RSS Feed
Can't We Get Some 'Purpose-Driven Politics'?
The question I would ask both candidates is, "Do your moral values dictate that there are things you may not do in campaigning for President?" And then, I would turn and ask the people present and the wider television audience a version of the same question for them to answer. "Do your moral values dictate that there are things that you are not willing to accept in campaigns for President?"
The campaign has turned negative, as has every presidential campaign since Richard Nixon perfected the art of "dirty tricks." It is an especially effective ploy that appeals to the underdog, who, in this campaign, is McCain. If you can't win on the issues, smear your opponent.
But the real culprit isn't the Karl Rove clones, the ones who managed to drag the likes of Paris Hilton into this political season. If negative campaigning didn't work, then the media people who drive the campaigns' messaging wouldn't do it.
The real moral failure of our political life today in America needs to be laid squarely at the door of the American people. The reason we don't have a "purpose driven politics" is because the American people do not set limits on what is acceptable in political campaigning.
If we genuinely want a "Compassionate Leader" who actually acts on his or her values, then the American people have to be the ones to ask the hard questions. In his book, The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren asks people to ask themselves what they have been put on earth for. Well, one of the things we are put on earth for is to take responsibility not only for ourselves, but also for our families, communities, nation and others around the world.
In other words, don't leave it to Rick Warren to ask the hard questions of these candidates, or yourself, your neighbor or even your country about why there is so much rhetoric of morality in politics and so little actual practice of ethics. Set moral limits on these people. Email the campaigns and demand a more decent political practice. If we wanted a "purpose driven politics" we could get it.
Warren's book asks people to put on the mind of Christ, quoting "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus" Phil. 2:5 (LB) We're so far from that in the conduct of our politics it isn't even funny.
(Though I did think Paris Hilton's send up of the McCain campaign video was funny. Who knew she had a brain?)
By
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
|
August 14, 2008; 6:16 AM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Role of religion in your administration |
Next: Find the Good in Each Other
Posted by: Steven T Abell | August 18, 2008 12:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Susan if you think it's negative now what would you have thought about it in the 1800's? If anything it was worse then.
And please exactly what for you constitutes negativity? Your typical leftist believes pointing out a historic leftwing voting record is negative I would regard that as information necessary for voters to make an informed decision.
Frankly for my money it becomes increasingly clear that Sydney Harris was right. Anyone willing to subject himself to the indignities that are required by the political process these days in order to become president probably shouldn't be permitted to hold the office.
Posted by: Garyd | August 17, 2008 1:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mine would be: “Why did you choose this setting?” and then “Why are issues such as abortion or gay marriage used in political debates when our laws are secular unlike most Islamic countries?” focusing on the use of religiosity rather than working to improve America at a deeper level. The effort should be to get public acknowledgement and discussion by the two of America’s lack of depth in public discourse and why that exists.
If they refer to Biblical accounts where Jesus is said to have concern for the poor, ask: “Why didn’t Jesus talk to the politicians about that?” Or better: “Why didn’t Jesus seek Roman citizenship and run for public office?” Remember that ordained Mike Huckabee earlier this year quipped that “Jesus was too smart to run for political office” causing laughter but didn’t get this appropriate response: “Why then are you running?”. When it comes to religion, don’t push for details is the rule; 'that is not done in polite society.'
I expect that the usual banal packaging and piety will prevail. Otherwise why use a church and a famous Pastor? Symbolism is why. Infer as you so choose.
For me: On with the circus. It is entertaining to watch them bob and weave to avoid revealing the underlying causes lest they lose potential votes. Don't ask the public to change, offer gifts at no cost.
Posted by: patient | August 15, 2008 11:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes, let's discuss the issues without name-calling. Then, let's come up with a game plan with measurements we can take on the progress of the plan.
I rate politians by their efficiency and effectiveness of the legislation.
Posted by: FRIEND | August 14, 2008 11:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Negative information is simply useful. Banning it, either legally or morally, does everyone, and especially the truth, a disservice. If we're going to ban anything, it should be distortion, context dropping, subject changing, floating abstractions, questions stated in the negative, and the like. But if someone's campaign gets sunk because it was pointed out that he's a rotter or a fool, that's not a bad thing.