Paul Raushenbush: August 2009 Archives

Senator Edward Kennedy has died. It is not unexpected but his death marks an end of the era of the Kennedy brothers and their profound contributions to America.  I titled this post The Faith, Value and Politics of Senator Edward Kennedy after the tagline of Progressive Revival as a tribute to the iconic place that the Kennedys have held in the progressive movement for the last fifty years.  

I was too young to remember either John or Robert Kennedy so Edward is the only one whose life and politics personally affected me.  My earliest memory of Ted Kennedy was of a woman with a Kennedy for President sign held high over her head in a defiant gesture at a DNC convention - I think it may have been 1980 when the Democrats instead went for Jimmy Carter.  

A Kennedy liberal was something that was viewed as a dirty word by Republicans but I never knew why.  Like FDR, Kennedy was something of a traitor to his class, content to see the very rich pay for the privileges of making so much money and living so abundantly well in this great country.  Kennedy unfailingly tried to represent the 'least of these' through public policy. The Kennedys were certainly driven by ambition, and they had many personal failings, some of them very grave, but the family also had a clear sense of the purpose of government, which was to try to create a more just and equal society.

I wish I knew more about the personal faith of Ted Kennedy.  In searching the web today I went to Get Religion and found an interesting post by Terry Mattingly about Kennedy as a Catholic Political Icon.  There I also found a statement by Rev. Jim Wallis that reflects Kennedy's sincere concern with how religious and moral values translated into public life especially healthcare:

In the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential elections, the Democrats were roundly accused of losing the "moral values voters" in America, and of being the party of "secularists" who were hostile to faith and religion. The very first Democrat to call me and ask to talk about that accusation and how to change the moral debate in America was Ted Kennedy. He invited me to his home, where he, and his wife Vicki, engaged me in a long and very thoughtful conversation, into the night, about the relationship between faith, morality, and politics. Their own deep Catholic faith was evident and their articulation of it very impressive. Our discussion was not partisan at all -- it was not about how to win religion back for the Democrats. Rather, we focused on the great moral issues facing the nation, and how we as people of faith needed to respond to them.

I also was intrigued by this excerpt from a speech called "Faith, Liberty and Tolerance" he gave at Liberty Unviersity upon the invitation of Rev. Jerry Falwell.  First of all it surprised me that Kennedy had ever been invited to Liberty University and even more that he had accepted and given such a sincere and thoughtful speech.  Senator Kennedy said:

I hope for an America where neither "fundamentalist" nor "humanist" will be a dirty word, but a fair description of the different ways in which people of goodwill look at life and into their own souls.

I hope for an America where no president, no public official, no individual will ever be deemed a greater or lesser American because of religious doubt -- or religious belief.

I hope for an America where the power of faith will always burn brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion, or angry division.

I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity.

His words about the role of religion in public policy reminded me of a comment made by one of my relatives who said that they didn't vote for JFK because they thought he would be taking his orders from the Vatican.  The relative spoke with some embarrassment about this, as well he should.  We should not assume by someone's religious faith or lack of it that we know how they will act in public policy - actions speak louder than identity.  Edward Kennedy took a lot of heat for the pro-choice stance of the Democratic party and stood by his political beliefs that abortion was a private decision to be made between a woman and her physician.  For this it was thought that he should not receive communion and sanctioned in other ways by the Catholic Church.  What the Kennedys reminded us is that politicians are informed by religious beliefs and influenced by religious leaders, yet in the end they are and should be independent of their control and represent all the people.

Finally, Kennedy was one of the people who most passionately and persuasively spoke about universal health coverage and that hopefully his death might in some way push us towards a more just health care system. Senator Edward Kennedy will live on if we have the courage to create real health care reform that makes sure that every American citizen receives the health care that she or he needs.    Perhaps we can even name the final bill after him as my colleague Diana Butler Bass suggested to me earlier today.  

Rest in Peace Senator Kennedy.

This op-ed by the New York Times Frank Rich called Guns of August articulates what I have been thinking for the last months.  Two months ago I wrote a piece on the shooting at the holocaust museum and before that about the killing of the doctor in his church.   Rich's piece is a frightening portrayal of the rising violent rhetoric and actions of the right fringe and the inability or unwillingness of the mainstream right politicians to confront it.  Read it and weep...

