Yes, I'm a Democrat

I was asked about the reference to "my party" in the last post. Here's why:
While I understand the sentiment of "I vote for the candidate, not the party" I find that to be hogwash. Because in this country, there are no independents, and there are no smaller parties with any prospect of electing a president. Therefore, we are choosing between a person running as a representative of the Republican party, and a person running as a representative of the Democratic party.
There are, most assuredly, hypocrites on both sides. That doesn't deter me; I am a church professional. I live that, and live with that, every single day. When it comes to matters of personal integrity, Bill Clinton was the worst. Or, at least as far as we know, he was the worst. George II has steadfastly refused to account for himself beyond "I never used drugs after I turned 40." Fabulous!
It certainly troubles me that the single finest human being to hold the Presidency in my lifetime, Jimmy Carter, is widely reckoned (not by me!) as the worst president of that period. And it will gall me until I die that the only president that practiced a genuine Christian faith daily and thoroughly, again, Mr. Carter, was defeated by the platitude-spewing absurdity of Ronald Reagan. It seems to me that in politics, like so much of life, we have those who are Christians, and there are those who talk about being Christians.
And this is why I vote where I vote.
Democrats are accused of being "pro-abortion." Bullshit! I have been a Democrat for 30 years. I have never met anyone who thought, nor have I ever heard anyone say, "Hey, lets get some pregnancies going so we can kill some babies!" Doesn't happen. The question really is this: do we want to make criminals out of young women who feel themselves to be in such a desperate circumstance that it seems abortion is the only way out of their situation? I can't do that. And here's a little tidbit for you to chew on: abortion declined every year of the Clinton Administration. I can't supply all of the explanation for that reality, but maybe it had something to do with the program of detailed, thorough sex education for the children of our nation under the Godless Democrats, while the approach of the righteous Republicans tends to be "Abstinence Only." Oh, and have you seen those studies that reveal that kids who take the abstinence pledge are actually MORE likely to engage in sexual activity? Gee, who would have thought that teenagers would promise, while mom and dad and the preacher were standing there looking at them, that they wouldn't do those awful things? And then get caught up in the hormones of the moment in the backseat of the car later? This doesn't make them bad kids; just KIDS! Well, I guess in the last analysis, it's just more fun to stand on the street corner screaming "Murderer!" at the pitiful young woman who doesn't know what else to do about her unplanned pregnancy, since the sperm donor just told her to lose his phone number, and her sainted father told her she better never, ever come home knocked up and embarrass him.
The right-wing saints often accuse us of trying to rid the schools, and any other public sphere, of God. I have a couple of thoughts here. First, if God is to be acknowledged in those settings, whose God shall it be? The God of Abraham? OK. But shall we address that God as Allah, or Yahweh? Or, for the followers of Jesus, should we address God through the Son of God? Or should we speak of Buddha? Or should we turn the morning devotions over to the Hindus or Sikhs. Or if Allah, Sunni or Shiite? And if you think that doesn't matter, you haven't been watching Iraq for the last five years. All of these folks have to be considered, because my children attended public schools with some of all of these; my wife does speech therapy with children of all of them in Southaven, MS, and my parishoners' children go to schools with children of all these groups in Tipton County. Neo-cons may want to live in a homogeneous day-gone-by, but new Americans have arrived! And they are property owners and tax payers. So which of us should have the privilege of paying our taxes to have someone else's religion taught to our children? And that doesn't even address the position of those who have chosen to have no religion in their lives. They pay for these schools, city halls, fire departments, etc. too. And while we Christians certainly pray for those outside the church to come into the church, as free creatures of a generous Creator, and as Americans, they have the right to do otherwise.
Second, even if we are going to ignore all of our non-Christian neighbors, whose Christianity will be taught? This, by the way, is the question that produced James Dobson's attack on Barack Obama this week. Regardless of the current notion that it doesn't matter where you go as long as it's Christian (such sad, utter nonsense), we do not even begin to have a single notion of God within the Christian family. My church says that if you land on our doorstep as a baptized Christian, we'll honor that relationship with God and welcome you. Others believe that if you weren't baptized in their denomination, then it doesn't count. Still others think that if you weren't baptized in their own little church, then it isn't real. My church will gladly include you if you wish to share in the Lord's Table. Again, others won't serve you if you aren't of their denomination. Also again, still others won't share with you unless you're a member in their building. Whose version of Christianity would be used? And these questions don't even address understandings of the Bible, authority of the clergy, and so on.
