Democrats

by

What would Jesus cut?

For a year I’ve worn this yellow bracelet on my right wrist, a bracelet sent to every member of Congress by Sojourners, a Christian advocacy group. It says “What would Jesus cut?”

I sincerely doubt that Sojourners has a complete list of programs endorsed by Jesus, because they are smarter than that. Rather the bracelet is a reminder that people in power are accountable for the decisions they make, not just to the voters but to their conscience and their God.

Jesus, himself,  was pretty cagey about politics. He dodged every effort to make him a king, he refused to align himself with the religious or political establishment, and, confronted with the dilemma of paying or refusing to pay taxes to the Roman government, he said,

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.       (Mt 22:21)

I love that about Jesus: he refused to be manipulated for political gain. He did not covet power, and he spoke truth to power.  And that is what he expected of his followers.

So when I read the words, “What would Jesus cut?” I think of Jesus or God or your conscience standing by your shoulder to keep you from coveting influence or sucking up to power.  Pardon the coarse expression, but certain behavior is best described coarsely.

In my case, this admonition often means don’t join others who put down popular scapegoats, such as school administrators, apathetic  students, or Tea Party Republicans. They are easy targets, yet many of them try to heed their conscience against all odds.  I’ll admit to giving in to political diatribe now and then, but I believe that Jesus expects better of me.

In the case of Washington’s elite, it means don’t vote against your conscience just because the power brokers tell you to, whether they be Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid, John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi.  No one can presume to judge another’s conscience, but I think it is safe to say that we would not have gridlock in the Congress if everyone were voting his or her conscience.  Conscience is not that well-organized.

Imagine Jesus on the floor of Congress. Jesus, what about abortion? What about amnesty for illegals? What about trimming Medicare? What about reducing defense spending?  I don’t see Jesus asking how the party is voting or whether he will lose votes in the next election.  I don’t see him bargaining his vote to get on a committee he favors. I don’t see him intimidated by political heavyweights. And he expects the same of those who follow him.

If Jesus is not your exemplar, then your political conscience should speak to you.  Your conscience should have a voice at every vote, at every caucus, at every back room conversation where political bribes are offered.  You should not leap to compromise, if it involves your personal gain.

The politicos are shaking their heads and calling me naive, but plenty of Congressional icons have taken the high road through their careers. I’m not sure who voted their conscience in the recent vote on the nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, but I know of four Senators who voted against their personal interests: Thad Cochran (Missisippi), Susan Collins (Maine), Mike Johanns (Nebraska) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).  It’s a safe bet that these Senators will not be rewarded for voting against their party .

I smile when I see representatives crossing party lines to vote or standing strong on an issue they believe in, regardless of lobbyists or Congressional Whips. John McCain stood up for amnesty for undocumented residents. Chuck Hagel opposed the war in Iraq.  Kathleen Sibelius spoke out for women’s reproductive rights at the risk of excommunication from Church and Party.

I would be proud to be represented by such legislators and cabinet secretaries.  While I might disagree with them on other issues, I would respect their courage to vote their convictions and to buck the political tide. Party loyalty is very low on my hierarchy of values.  Jesus did not adhere to the tattered coalitions of power.

Jesus was not a Zealot nor an apologist for Rome. He visited with Pharisees and with tax collectors. He touched lepers and healed a Roman Centurion’s daughter.  He was almost murdered in his home village, and he was executed in Jerusalem, once holy, today a political pie. No one was less wedded to political power than Jesus.

And he expects the same of those who follow him.

by

Cheaters!

When I first read about gerrymandering in eleventh grade U.S. History, my sense of injustice was inflamed.  What could this be called but “cheating,” pretending to give everyone a vote, but fixing the outcome? Mr. Smith calmed me down by explaining the practice had been controlled in the present era, which would have been the 1960’s.

