Yeah, I also have slightly different priorities. But I wonder if even the author realizes how radical his call to avoid tribalism really is...
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 25, 2020, at 16:43, Chris Hahn <c...@2chahn.com> wrote: > > > Agree about the RC nature of the article. But I don’t agree with the last to > sentences of this quote. > Now, every candidate has to pass the same two-part test. First, does this > person possess the character necessary for the office he or she seeks? And > second, do they broadly share my political values? Fail either prong, and you > don’t get my vote. I’ll vote (or write in) someone who does, regardless of > party. > > Consideration should be given regarding the weight of the two failures. If > the failure of character is extraordinarily egregious, and the failure of > broad political value agreement is marginal, I would not waste my vote if it > could remove someone with serious character failures. > > Chris > > From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com <radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com> On > Behalf Of Centroids > Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 12:55 PM > To: Centroids Discussions <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> > Subject: [RC] The Spiritual Blessing of Political Homelessness > > > > From church today! Very RC > > “When you prioritize truth over tribe, it’s amazing how much more truth > you’ll learn.” > > > > The Spiritual Blessing of Political Homelessness > https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-spiritual-blessing-of-political > (via Instapaper) > > > I first began to notice the discontent even before Trump. The rise of > negative partisanship and the corresponding intolerance for dissent within > political parties (does anyone remember the endless “RINO” hunts of the Obama > era?) amplified a sense of both Christian discontent and Christian fear. You > may have had material disagreements with your own tribe, but at the same time > you heard the voices urging you to hold fast. Can you possibly let the other > side win? After all, they will destroy us. They will destroy our country. > > (Never mind that their ranks are also full of millions of Christian > believers.) > > But there’s something deeply unsatisfying about that stance. Your spirit > rebels against the imperative to be a team player, to not call out clear > injustice on your own side—to focus exclusively on your opponent’s sins. You > remember Christ’s warning about noting the speck in your brother’s eye, when > there’s a log in your own, and you wonder—can that apply even to politics? > > Eventually, you might even reach a breaking point. Perhaps someone on your > “team” does something terribly wrong, and it’s just too much. Or perhaps you > see a profound injustice, but only the other side truly seems motivated to > address it. You’re pro-life, and that’s a reason why you want to join a > throng of thousands and say words that are necessary and true—“Black lives > matter.” > > But the instant you do, you get the questions and critiques. “Are you a > cultural Marxist now?” “Don’t you know about Critical Race Theory?” “Have you > read the official BLM website?” When all you wanted to do was stand against > racism and brutality, a cause that is unquestionably just. > > More and more, thoughtful (mainly young) Christians say to me, “I’m pro-life, > I believe in religious freedom and free speech, I think we should welcome > immigrants and refugees, and I desperately want racial reconciliation. Where > do I fit in?” The answer is clear. Nowhere. > > And that truth is a blessing, if you embrace it. > > Late last month, Tim Keller, founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New > York City, created a stir by specifically resisting the political imperatives > of negative partisanship. In the New York Times, he wrote that neither party > aligns perfectly with biblical commitments to justice. And he decried > “package deal ethics,” where political parties “insist that you cannot work > on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions.” > Under this ethic, if your faction loses the primary, you have one choice—fall > in line. Here’s Keller: > > This emphasis on package deals puts pressure on Christians in politics. For > example, following both the Bible and the early church, Christians should be > committed to racial justice and the poor, but also to the understanding that > sex is only for marriage and for nurturing family. One of those views seems > liberal and the other looks oppressively conservative. The historical > Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political > alignments. > > As our culture becomes increasingly secular, there is no reason to believe > that either party’s political agenda will closely match the demands of > biblical justice. And even if the parties were united in achieving biblical > goals, then the means of pursuing those goals would still be subject to > debate. > > So, what should we do when contemporary political alignments do not match > Christian moral imperatives? Declare independence. > > No, that does not mean always voting third-party (though that’s a viable and > respectable option). Nor does it mean refusing to work for a politician or > run for office yourself. But it does mean holding that political affiliation > very, very lightly. > > To put it differently, your commitment to Christ is permanent, eternal. Your > commitment to a party or a politician is transient, ephemeral. > > On the surface, this feels like a hard road to walk in a highly polarized > time. And it can be. There’s an immense comfort in a sense of political > belonging, especially if you live in a deep-blue or deep-red region. It can > be personally difficult to chart a different path. > > But there are deep rewards. First, it liberates you from uncomfortable and > destructive associations and arguments. While the Bible promises Christians > that they’ll face challenges and sometimes-fierce opposition in their lives, > it is vastly better to face opposition for the things you actually believe > and the values you actually hold rather than being forced to align with an > ideological and political “package” you do not want to purchase. > > Second, it opens up opportunities for unlikely friendships and unexpected > relationships. It changes your posture towards the world to one that welcomes > allies case-by-case. It cultivates a posture of openness and fellowship. > > I can work with a critical race theorist to end the injustice of qualified > immunity, for example, without embracing critical race theory. I might next > defend Christian