Hauerwasian critique of the Political Right and Left
I saw an ad by Hillary Clinton before Christmas. She was wrapping up presents and labeling them with her policies: Universal Health Care; mandatory four year old public education; environment, etc. Some political commentators were making the point that it came across as Hillary being the giver of all gifts to the underlings or populace.
One point that Hauerwas makes is that the story of the state from the 30 years war is that the state saved the people from death at the hands of religion that was tearing itself apart. The story of the state is one of salvation. This story continues today and is evidenced in the Grand Master doling gifts to the lowly serfs.
However, the critique also applies to the right: The state keeps safe the weaklings from the hordes at the nation's walls. The state is the protector and defender. Either way, the state is the saviour and absolutely necessary. And what else would we expect from last election's pop music slogan, "Vote or Die"?!
One point that Hauerwas makes is that the story of the state from the 30 years war is that the state saved the people from death at the hands of religion that was tearing itself apart. The story of the state is one of salvation. This story continues today and is evidenced in the Grand Master doling gifts to the lowly serfs.
However, the critique also applies to the right: The state keeps safe the weaklings from the hordes at the nation's walls. The state is the protector and defender. Either way, the state is the saviour and absolutely necessary. And what else would we expect from last election's pop music slogan, "Vote or Die"?!
posted by Aaron Perry at
1:40 PM
5 Comments:
I think you have forgotten Romans 13 and the Ascension in general. The state's job in the time between times is to "defend against wrong." Both in terms of what you call giving gifts and protecting its citizens from the hordes. The problem comes when (a) it ceases its defensive posture and assumes an offensive one (as in the gay marriage debate) and/or (b) forgets "whose authority she hath" as the prayer for the Queen in the BCP puts it.
Cheers
Crusto the Magnificent
Maybe I've forgotten. Or maybe I'm just skeptical that Clinton (and the Democratic party in general) is thinking of defending the freedom of four year olds to public education! (To put the critique of the ad in O'Donovanian terms, the Grand Giver of Gifts has far too much an element of creating the gifts she doles, rather than defending the gifts of God authority finds.)
Second, there is an extremely large and necessary distinction to draw between saviour and defender. The emphasis on my "protector and defender" should have been on *the*. As in, "the only one." That's just false and arrogant. Once the defender is the *only* defender, then the means to defend become less important and your faith in your ability to defend increases. Hence Mike Huckabee's reference to seeing the gates of hell at last night's debate.
Yes. I think both parties set themselves up as saviors. The dems imply that people can't live their lives without democratic policies and programs. the repubs imply that we can't live at all without their strong 'defense' (which is more and more offensive).
Neither giving gifts nor pre-emptive war fits, in my mind, with defending against wrong.
Here's my point.
Here's Aaron and Matthew.
The space in between is what is known as "missed." All I am saying is, universal health care (e.g.)and military protection (e.g.) do not necessarily betoken a savior mentality. Your original post fails to make that distinction. And thus commits you to some kind of Christian anarchism. We tried that once. In Munster. Didn't work.
And, btw, telling an aggressive, armed enemy that you have bigger guns and a will to use them is not a pre-emptive war fit. It is the right naval response in the situation with the Iranian speedboats.
Crusto.
Ah, moving to poking fun at an opponent so quickly! I must have struck a nerve.
But I will agree with Crusty: Universal Health Care and Military Protection do not, in themselves, betoken saviour mentalities. I can agree because I both support military funding and like the philosophy of Universal Health Care.
I should have gone much more into detail in providing stats, speech quotes, and advertisements should I wanted the point to be more effective. Instead I relied on two examples that came to mind. They do not prove the point; they only illustrate it (if I have one). Crusty thinks I don't. I obviously think I might, or I wouldn't have written it.
However, that is not advocating anarchism. At best, Crusty has filled the void with meaning. In fact, I advocate a political authority that believes the state, in its persistence in this time, has a divinely authorized mission. Crusty knows this, but he's, well, crusty. And we love him for it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home