Yet in the past year the re-drawing of voting districts for political advantage has again emerged under the guise of representing shifting populations following the 2010 census.  At the end of the current election cycle we can see the skullduggery active again: Republicans dominate state and Congressional elections despite being a distinct minority in the popular vote.

The gerrymandering of voting districts is a subtle form of voter fraud. The party currently in power in each state gets to draw the lines of the voting districts, pushing voters into districts that will be lopsided for one party, so that more of the other districts can be commanded by the other party. In a February 2 article in the N.Y. Times Sam Wang reported how he used statistical probability to show how re-drawn districts compared to those created by an unbiased computer simulation of the voting map. He particularly noticed gerrymandering in swing states controlled by Republican legislatures:

Confounding conventional wisdom, partisan redistricting is not symmetrical between the political parties. By my seat-discrepancy criterion, 10 states are out of whack: the five I have mentioned, plus Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Illinois and Texas. Arizona was redistricted by an independent commission, Texas was a combination of Republican and federal court efforts, and Illinois was controlled by Democrats. Republicans designed the other seven maps. Both sides may do it, but one side does it more often.

Wang accused the state legislatures of changing the distribution of Republican voters in Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In North Carolina Republicans changed a 7-6 disadvantage to a 9-4 advantage. In other words they gained three seats in the legislature merely by changing the district boundaries.

CHEATERS! my high school id cried out. While savvy politicians smiled and shook their heads, my heart churned with indignation. How can this be anything but manipulation of an ethical voting system, one that promises government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”? Why should cheaters prevail?

Yet many politicians of the Republican persuasion believe if you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying,

The N.Y. Times (February 5) documented how inequities in the voting process are achieved in outrageously long waits to vote and overly complex ballots, which slow the voting process to a crawl.  A study by the Orlando Sentinel and an Ohio State professor estimated that 200,000 Floridians were denied their right to vote by the length of lines at the polls.  The Florida legislature had previously reduced the days for early voting from fourteen to eight, and the ballot was a jungle of initiatives that would make a lawyer blink.  No one can tell me that this was not a premeditated strategy to keep less privileged voters from exercising their Constitutional rights. Florida’s problems with voter irregularities have been documented in 2000 and 2008, as well as in the past election year.

In contrast the Times article cited California as a paragon of enabling voting with smaller voting districts resulting in average wait times of six minutes. Florida’s average wait was 45 minutes.  Is it a coincidence that California has a  Democratic legislature, while Florida, a perennial swing state, has a Republican legislature? Even suffering the humiliation of questionable election practices in the 2000 presidential election has not humbled the Florida legislature to facilitate voting, because it is not in the political interests of Republicans to encourage voting.

This is not shrewd strategy, it is unethical voter suppression.  Of all the political shenanigans that tamper with fairness and equity, this is the most despicable, because it threatens a fundamental right of American citizens.  It approaches the manipulative practices of pseudo-democratic nations, which record landslides of 90% or more for the party in power.  Republicans supporting such schemes should blush with embarrassment when they speak of defending the U.S. Constitution and our precious freedoms.

Now I understand why Republicans were so astonished at losing the Presidential election, plus a handful of Congressional seats. They had rigged the election! They had predetermined its outcome!

Ah, but the Democrats registered and drove their supporters to the polls, winning an election by increasing voter registration and participation, of all things. Justice smiled in Florida, where President Obama won a close tally of votes, but it could have easily gone the other way. The ballot and the voting lines were mercilessly long.

Instead of improving their political appeal, Republicans tossed us a banana peel, and we slipped headlong into making them the majority party wherever representatives are elected by red-tainted voting districts and where voting regulations favor the shrewd and privileged.

Is politics so grimy that we can’t call “Cheater!” anymore? Is no one else outraged that one party consistently undermines democracy by scheming so only their kind gets to vote or gets represented? Is this not the most un-American scheme allowed by law?

Don’t tell me I’m a sore loser. My guys won, despite Republican dirty tricks. So there, CHEATERS!