A Golden Rule for Politics?

There are days when I wake up, look at the latest news, and want to pull the covers over my head and stay in bed. The division, bitterness, and anger in our national debate are remarkable. We’ve always had spirited and contentious interchange in America, but there is something different now in the ways we watch and hear people in politics confront each other. Civility seems to have evaporated, and there is often little or no respect between those who argue.

Perhaps it’s time to set some boundaries and encourage protagonists to adopt a new posture. Let me call it a “Golden Rule of Politics.”

Not long ago, Pope Francis said much the same when he visited the United States. The pope was subtle but clear in saying we need compassionate voices of conciliation to overwrite those who depend on stridency and frustration to frame arguments about the important issue that divide us. ¹ He’s a proud Jesuit and did not minimize the need for debate, especially when opinions are divided and strong. But he clearly appealed to some better angels to guide us in those debates. By invoking the biblical concept of a Golden Rule—an ideal not unique to the Bible’s New Testament and the teachings of Jesus, but in fact recurrent in many faith traditions—he called for a new tenor in our public discourse. ²

We all know the Golden Rule. Matthew 7:12 states it succinctly: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.” It is replicated in Luke 6:31. Yet even more compelling is the Great Commandment (Matt 22:34–40, Mark 12:28–34, Luke 10:25–28), in which Jesus acknowledges the Shema: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one” [Deut 6:4]) as the greatest teaching, to love the Lord with all one’s heart, soul and mind (Deut 6:5). Jesus adds to the ancient Hebrew commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself “ (Lev 19:18). Jesus quotes these passages and proclaims that on these commandments hang “all the law and the prophets” (Matt 22:40; Mark 12:34).

Jesus is not merely admonishing people to get along with each other in community and avoid the inevitable tug of war that he knows will persist in the kingdom he ushers in. He is saying precisely that laws and prophets and civil order need to be constructed around the idea of loving neighbor because that is the only true way for survival until the “Kin-dom” of God is at hand, on earth as in heaven.

So the Pope was invoking something much more deep and fundamental than a simple plea for us all “to just get along.” He was making a subtle plea to reorder the way we transact in civil discourse and do it in a way that is mindful of the teachings of Jesus.

As a strong partisan advocate while I was White House Press Secretary, I used my small bully pulpit to political effect when I served President Bill Clinton. I now with some remorse ask whether or not things are so bad that we need some new rules to govern our political discourse. In my time, the influence of what we now call the “mainstream press” was sufficient to require me every day to gather information, insist on clarity in the questions we anticipated, and browbeat some of my colleagues to give me the information I needed. I credit my bosses for supporting me in this exercise. My friend and colleague, Leon Panetta, who was chief of staff during my first years at the White House, made clear that members of the administration needed to respond to my requests for accurate information when the daily press briefing was looming. And his successor, Erskine Bowles, did the same. They had my back, because they knew my credibility and my answers to difficult questions would establish a measure of credibility that would be used to measure all the work the White House undertook.

President Clinton understood this imperative as well. He would stop a meeting and say, “Get Mike McCurry in here. He needs to understand what we are talking about. The press will be all over him on this.” President Clinton wanted me to be able to talk knowledgeably about what he was thinking, and how he arrived at whatever decision he made.

We lived in an environment where the constant presence of the press and the likelihood of tough questions about what we were doing was a given. I always knew that lying would be fatal, and I always considered that my answers, even if they could not be complete, must steer people towards the truth, not away from it.

That discipline is now largely broken or forgotten. By the measure of one national newspaper, the president utters 7.6 lies per day. ³ Given an opportunity to refute the claim that the press is the enemy of the people, my successor as White House Press Secretary demurred and failed to make clear that the press, as the Fourth Estate in our republic, has both a constitutional right and a moral imperative to speak truth to power, to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” to paraphrase the humorist Peter Finley Dunne. ⁴

OPEN IN VIEWER

The White House, Washington, DC. Album/Art Resource, NY.

I suspect not many people watch the live daily briefing for the press at the White House on television every day. Those who do on a regular basis are either bored, incredible political junkies, or perhaps nursing mothers wanting a child to fall asleep.

That these briefings are available for live broadcast is my doing, because I allowed cameras and broadcasters into the briefing room in 1995 when I became spokesman for President Clinton. Looking back, I wish I had not done that. To seek and report the truth about what happens each day at the White House, someone needs more than one account provided by the press secretary. They need other sources, different interpretations, and multiple avenues to get at the truth.

And isn’t the same true for the church? We have one Scripture but many ways to interpret it and many voices with conflicting claims on how to read and interpret the word of God. I am fearful of those who say: “The Bible says it. Case closed.” The Bible says many things in different ways, and those who do not read it with a mind and heart open to multiple learnings and interpretations are likely to miss the point. These debates in the church often mirror and mimic the debates in our secular political culture, which is why I see them so connected and intertwined.

Therefore, I suggest the church must take a stand. Just as it is difficult always to interpret the word of God for the people of God, it is difficult to find ways forward as people of faith when we interpret issues that arise in the public square and demand our daily attention. The difficulty is part of our calling to ministry. Perhaps the church can provide a model to the political world on the right way to wrestle with the vexing issues we face.

Most pastors want to run the other way when the subject of politics enters the sanctuary. Talking about politics divides congregations and puts a pastor in a precarious position. Does the pastor say what she thinks and says something that will keep this congregation just as polarized and divided when they leave here on Sunday morning as they were when they arrived? Can the pastor say anything that will help his people understand and point them to what Scripture and our faith belief asks of them?

