Dueling Visions of American Renewal

Diana, I'm so glad you posted on this. I was hoping you would. I needed to step away from the frame being put around the "dueling speeches" and think more broadly and deeply about what this conversation means for us as a country and as a society. You helped me do that. Thanks!

As ever, Diana, you've hit the proverbial nail on its head. And you've given a fresh perspective, and reminded us that we have entered a new era in our common life, one in which the rule of law might once again come to the fore, and righteousness might flourish in the land.

Diana, once again you open another way with an insight. And I appreciate your reminder that we are about forging a new vision that is not defined by the old liberal/conservative paradigms.

These two kinds of parent figures represent the two main ways for people to relate. Diana's insight applies in our personal lives. Are our families and nations pyramid-like structures of proper authority, or networks of relationships? Do we try to influence people through intimidating them, or by building a better friendship? The two views of life are what Rians Eisler describes as the "partnership" and the "dominator" models of human relations.

I think of Dick Cheney as our 21st century Screwtape, admonishing his Republican cohorts as to how to undermine the divine work of carrying out the Great Commandment.

May 24, 2009
Strict Father/ Nurturing Parent

Diana, I think things may be a little more nuanced than you suggest.

Dick Chaney was not “spanking” anyone, nor did he accuse anyone of “sin”, and he certainly did not ask anyone to “repent”. He was expressing his opinion. An opinion based on a considerable amount of first hand experience with the subject matter. We would be wise to give some consideration to the content of his statements. It would be dangerous to ignore and dismiss him. Nor would we be wise, or fair, or nurturing to reduce the very difficult questions and complex issues we are now facing to the simplistic and well worn paradigm of the contrasting political styles of different generations and political parties.

While pappy Chaney and young Obama do have widely disparate views of the nature of the world and how best to make it a better place, neither view is without merit. Probably, neither is without fault. The previous administration worked very hard to protect us from some very real evil that does exist in the world, the evil deeds of those who have submitted to religious fanaticism. These are people who want to kill Americans, Christians, and Jews for the sin of being Americans, Christians, and Jews. They have said so and they have demonstrated so. This is not fear-mongering; this is the way it is. The traditional approach of dealing with the problem as a law enforcement matter was not working. If we are to be honest, we have to recognize that the Bush approach appears to have worked remarkably well. We have not had a terrorist attack on American soil since 2001. This is a truly remarkable fact given the large number of attempts that have been made and thwarted. We should be thanking the previous administration for their efforts, not demonizing them. Diana, I am not accusing you of demonizing them, but others, many of us really, certainly have.

The manner and efficacy of the Obama approach is to be determined, but there are reasons for concern. It is highly unlikely that those bent on killing Americans and Jews will change their views just because Obama has declared that the United States is not a Christian nation and that we are not at war with Islam? These things have been said before, they are nothing new. Neither are Presidents Osama’s political views something new. They are based on the collectivist political thought of Karl Marx and before (one of the two general economic theories that developed following the fall of feudalism), they have been tried before in many areas of the world, and the results have often been quite “strict” and far from “nurturing”.

With Christ’s Love,
John R. Wriston