقية المتبادلين.
    عوامل نجاحنا :

    1- علمنا أن النجاح لا يأتي إلا بالتخطيط المبني على أسس علمية.
    2- الدراسة المستمرة لتطورات السوق الداخلي والخارجي وإعداد الخطط التسويقية الملائمة له طبقا لتغيراته.
    3- فريق عمل يضم مجموعة من الخبرات المجتمعة في مكان واحد لتحقيق أعلى معدلات النجاح.


    لذا كان دوما هدفنا الوصول لأعلى معدلات النجاح.

    الأسكندرية: 4241757/03
    محمول: 0129040056 – /1/0117710170
    E-mail: sales@elgezeraa.com
    www.ELGEZERAA.com

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus
Bottom