The Rev. Rich Cizik has won a fight within the National Association of Evangelicals and will be able to work against global warming and torture. This is probably good news for liberals, but I also see a different kind of benefit. Consider, as a simplification, three types of politics:

1) The partisan variety. Here the goal is to put one’s favored party in charge of the government. Parties do serve crucial functions, and to work for one of them is a valid form of participation. But clearly there is a moral hazard: a party should be a means, yet it can become an end. Religious Right leaders like James Dobson and Gary Bauer are often called “partisan,” meaning precisely that they treat the GOP as a good in itself. I’m not certain that charge is fair, but it would be serious if true. To put it in Protestant theological terms, obedience to a party is idolatrous.

2) The strategic variety. Here the goal is to advance a particular policy or social outcome, using arguments, coalitions, tactics, and political parties as means. Strategic politics is effective, and therefore it would be idle to denounce it. Besides, when people arrive at legitimate policy ends for reasons of principle or valid interest, they are entitled to pursue their goals using legal means. Much of the energy in politics comes from such efforts. The problem arises when we assume that our ends are definitely valid and have preeminence. Strategic politics can preclude listening to other perspectives, learning, and balancing various competing goods.

Whether or not the Religious Right’s leaders are partisan, they clearly are strategic. They have a narrow set of goals and are willing to use partisan tactics, wedge issues, discipline, and power to achieve them. That is clear from their letter opposing Rev. Cizik: “Cizik and others … are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.”

Such disciplined, strategic, goal-oriented politics is also common on the left. It makes a difference that the left’s goals are better (in my opinion), but there is still often a lack of learning and balancing.

3. Open-ended politics. In its purest form, this means that diverse people come together to choose their goals without regard to party or previous commitments. Of course, they bring values and experiences, but they are interested in learning from one another. It seems to me that Rev. Cizik represents this kind of politics. He may not be any more moderate than the Religious Right’s leaders, but he is more open-ended.

There is no reason why evangelicals can’t be open-ended about their politics. In fact, deliberating with others is a way of being morally serious and reflective and avoiding idolatry. The Bible offers guidance, but it does not specify policies, let alone rank them. Thus one can be guided by scripture yet open-ended. That posture increases the odds that new ideas and opportunities will develop and make the world a better place. Open-ended politics won’t end disagreements, but it can reduce invidious stereotyping. After all, if you oppose someone on abortion but collaborate with her on global warming, you can’t see her as wicked.

It would be a good thing–and not only for liberals and moderates–if the evangelical movement became more open-ended. There are plenty of liberal and moderate groups that should make the same shift.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently overturned Washington’s law against keeping a gun inside one’s home. That’s my city, and I’m for the law–rather passionately. Here I propose that courts and national legislatures should generally respect local norms and rules (such as our gun law) that have strong cultural dimensions. That principle argues for gun control in Washington, DC, but against it in Montana or rural Texas.

Continue reading →

Most of today’s newspapers quote the Attorney General’s remark, “mistakes were made,” which William Schneider wittily calls the “past exonerative.” It was indeed a Nixonian grammatical construction, an inept attempt to evade accountability and moral judgment. But Mr. Gonzales’ phrase is not the one to which I would award the Tricky Dick Memorial Prize for Talking Like a Crook While Saying that You Aren’t One. That badge of shame belongs to his former assistant, D. Kyle Sampson, whose memo on tactics ended with a wonderfully self-damning use of scare quotes:

I think we should gum this to death. … Ask the Senators to give Tim [Griffin, the administration’s choice for federal prosecutor in Arkansas] a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say “no never” (and the longer we can forestall that the better), then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All this should be done in “good faith” of course.

What is the meaning of “in good faith” in that last sentence? I think it precisely means “in bad faith,” but I’m open to correction.

I’ve written before about the need for concrete policies to support public engagement. The government cannot create an engaged democracy through law, but it can play a supportive role in civic renewal. Also, debating concrete legislation can help people to understand what “engagement” is and could be. It makes the whole topic seem serious and pressing.

I recently pasted some policy ideas on a private “wiki” (an editable webpage) for a group that I’m involved with. They have begun to edit it, and the following is the current version. Your suggestions (in the comments field or by email) are welcome.

Amend the No Child Left Behind Act so that communities, with substantial public participation, are permitted to create their own assessments and accountability measures.

Provide lifetime access to Veterans Health Administration benefits in return for a year of civilian service through USA Freedom Corps programs. Use this approach to expand health coverage.

Pass the Community Broadband Act to safeguard the legal right of municipalities to offer Internet access. Encourage communities to debate the pros and cons of becoming service-providers.

Support charter schools as opportunities for public participation in the governance of schools.

Provide opportunities for returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to work together to address problems in the US, including veterans services and benefits.

Redesign the process for providing online comments to proposed federal regulations so that it is truly interactive. Make the public comments into searchable discussion threads.

Double the small ($37 million) federal Learn & Serve America program so that instead of reaching 1.47 million students who participate for about 17 hours each, it serves 2 million students with more intensity and quality.

Double the appropriation for the Education for Democracy Act (now funded at $29.1 million) and open the program to competitive proposals.

Incorporate civic education in No Child Left Behind on a par with science. Require regular assessments of civic knowledge and skills with no increase in the total hours of testing experienced by each child.

Raise the minimum percentage of Federal Work Study jobs that involve community service from seven percent per institution to 20 percent.

Contract with selected nonprofits to organize public deliberations in the wake of disasters. Use these deliberative forums to guide reconstruction and resettlement.

Initiate a new round of “reinventing government” to change norms, training, and procedures in the federal civil service. This time, the goal should be public engagement, not merely efficiency.

Include questions on the Immigration and Naturalization Service citizenship exam that concern active participation. Support programs that help candidates for citizenship to prepare for these questions.

Provide funds for community-based art with local artists mentoring young people in the creation of public art.