Two
weeks of political conventions. First the Republicans in Tampa.
Then the Democrats in Charlotte. Both gave making their case their best
shots. It seemed to me there was one overriding theme—the middle
class. What is best for the middle class, staying the course or a change
in direction? I found myself disappointed all the way around.
I
will admit that I often feel the middle class is something I only have a
tenuous grasp on. The housing downturn was not kind to me. I rarely
think of net worth as a concept that applies to me, but such as it is, it is
mostly tied up in residential real estate. Or perhaps I should say it was
tied up in real estate. Now, it is sort of not there anymore. I
ought to be, and am, concerned about what is good for the middle class.
After all, that is what is in my best interest.
And
so, for that reason, I can certainly see why both our political parties would
make their pitches to the middle class. If nothing else, there are more
of us than there is anything else. A stable democracy depends on a stable
middle class. We are the backbone of the country, after all. One
could well argue that what is good for the middle class is good for the
whole. But, you know, it would be every bit as possible to say the same
thing about the rich, and indeed, in other years, we have.
Twenty
years ago Democratic strategist and Bill Clinton campaign manager James
Carville famously reminded his team, “It’s the economy, stupid!” This
year, the strategists on both sides must have emblazoned on the walls, “It’s
the middle class, stupid!”
I
suspect that is the demographic on which this election will turn. I wish
it were faith.
I
think it is equally possible to be a Christian and be a Republican or a
Democrat. But what I don’t think is that it is possible to be a faithful
Christian and be only, or even primarily, concerned with the middle
class. The Christian issue may be the economy, but it is not the middle
class. It is the poor.
I
know I’m hopelessly unrealistic here, but what I wish we could have is a
convention when we asked ourselves what is best for the poor. And then I
wish we would vote accordingly. One might decide to vote for the
Republicans or one might decide to vote for the Democrats, but the question
would be who has the best plan for the poor. Isn’t that what the
Christian platform ought to be about?
What
I wish we would see is a Christian leader stand up and say that the moral
imperative was about the poor, stand up and say that the priority of God is the
poor, stand up and say that the widow and the orphan and the alien are
particularly favored by God. What I wish is that the Church would call
the politicians to account on behalf of the poor, not on behalf of itself and
not on behalf of its own pocketbook. All the talk about moral
righteousness in the platforms of either party seems just babble otherwise.
I
realize there are those who would say otherwise, but being a Christian citizen,
it seems to me, is about asking this fundamental question: what policies
are best for the poor? What policies are best for peace? What
polices are best for reconciliation? What policies are best for the care
of creation? And then it is about acting and voting accordingly. I
don’t know how to answer those questions. That is for each of us to
decide. But what I believe with all my heart is that these are the
questions that faith must have answered.
I
found myself equally disappointed by both the conventions in failing to ask
them. This may not be smart politics. It may not be smart at
all. But here’s what I think. It isn’t the middle class,
stupid. My sisters and brothers, it’s the poor.
Peace,
+Stacy
No comments:
Post a Comment