"IT is time to water the tree of liberty" said the sign carried by a gun-toting protester milling outside President Obama's town-hall meeting in New Hampshire two weeks ago. The Thomas Jefferson quote that inspired this message, of course, said nothing about water: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That's the beauty of a gun -- you don't have to spell out the "blood."

The protester was a nut. America has never had a shortage of them. But what's Tom Coburn's excuse? Coburn is a Republican senator from Oklahoma, where 168 people were murdered by right-wing psychopaths who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Their leader, Timothy McVeigh, had the Jefferson quote on his T-shirt when he committed this act of mass murder. Yet last Sunday, when asked by David Gregory on "Meet the Press" if he was troubled by current threats of "violence against the government," Coburn blamed not the nuts but the government.

"Well, I'm troubled any time when we stop having confidence in our government," the senator said, "but we've earned it."

Coburn is nothing if not consistent. In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, he was part of a House contingent that helped delay and soften an antiterrorism bill. This cohort even tried to strip out a provision blocking domestic fund-raising by foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas. Why? The far right, in league with the National Rifle Association, was angry at the federal government for aggressively policing America's self-appointed militias. In a 1996 floor speech, Coburn conceded that "terrorism obviously poses a serious threat," but then went on to explain that the nation had worse threats to worry about: "There is a far greater fear that is present in this country, and that is fear of our own government." As his remarks on "Meet the Press" last week demonstrated, the subsequent intervention of 9/11 has not changed his worldview.

I have been writing about the simmering undertone of violence in our politics since October, when Sarah Palin, the vice-presidential candidate of a major political party, said nothing to condemn Obama haters shrieking "Treason!," "Terrorist!" and "Off with his head!" at her rallies. As vacation beckons, I'd like to drop the subject, but the atmosphere keeps getting darker.

Coburn's implicit rationalization for far-right fanatics bearing arms at presidential events -- the government makes them do it! -- cannot stand. He's not a radio or Fox News bloviator paid a fortune to be outrageous; he's a card-carrying member of the United States Senate. On Monday -- the day after he gave a pass to those threatening violence -- a dozen provocateurs with guns, at least two of them bearing assault weapons, showed up for Obama's V.F.W. speech in Phoenix. Within hours, another member of Congress -- Phil Gingrey of Georgia -- was telling Chris Matthews on MSNBC that as long as brandishing guns is legal, he, too, saw no reason to discourage Americans from showing up armed at public meetings.

Read more of Frank Rich's Guns of August

It is time to Christianize the health care debate.  Ok, before the radical atheists come at me with their blazing keyboards let me explain the reference.  A hundred years ago  my great grandfather Walter Rauschenbusch wrote a book called Christianizing the Social Order which called for a society that reflected the economic and social justice preached by Jesus in the Gospel with a special emphasis on the needs and concerns of the working poor being crushed by the industrial revolution.    

When I say Christianize the health care system I mean that we should change the vantage point from where we hold this debate.  Whether talking about a single payer plan, or an additional national government plan the loudest objections are coming from those who have excellent health care such as members of congress, lobbying groups, and the wealthy.     The impetus for our need to correct our health care system is not that it is failing the rich - it is that it is failing the poor, the fifty million or so  Americans who have no or little health care and for whom getting sick requires deciding whether or not to risk bankruptcy to get healthy.  Christianizing the health care debate would give the concerns of poorest of our society equal weight to the concerns of the wealthy.   

In the past few decades Christians have too often thrown their lot in with free market Darwinism emphasizing personal free will over collective responsibility.  This has led to the ridiculous prosperity preachers and dangerous missionary mercenaries.    But if we look back a bit further we can see the important role that Christians had in the civil rights movement, the Great Society and the New Deal.  Christianizing the health care debate means applying the inspiring power of religion to promote self sacrifice and compassion in one of the most pressing issues of our time. 

Passing health care reform requires that we love our neighbors as ourselves.  Meaning that if you are enjoying good health care yourself, Jesus MANDATES that you work to provide that for your neighbor.  As some Christians like to say - they are commandments, not suggestions. 

Christians should join with people of compassion from all religious traditions including secular ones and put pressure on our elected officials to serve the needs of those whom Jesus loved best and who are the most vulnerable of our society.