The Problem with Political Sermons

Last week I did a half-dozen or so radio talk shows, a couple of them back to back. Under those circumstances, the specifics of any one conversation tend to get lost; it all becomes one big blur. But a comment by one caller---three of the shows were call-ins---stuck in my mind. The show was "Across the Nation with Bob Dunning" on Sirius Satellite's The Catholic Channel, and we had been talking about about partisanship in the church.

The caller brought up an excellent point. A homily (or a sermon), he said, involves one-way communication. There's no chance for dialogue, no time for discussion, no opportunity for disagreement. The pastor says what the pastor says, and that's it. The caller suggested that if churches encouraged conversation on political matters in a give-and-take, hear-all-sides format separate from worship services, politics in the church wouldn't be nearly so offensive.

I'd love to hear your opinion on this. Agree? Disagree? Could you see this working in your own church, synagogue, or other house of worship?

Clinton Doesn't Get It

Bill Clinton that is. Not Hillary. She doesn't seem to get it either, but that's fodder for another post.

Proof that the former president doesn't get independent voters is apparent in this snippet from an interview with him that appeared in the Concord (N.H.) Monitor on Dec. 21:

"I think independents are absolutely pivotal to our political system," [Bill Clinton] said. "But they don't like politics; that's why they're independents. So to them, you become polarizing if someone else attacks you."

Let's break down his quote sentence by sentence.

"I think independents are absolutely pivotal to our political system." He gets it! He really gets it! This part, anyway.

"But they don't like politics; that's why they're independents." Um, no. Many independents are politically zealous. What they—we—don't like is rabid partisan politics and politics as usual. I'll give him a partial pass on this one, because it's possible that's what he meant.

"So to them, you become polarizing if someone else attacks you." No, no, no. If that was true, we'd consider nearly every politician—partisan or independent—to be polarizing, since most of them are targets for attacks. It's not being attacked but doing the attacking that is polarizing. Otherwise, we'd be guilty of blaming the victim.

In a subsequent issue of the Monitor, Donna Lee Richards, an independent voter from Nashua, N.H., provided this response to Clinton in a letter to the editor:

Independents do not label themselves as belonging to a political party. This does not mean that they are not interested, informed or involved in politics and government. This simply means that they do not limit their views, issues or votes to those favored by one political party...We are not snoozing between presidential elections only to be woken and wooed by candidates, returning to our slumber in between because we "don't like politics."

Actually, I do most of my political snoozing during our seemingly interminable presidential elections. Or at the very least, I want to.

Many independent voters are interested, informed, and involved. We do not limit our views, issues, and votes to those favored by one political party. Donna Lee Richards gets it. If our elected officials and candidates—and the population in general—understood what Richards understands, they'd realize what a formidable constituency independent voters are.

Take an Independent Voter Survey

The friendly people at CUIP would like you to respond to a survey posted on their website, www.independentvoting.org. You only have to provide your name, and the survey is in a simple one-page, 13-question format. Best of all, there's space for thoughtful answers rather than multiple choice or yes/no responses.

The questions cover such territory as why people choose to identify or register as independents, whether independent candidates should be included in presidential debates, and your opinion of certain issues and candidates that may appeal to independents. You can access the survey here.

Fed Up with Partisan Politics?

I am. And so are a lot of other people. In fact, 35% of us don't identify with either of the major U.S. political parties. We're independents, and while we're too independent to agree on everything, we do share this one conviction: The political system in this country is broken, and it needs to be fixed. We believe we can all help bring about political reform by stepping away from partisan politics, thinking for ourselves, and making sound decisions based on reality and not rhetoric.

That's a serious undertaking, but we don't have to be so serious in the process. If we lose our sense of humor, we're going to lose it altogether. Then who's going to pick up the cause of political reform? I don't know, but I can guarantee it won't be anyone as thoughtful and intelligent and gracious and insightful as me. Or you.

Speaking of people who are thoughtful and intelligent and gracious and insightful, here's a video of one such person being interviewed by yet another member of the media who just does not get it:



I love how she stays so focused when the interviewer tries to get her off track. Obviously, this broadcast took place before the '06 midterms, and there's no question that independents made the difference on election day. But Jackie's right: the independents that I know care far more about what happens the rest of the year than what happens on election day.

I'm not what you'd call a political animal and never have been. I'm simply one person who refuses to be owned—or taken for granted—by any political party. You won't find political rantings or diatribes here, just reasoned opinions and valuable information on who independent voters are and how we are impacting government at all levels.

Pretty cool, I have to say, all this making-a-difference stuff.