This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.
Page 15
Pride יPolitics יand Our Post-Electiou Dilemma
Samuel L. Adams
Union Presbyterian Seminary, Richmond, Virginia
The relationship between act and consequence is complex, both in the Bible and in human experience. One basic issue is whether a person committing evil deeds or using inflammatory rlretoric will suffer negative consequences. Wen posing this complex question, the Biblepresentsasurprisinglymixedperspective.Some passages defend a fair system of retributive justice: تWoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on the one who starts it rolling’’ (Prov 26:27). After giving the law to Moses, God promises to hold human beings accountable for sinful behavior: although merci&l, this Deity is not interested in “clearing the guilty” (Exod 34:7). Similarly, the friends of Job insist on divine justice as they maintain an essential link between human behavior and punishment. For example Eliphaz declares, ־־As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same” (Job 4:8). Yet othei ־voices do not see such consistency and rail against the promise of retributive justice. The most famous example in this regard is the authoi ־of Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth), who observes an unpredictable world: “Again I saw that undei ־the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favoi ־to the skillful; but time and chance happen to them all” (Ecc 9:11). With refreshing candoi ,־Qoheleth is willing to look at the unpredictable tangle of human experience and acknowledge inconsistencies. The relationship between behavioi ־and consequence is essential for exploring our primary verse undei ־consideration, which is from the book of Proverbs: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (PiOV 16:18). The key Hebrew word is the one for “pride” (ga’on), and it can appeal ־positively as “exaltation” or “majesty,”usuallyreferringtoGod(e.g.,Exod 15:7: “Inthe greatness ofyourmajesty [ga’on] you overthrew youi ־adversaries”). With regard to human beings, ga’on usually indicates incessant self-regard (as in PiOV 16:18), the attitude that prizes selhsh advancement ovei ־all othei ־factors. The second half of the saying parallels the hrst, making basically the same point. A person with a “haughty spirit” will eventually stumble. This famous saying in PiOV 16:18 claims that arrogance can cause a person’s downfall. The person responsible foi ־this maxim does not appeal ־to suggest that a thunderbolt will strike the individual who displays pomposity, but rather that brash, self-serving actions eventually lead to 1־uin. Rathei ־than promoting an immediate actconsequence connection, this maxim ai-guesfoi-acharacter-consequencei-elationship. If a person exhibits prideful behavioi ,־at some point he oi ־she will receive ajustihable comeuppance. Pride sparks foolish decisions, and patterns of stupidity based on ego concerns will lead to ultimate “destniction.” When considering the contemporary relevance of this saying, it is appropriate to think about pride in the context of oui ־political landscape. As we draw closei ־to Advent, there is an intervening event that has engiOssed the American public foi ־ ovei ־a yeai ־now: the divisive presidential election. Political discord, especially of an all-consuming, hyper-partisan variety, dominates American culture as nevei ־before.