Speaking truth about contemporary political issues must become a calling for those in ministry. The church is one of the very few places where we can have genuine dialogue and still remain charitable toward brothers and sisters with whom we disagree. Fostering that kind of dialogue requires some big changes in how we view worship and its aftermath. A pastor who is poised to speak from the heart about challenging political issues must be open to dissent and disagreement. There needs to be a structured way for a church to hear contrary points of view and to encourage those who have a different perspective to speak out. The post-worship coffee hour needs to be a place of dialogue and discussion.

Facilitating those discussions means that pastors need new skills and new ways of organizing and engaging leaders in the church, especially lay leaders who have expertise and knowledge. It also means those of us in seminary settings need to prepare our students, the future leaders of the church, to accept and embrace this role, something that we are trying to do at Wesley Theological Seminary. Wesley, located in the heart of our nation’s capital in Washington, DC, is designing curricula, programs, and events to address this need.

But none of this will work unless we create a new environment and vocabulary for graceful conversations about the future of our country. That leads me back to “The Golden Rule” and what it might look like for all of us—pastors, teachers, pundits, politicians, activists, and average citizens—to treat each other the way we ourselves expect to be treated when we are talking about controversies of the day.

A Golden Rule of Politics

What would a “Golden Rule of Politics” look like? How about this?

I acknowledge that I should treat my political adversaries as I would wish them to treat me. I know I will be required to draw sharp distinctions with my opponent, but never should I question his or her motives or character unless there is ample reason to do so. So much of our negative campaigning is based on imputing the worst motives to an opponent’s record, but maybe it is better to give the opponent the benefit of doubt, or at least a little more time to be understood. My “war room” will not always conduct itself at DefCon 3.

I will instruct my campaign and all those who support me to adopt a “no first use” rule. I will not go negative unless my opponent or his/her supporters do so. I will not use overwhelming force against opponents or put them in a box before they get a chance to command some attention in the public square.

If I wonder whether one of my campaign communications—direct mail, email, social media—is too snarky or over the top, I will have on standby two or three reputable “ombudspeople” from local colleges or community organizations who will tell me and the general public whether a given communication is out of bounds. And I will publicly abide by their recommendation.

In an era of lax campaign finance rules, I will make sure that someone somewhere (without fear of “coordinating” with my campaign) knows how strongly I feel about certain types of communication. I will make sure that a supportive Super PAC or unaffiliated group knows that their support comes with some expectation of restraint and Golden Rule behavior. The source of funds from those who support me will always be publicly disclosed.

I pledge to sit down with my political opponents and engage in a genuine and productive debate about why we have different visions and ideas for our future. And I won’t haggle over the rules or logistics that would otherwise make those debates unmeaningful.

I appreciate that our electorate is growing younger, more diverse, and more independent of our two major political parties, and I will reach out and engage those who now feel left out or marginalized in our political process. I can’t win an election with only my “base,” and I know I must engage newer or first-time voters and encourage them to be a part of our political process.

Finally, if I am a member of Congress, I pledge not to conduct any fundraisers during the hours of 8 am to 10 am on Wednesday mornings when Congress is in session, and I will support a covenant that my party’s fundraising committees refrain from hosting events in those hours. Those precious moments will be a time for me to find a colleague from the other side of the aisle and go have breakfast. I believe that building new relationships with those who differ with me will help us find some common ground where we might help move our country forward.

A Golden Rule for the Rest of Us

Those are “golden rules” for the politicians. For the rest of us, how about the following?

I will encourage my pastor and my church to invite candidates and public officials from diverse points of view to worship with us and then to be in dialogue with us when we reflect on what our faith calls us to be as citizens and participants in our democratic process.

I pledge to listen carefully to what everyone has to say. Before I disagree with someone, I will faithfully state: “Here’s what I think you are saying,” and summarize what they said. I will do it in an authentic way, not in a manner designed to undercut or demean the opponent’s point of view.

I will value humor and those who can make us laugh at some of the absurdity that we encounter in our public discourse. Some of the things people say on cable television are, after all, remarkably funny, even if that is not the intent. Satire, wit, and irony are hallmarks of the American political tradition. Will Rogers would smile if we allowed humor to become a regular feature of political discourse.

Conclusion

Ultimately, we will be guided by our faith. For Christians, that is to recall a Jesus who was not without wit and humor in his own teaching and who even enjoyed a good glass of wine at a wedding (John 2:1–11). If a divine God can become fully human, we should repay the favor by being a little more divine in our human interactions. And every monotheistic tradition has its own examples. Jesus was a Jew, and Jewish tradition gives us multiple commentaries and midrashim that speak to these issues. So, too, do the Islamic traditions that derive from the Qur’an, a fact that is overlooked by every antagonist who decries “Islamic fundamentalism.”

Faith traditions and faith leaders need to unite to insist on a new political dialogue in America. We need the voice of the religious in our contemporary politics now, more than ever. For all those who cry “separation or church and state,” please remind them that the “wall of separation” that Thomas Jefferson first enunciated in a letter to Baptists in Connecticut was to give them freedom to worship as they chose but also to encourage them to be a part of the new experiment in democracy that was to be the United States of America. ⁵

We never established a single religion for our country, and our Constitution enshrined that principle. Yet our founders and generations that followed always believed that faith would guide our performance as citizens of this Republic. Let that remain so, now more than ever.