Losing the future

Things are obviously getting desperate.

You know that's the case when the Christian political organization "Winning the Future" endorses former suburban Atlanta congressman and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination for president.

Think about this for a second: This group is supporting a man who has held only one political office in his entire life. A man who cheated on his first wife with his second and his second wife with his third. A man who sought power for its own sake, going up against Bill Clinton -- and totally lost, resigning his seat after being embarrassed in 1998. A man that, to my knowledge, has not produced a credible testimony as to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and a changed life as a result.

No, it seems that "Winning the Future" has only one goal: Reestablishing the clout of the "religious right," even if it has to compromise essential tenets of the faith to do it.

And that won't happen -- the 2006 general election pretty much put an end to that, what with the shellacking the Republican Party took despite James Dobson's efforts with his "Stand for the Family" rallies. Let's not forget that conservative Christians never took folks from their side of the fence to task for supporting an immoral (some say illegal) war in Iraq and especially in response to the Jack Abramoff-fueled lobbying scandal.

What's worse from that perspective, it especially has no chance to unseat Barack Obama as president. None of the Republican candidates in the race has the money to compete with him -- it's no accident that the better prospects decided to sit this one out -- nor do they have the temperament to do anything but bash him. In short, they have nothing to offer but the same old, same old culture and class war which that side lost long ago but refuses to acknowledge.

More to the point -- why are Christians endorsing any candidate at all? Do we realize that we're not going to change the basic sin nature of the human race simply by legislation or "changing the culture?" Or is our goal simply to change this world so that we can live in it and avoid spiritual warfare? (Do you really believe that God will allow that?)

That's why I yawned when I learned about the endorsement -- it won't make any difference, either now or in the long run. And when I mean the "long run," I mean eternally.

The art of politics vs. the tea-party movement

Much of the electorate complains about political candidates who seemingly won't take a stand, telling people what they think they want to hear and talking about of both sides of their mouth.

The recent shenanigans by Republican politicians, most recently and notably Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, should provide a clue as to why that's the case.

You may recall that he singlehandedly caused a crisis in that state by trying to push a bill that, in essence, would render public-sector unions toothless by allowing them collective bargaining only on economic issues. Democratic members of the state's Senate left the state to avoid a vote (which they knew they'd lose). Walker has demanded that the eloping senators return; they said they would do so when, and only when, he was prepared to negotiate.

That's the key word here -- "negotiate."

What Walker and his supporters don't seem to realize is that politics, at least in a republican democracy such as ours, is the "art of the possible," the willingness to make deals -- to give a little here and take a little there -- to get things done. The conservative movement in general and the "tea-party" movement, of which Walker is a supporter, in particular by contrast brook no dissent and always attempt to dictate the outcome.

It may be learning now that, when you take a strong, uncompromising stand, you give people incentive to vote against you. Already there's talk about recalling numerous Republican state senators in Wisconsin as a result of this fiasco, and polls have shown that the majority of voters now oppose Walker's bill.

Let me give two examples from the fairly recent past. Back in 1995 President Clinton and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich did battle over the Federal budget; the trouble was that the new Gingrich Congress -- including 75 freshman Republicans elected on the Contract with America -- was in no mood to negotiate. Recognizing this, Clinton allowed the government to shut down twice and the public blamed Gingrich, who in the end nevertheless got what he wanted. Clinton, of course, waltzed to a second term.

Remember that President Obama signed that health-care insurance bill into law about a year ago. Thing is, the opponents, out of spite rather than negotiating in good faith, kept trying to throw up roadblocks to and later complained that he actually made some deals to get the bill passed. Well, duh -- that's how the game works. And now they have the audacity to think that they can get it repealed (despite figures that say that it would cost the country down the road).

The modern conservative movement, which in a 2009 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times Neal Gabler, who is writing a biography of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, referred to as "religion," has to understand that not only do a lot of people not agree with it but that it is now giving active opposition. The trouble is that, as a purist ideology, conservatism looks down upon anything that doesn't follow its tenets to the letter.

Right now, with huge, daily demonstrations in Madison, conservatives in private have likely referred to the protesters as "barbarians storming the gates." They need to understand that the progressives who have decided to fight back aren't going away and they should talk and listen to them if they want to stay in office.

The NAACP vs. the "tea-party" movement

You may recall that the NAACP, of which I have never been a member, recently called the "tea-party" movement racist. An unfair comparison? Perhaps.

But given history, an understandable one.

According to a commentary in today's New York Times by Matt Bai, the real issue is generational, not racial or even so much political. He notes that "tea-partiers" are most likely to be baby-boomers, while activists for the NAACP tend to be that age or even older and thus remember the fight for civil rights in the 1950s and '60s and are not willing to put up with folks they suspect threaten such gains.

And in fact, the NAACP has long been on the bad side of right-wing groups. In 1998, after writing an op-ed for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in which I was a tad critical of the NAACP for taking what I considered an inappropriate stand, a black right-wing newsletter, "Issues and Views," mysteriously appeared in my mailbox at work, and it advised its readers to "take back power from ... the NAACP." Two years later the NAACP ran a voter-registration drive to counter what they saw as below-the-belt tactics by the conservatives, particularly their impeachment of Bill Clinton for ostensibly political reasons -- and its chairman consequently drawing rebukes from then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

Small wonder that then-President George W. Bush, arguably the most conservative chief executive in American history, skipped its annual convention until six years into his presidency.

But I was reminded of something in my own life: While I was always aware of the struggle for justice for African-Americans -- how could I not be? -- I never allowed myself to be defined by the struggle. And that caused problems with much of the rest of the African-American community of that day, specifically the 1970s through '90s, as I was always willing to cross such lines to mix with whites. You see, at some point in time you have to move forward and seek reconciliation with those who are, or used to be, opponents. Its failure to do so is one reason the NAACP has little pull among those younger than 40.

I see some of the same issues with conservatives in general and the "tea-party" movement in particular, which is why it has a reputation of racism, deserved or no -- I'm aware of no other groups they work with that don't agree with them on everything. Let's also keep in mind that in 2008 60 percent of the white "youth" vote went for Obama, with even some evangelicals giving the Democratic Party (often considered the "great Satan") a second look.

Bai noted that Gingrich suggests that NAACP members meet with "tea-party" representatives; Bai, on the other hand, suggested that older members of both camps meet with their younger counterparts. I get that -- because the up-and-coming generation isn't inclined to scapegoat their opponents. I think both need to happen.