I don't want the schools teaching the Bible. I don't want them teaching children to pray. I don't want our governmental institutions taking sides on doctrinal issues. In other words, I don't want them doing my job. And here's another little question for you: when was the last time that my dear brothers and sisters in the faith, those who are so worried about the Godless Democrats taking God out of the schools, etc. etc. etc., bothered to pick up a neighbor child and take them to church on a Sunday morning? Because God can surely be found at your church on Sunday, don't you think? How many people have you invited to join you there this year? Hey, wait; where'd all your fervor go?
Now let's talk about the poor. Who in hell ever gave Christians permission to pursue policies that punish the poor? You can't honestly call yourself "Pro-Life" when the rest of your program calls for the end of school breakfast and lunch programs, defunding of Head Start, elimination of safety net programs, reductions in unemployment benefits, destruction of Medicaid, wiping out funding of mental health facilities, cuts to low-income housing subsidies and the like while lowering the tax brackets for the wealthiest Americans. Those programs have all had their flaws-mostly to do with failure to fully fund them-but they were at least some degree of insurance that when people fall into desperate circumstances there would be some assistance available. But we've moved into the time of "Pull yourself up by your bootsraps." Which is damned hard when you don't have any shoes!
Republican economic policy used to be called "Trickle Down." You know, take all the taxes and regulations off the rich and they will smile down out of their beneficence and use their means to sprinkle drops of blessings down on all those beneath them. Sounds to me more like the title of the Texas judge's book: Don't Piss on My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining. And rich people didn't get that way by spending all their money anyway. To all those under the privileged 5%, trickle down feels a whole lot more like trickled on. When George II was pushing, ultimately successfully, for his tax cuts, Bill Clinton made a series of very pertinent speeches. The former President asked his audiences, "Why is President Bush so worried about giving me more money? I'm doing fine." And he was. The former President business is very lucrative. And Clinton's point was that he didn't need the help. None of the rich need the help! The government needs to be on the side of those who can't move on up on their own. Republicans decry "Big Government, Free Spending Liberals" with a straight face, even after Bush has turned a $600 billion surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration into a debt of more than $9 trillion as of the moment of this writing (google "national debt clock"). I say, thank God for them! It was Democrats who put the tremendous dent in elder poverty with Social Security and Medicare. It was Democrats who initiated Head Start and related programs so that the nation's poorest children would have a chance to start school on something closer to even footing with the children of those better off.
And moving on, it was Democrats who pushed to make the promise of the Declaration of Independence and the guarantees of the Constitution available to all people. Lyndon Johnson, before he lost his way in Viet Nam, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the comment, "We just lost the South for a generation." He was right in pushing the Act through congress, and he was right in his political evaluation. And still, he fought for, and won, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
My father marched with the Memphis pastors who went to city hall to demand that Mayor Loeb negotiate with the sanitation workers during the 1968 strike. Loeb was obviously threatened by the power of the clergy, the famous photo of the scene revealing his shotgun under his desk. My grandfather pastored the largest Methodist Church in Tennessee in those years, St. Luke's. During those same tense times in the 1960's members of the African-American community began to put Memphis' white churches to the test. Delegations visited the great white congregations on Sundays to determine whether they would be seated for worship. The ushers' captain called on a Saturday night to ask what they were to do if the group showed up at their church. My grandfather's response: "Do your jobs." The visitors were seated at St. Luke's, the first white congregation to treat them as worshippers rather than aliens.
Democrats believe that there is an obligation to see past color and economic status in regarding other people. And that America must be a land of promise for everyone, not just those who, to borrow the great line from the late, great Ann Richards, "were born on third, and thought they hit a triple."
For these and a multitude of other reasons, my faith leads me to vote the Democratic ticket. I have a high personal regard for Sen. John McCain. But no matter what I think of him personally, he is running on the Republican ticket. And while I find no perfection in the Democratic party, I cannot vote for the Republican platform, or any candidate that runs on it.
And, finally, Ann Coulter is a Republican, and that's reason enough for me to be a Democrat.