students from a challenge to their religious liberty, > joining with “law and order” Republicans I just opposed and opposing critical > race theorists I just joined. > > Third, it can increase your knowledge. When a person who possesses a partisan > mind faces a new challenge, he often immediately retreats to his cocoon to > discern his response. We find “our” experts, and “our” experts don’t > challenge our minds so much as they equip us to fight the partisan wars to > come. An independent mind does its imperfect best to seek truth wherever it > is found, including intentionally seeking out the best opposing arguments. > > When you prioritize truth over tribe, it’s amazing how much more truth you’ll > learn. > > Fourth, in an interesting way, openness can increase influence. I’ll give you > a secular example. One of the strangest and most fascinating developments in > the ongoing conservative civil war has been the sheer amount of vitriol > directed at libertarians. To read the words of some nationalist > conservatives, you’d think that the Republican Party was under the thumb of > libertarian think tanks and that libertarianism had somehow become a dominant > ideological strand of American life. > > On the one hand—given our highly-regulated economy, our culture of mass > incarceration, and our nineteen-year war in Afghanistan—it seems laughable > (and is indeed a joke in libertarian circles) that libertarians have a > particularly powerful position in American life. On the other hand, it is > true that libertarians punch well above their numerical weight. It’s worth > exploring why. > > The short answer is simple: If you agree with libertarians, they will work > with you, and even a small additional infusion of energy and resources can > win the day. Are you a black Democrat trying to create educational > alternatives in urban schools? You’ve got a libertarian friend. Are you a > white Christian Republican battling progressive speech codes and cancel > culture on a college campus? Don’t look now, but there’s your libertarian > pal, sporting his Reason Magazine t-shirt and smelling faintly of > freshly-smoked weed. But he’s got your back. > > As I write in the first chapter of my book, I’ve been on a journey out of > partisanship. I see now how my past partisanship led me astray, harming > relationships and blinding me to sources of truth outside my bubble. I’ve > changed how I think, how I write, and how I engage with my political > opponents. > > It’s of course changed how I vote too. I used to vote straight-ticket > Republican. Now, every candidate has to pass the same two-part test. First, > does this person possess the character necessary for the office he or she > seeks? And second, do they broadly share my political values? Fail either > prong, and you don’t get my vote. I’ll vote (or write in) someone who does, > regardless of party. > > I like how National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru and Princeton’s Robby George put > the choice: “To vote for a candidate for president is to have an > infinitesimal effect on the outcome of the election, but to wholly determine > whom one wills to be president.” That’s what a declaration of independence > looks like, and a declaration of independence is the first step to melting > the idols of political allegiance. > > One more thing … > > Last week I wrote about Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s righteous defense of > religious liberty in Washington D.C. This week, my friends at the Becket Fund > for Religious Liberty have filed an important lawsuit against Andrew Cuomo > seeking a court order permitting Bais Yaakov Ateres Miriam (BYAM) school for > Jewish girls to open for in-person instruction. > > Should this be a hard case? No, says Becket: > > In a different case, a court might be asked to ascertain the point at which > this fundamental right must yield to a government’s claim that in-person > education poses a public health risk. Indeed, this Court already considered > the public health claim once in Soos v. Cuomo, ___ F. Supp. 3d ____, 2020 WL > 3488742 (N.D.N.Y. June 26, 2020), enjoining Governor Cuomo’s and Mayor de > Blasio’s efforts to apply an indoor capacity limitation only on houses of > worship. > > But this case is even easier, because here the Governor himself openly admits > that COVID-19 is “not being spread by schools,” and the Mayor agrees that > there has been “very little coronavirus activity” in schools. And BYAM is > particularly safe, both because it follows rigorous protocols—resulting in > zero known cases to date in the school—and because it plans to test all > students and staff before returning to school on October 27. > > Nor can the government claim that the targeted Jewish neighborhoods have > particularly high levels of COVID-19. To the contrary, Governor Cuomo > recently stated that the COVID-19 levels at issue are quite low (“To other > states that’s nothing”). Indeed, across the entire country, there is not a > single other state whose protocols require school closures for the COVID-19 > levels that have been used to justify the current shutdown. > > Of course the defendants will have the opportunity to contest these claims, > but the key question centers around the judicial test that the court applies > to the state’s actions. > > I’ve argued this before, and I’ll argue it again. It’s time to end the > extraordinary discretion granted public officials at the onset of the > pandemic. Apply conventional legal rules. In the absence of compelling, > scientific evidence of a true risk to public health, religious liberty should > prevail. > > One last thing … > > Last week I mentioned that we were enduring some hard times. I’ve received > permission from my oldest daughter to share because she knows this newsletter > has many praying readers. Camille is pregnant with our first grandchild—a > little girl named Lila. > > We found out not long ago that Lila has some rather profound birth defects, > and those defects are very dangerous. I don’t want to go into the details, > but we’re preparing for a white-knuckle last few weeks of pregnancy, surgery > (or surgeries), and a potential long fight in the NICU. In short, Camille and > her husband, Jarrett, covet your prayers for little Lila, and so do I. > > Photo by Universal History Archive/Getty Images. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/2A9FA56F-AF4C-49CD-A08A-055113144F5E%40radicalcentrism.org. > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/002001d6ab28%24aaf0aef0%2400d20cd0%24%402chahn.com. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/82725269-6F4C-4362-BFFC-D95DC2C36443%40radicalcentrism.org.
