Politics....

You know the old joke:

Poli-tics is a Latin phrase meanings 'multiple blood sucking creatures.'

I couldn't help but think of this when I came across the following phrase:

A columnist in the local paper referred to the congressional changing of the guard in 2006 as accomplishing nothing "except alter the label on the enema bottle..."

...amused chuckling...

;-)

I have had a few political conversations lately and it had me thinking through a few things. I am not a political junkie, but I keep an ear to what is going on. I read the local paper and listen to conservative and liberal talk radio throughout the day in my work truck; but I don't watch TV. I am independent and have only voted once for a member of either major party, I have what would be 'conservative' stances on some issues, and 'liberal' ones on others, but I am far too firm (even extreme) on most of my positions to be called a 'moderate.'

But here is where the rubber meets the road.

I am very firm on my political opinions, and I hold them because I believe them to be correct (I know that this seems redundant, but in today's intellectual climate it needs to be stated!!) and yet, I don't find my convictions to be a sufficient motivation to portray those with whom I disagree as incompetent, ignorant, or malevolent. It is precisely this that I find so repugnant about politics (as well as other arenas for intellectual debate):

The inability of most people to grant credibility to those with opposing views.

Without this willingness to allow others to hold opinions divergent from ours, we can never engage in real conversation and debate. You can't have intellectual debate if the real underlying issue is not the policy at hand but rather it is simply that your opponent is stupid, ignorant, or evil. If we never engage in honest interaction with those who differ from us, then how can we actually claim to believe that what we assert is in any sense of the word 'true?' If we are afraid to engage with others who hold different opinions without claiming that they are defective human beings, then we are really saying we have no faith in the veracity of our convictions. If, conversely, we believe our assertions to be accurate than we would welcome the opportunity for robust, lively, and cordial challenges to those assertions.

It is precisely this that I believe is necessary to any real dialogue:

A willingness to grant legitimacy to ones opponents.

This willingness should not be confused for a lack of resolve about ones owns opinions, moral character, or intellectual rigor. This willingness is not about our assurance of the truth, but rather about our honoring other human beings as such, as well as our resolute stance in open and honest pursuit of the truth!

Unfortunately politicians on both sides (and people in general) tend to be lacking in such a willingness. It is this emphatic need to demonize opponents that the younger generation finds so repulsive in the American Church.