Finger Pointing

If there is anything that is a bi-partisan measure, it is passing the buck. Regardless of where one might stand on the issue, it is still abhorrent how politicians point fingers, cast off blame, and try to score political points.

On the left, Nancy Pelosi tried to use the necessity of passing the bailout package as an advantage to grandstand and point fingers at the Bush Administration for bringing us here. As far as she is concerned, she is both right and wrong. This government failed to read the writing on the walls and thus curtail bad policies that had been implemented in past administrations. However, Bush's economic policy raised federal revenue to levels previously unseen by cutting taxes to the wealthy and to corporations. On the other hand, Bush's administration did also raise spending to heretofore unseen levels, which also carries part of the blame.

On the right, Republicans in the House used Pelosi's grandstanding as an excuse not to vote for an unpopular bill.

On both sides, there were a large number of Representatives that hoped that they could vote "no" and still have the bill pass. In part because they felt they could score political points, and in part because they feared they would lose reelection if they voted "aye".

Overall, there was a complete failure of conscience, a willingness to place pride and ego ahead of what needed to be done. Now, I think the measure should have failed, and I think we can make it through this crisis without government intervention. There's no guarantee that government intervention will avert crisis in the first place, and though there is precedent that this might actually work, there are so many factors involved that there is no way to predict what will happen. But if a Congressman is willing to vote "no" on a bill in order to secure reelection when his conscience tells him that he should vote "aye", there is a severe problem.

There are a number of things that we need to keep in mind when dealing with our political system. First, there is no divine mandate for the United States of America. God did not direct us to create this nation as He directed the Hebrews to create Israel. The USA is just one nation among many. Someday, it too may just be another chapter in a history book. True, there are many good things about the USA, many things that make it the greatest nation in the world. But that is today. That there is no God-given mandate means that there is no guarantee we'll be the greatest nation in the world tomorrow. The lesson here is that we cannot as a nation feel assured that we will always be on top, that fortune will always favor us, that we can do no wrong.

Second, there is no God-given mandate that we should be a democratic republic. If we cherish our system, we have to realize that we can lose it, that we can hand it over to people who will abuse it, that we can let fall apart through apathy. God won't intervene to save our democracy.

Third, there is no God-given mandate that any particular candidate should take office, no matter his credentials, no matter what office. Any person has only a finite span in office, can only accomplish so much once there.

The lesson here is humility. When we as a nation start speaking, "Our way or the highway," then we had better be sure that our way is the right way. Note: it is not necessarily wrong to say "my way or the highway", because my way might indeed be right. But I also need to act humbly when saying it, and I need to have good reasons for saying it. When we start saying "our way or the highway" for no other reason than other people, other nations disagree with us, then we have abandoned humility and fallen to pride.

When we starting forcing our governmental system on other nations, we need to watch out. We may be right in suggesting they change, but then, we might be wrong as well. We need to make sure our reasons are something more than, "It's what we do."

When we start falling for the mentality that this candidate or that candidate must or must not attain office, we start falling to pride. We, not God, are the ones who know everything, and thus can definitively state that candidate A will bring ruin and wreckage, while candidate B will save us from all sins and bring us to everlasting toys, Amen. Now, we might have very good reasons to believe that candidate A might do terrible things while in office. But he is still one man, and can only do so much. We might have very good reasons to believe that candidate B will issue in an era of prosperity, and that would be nice, but he is still only one man. His era will be finite, and he will probably do other things that will tick us off.

The problem I see in Congress is this. A person runs for office, wanting to make a difference. He finds he has to cater to the voters if he wants to get elected, and so he has to compromise his policies to make it in. Once he's in, he finds himself in a dilemma. Accomplish his agenda, or accomplish what his voters--especially interest groups that funded his campaign--want him to do. Sometimes that isn't too difficult, when policies and agendas coincide. But when there is conflict, we start to see just how our system corrupts our politicians.

It starts out so simply. A candidate thinks that he cannot make a difference if he isn't elected, and so he changes his tune to attract the most voters. Once he's in, he faces the dilemma that if he doesn't please his constituents, then he can't stay in and effect change. Thus he can either keep compromising his policies, perhaps even against his conscience, or he can keep to his conscience and risk losing the next election. It seems like a double bind. He's damned either path he takes.

It reminds me a little of the musical version of "Les Miserables". Valjean sings: "If I speak, I am condemned. If I stay silent, I am damned." In this scenario, Valjean, a convict who broke parole and disappeared, only to later establish himself as first a successful businessman and then mayor, faces the horror of learning of some other man accused in his place, accused of being him. If Valjean speaks out, he'll lose his business, and the whole town will return to the economic shambles from which he raised it. He sings: "I am the master of hundreds of workers. They all look to me. Can I abandon them, how will I live, if I am not free?" And yet he eventually comes to the right conclusion.

There was no God-given mandate that the town should be economically prosperous, that Valjean should be mayor, that Valjean should be the savior of all those people. There was a God-given mandate to seek the redemption of his own soul, and there was a God-given mandate that one cannot use evil means to seek a good end. Thus the choice to forsake the town and reveal himself as the true escaped convict was the only one Valjean could justifiably make.

The same situation applies to Congress. No single candidate is our savior. At least, I don't see any of them dying on a cross to redeem our sins. Thus no single candidate has the right to claim the importance of staying in office over doing what is right. Perhaps there is some justification of doing wrong if the Congressman's conscience tells him that the wrong act is somehow right, but that's as far as it can extend. No Congressman is justified in voting against his conscience in order to gain political points and hold onto his office.

It is pride that leads one to believe that somehow the fate of all the nation, perhaps even all of mankind, hinges upon him remaining in office. And yet such a person should be humble. He has been entrusted with an enormous task, that of guiding a nation of hundreds of millions of people, in trying to craft legislation that is good for the nation, and in trying to defeat legislation that he believes will hurt the nation. He should be humble, for he has been given a chance few people ever get. He should be humble, for only then will he be capable of setting aside partisan politics, politics as usual, scoring political points, and so on. He should be humble, do what he believes is right, regardless of party lines or popularity. If he loses office by doing so, then so be it. He did what he could, and if people won't accept what he did, then that's that.

God Himself only showed us the way. He didn't force us to take it. Our politicians should be so humble.