Page 16
in the UK took only a month), American campaigns are now perpetual. The lengthy primary season, the endless, circular chatter on the cable news networks, constant fundraising by SuperPACs and the candidates,and the unwieldy influence ofcorporate donors and lobbyists have created a permanent national distraction. The opportunities for grandstanding and impugning the reputations of others are more prevalent than ever. The dangers of pride are intrinsic to the political process. As Reinhold Niebuhr famously observed, “Politics, to the end of history, will be an arena where power and conscience meet, where the ethical and coercive factors of human life will interpenetrate and work out their tentative and uneasy compromises.”! When the opportunity for power presents itself, humans naturally feel inclined to reach for as much as possible, especially when prideful inclinations take over. The sage responsible for our saying in Proverbs understood the precipitous fall that can accompany decisions based solely on prideftrl self-interest, particularly when matters of conscience become secondary. When considering pride in this context, examples of notorious decline are numerous in the annals of American politics. Obvious cases include the short, tempestuous career of Joseph McCarthy, whose Senate Committee on Permanent Investigations in the 1950s allowed him to pursue character assassinations of perceived rivals whom he labeled as communists, almost always without any factual basis. And yet after censure by his Senate colleagues, McCarthy lost his power in Washington and died a tragically premature death at the age of Τ8. Demagoguery in the service of pride has also ruined other public figures to varying degrees, from Huey Long to Richard Nixon. Despite wielding significant power, such individuals endured ignominious defeat or worse, the vengeftrl bullet of an assassin. The tightrope of political success is tenuous, and prideful behavior often leads to devastation. For example, as governor of Alabama, George Wallace built a power-base thiOugh the politics of anger. He understood instinctively that racist language and vitriol against the federal government could cement his popularity. Wallace mastered vicious populism, using coded language to induce fear. As Dan T. Carter explains in a biography of Wallace, the former governor capitalized on economic woes and rapid social change by condemning those who were different from the white, PiOtestant majority: “It was no accident that the giOups singled out for relentless abuse and condemnation were welfare mothers and aliens, giOups that are both powerless and, by viltue of color and nationality, outsiders.”? Additional examples affirm the veracity of the maxim that “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” The assumption of invulnerability after the reins of power are in one’s possession is a timeless one in politics. From local aldermen to members of Congress, pride is a threat to individual careers and the public good. From Rod Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois who attempted to sell President Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder, to the recent case of Kathleen Kane, the attorney general of Pennsylvania who sullied the reputations of political rivals and then lied about it under oath, the timeless wisdom of PiOV 16:18 is regularly overlooked. The perils of excessive pride are manifold. Adultery, graft, voter fraud, and other issues are usually traced to the personal failings and arrogance of the official in ques
Page 17
tion. One can also look to such underlying issues as fragile egos, broken childhoods, and the need for constant affirmation. Armchair psychoanalysis frequently characterizes our assessments of pride in politics, as we seek to mine the ultimate reason for dramatic falls from grace. Governor Wallace sought forgiv؛ness from civil rights leaders in the waning years of
his life. Paralyzed from the waist down after an assassination attempt and observing the shifting tide biOught by the civil rights movement, Wallace reached out to African Americans who had suffered as a result of his brutal tactics. One could argue that opportunism and changing circumstances, especially the voting power of African Americans, drove Wallace’s reversal more than genuine remorse, but his efforts at reaching out to such pivotal leaders as John Lewis are nevertheless remarkable. Lee Atwater, a Republican political operative Lamous for his manipulative campaign tactics, showed contrition at the end ol his battle with cancer. Atwater apologized to a South Carolina Democratic olhcial he had criticized for receiving electric shock therapy, and he expressed regret for some ol his harsh tactics against Michael Dukakis , the Democratic nominee for President in 1988. Once again, one could argue that these were self-serving acts that bolstered Atwater’s ultimate reputation, but it is noteworthy that powerful individuals often experience regret more than contentment it they have used inflammatory rhetoric in the service ol political gain. When we consider hubris and dyslunction in American public lile, it becomes necessary to address the specific circumstances that created our rancorous political landscape and our own culpability in creating those circumstances. Many readers will remember the wise assessment ol the commentator Edward R. Murrow when assessing the dangeiOus tactics ol Senator McCaithy:
The actions ol the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comloit to our enemies. And whose Lault is that’? Not really his. He didn’t create this situation ol fear; he merely exploited it—and rather successlully. Cassius was right: ‘The Lault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in om’selves.”3
Murrow’s last reference is from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, and it illustrates the need for all citizens and persons ol Laith to recognize our responsibility in creating a climate ol fear and mistrust, where prideful inclinations too frequently sap any movement towards addressing the many piOblems that ail US as a society. Inaction, apathy, and the unswerving belie ؛that our opinions are always accurate reflect a corlosive atmosphere. Readers ol this essay will probably have noted up to this point the lack ol specific references to the candidates for President in 2016 and to one ol the more bizarre years in the history ol American politics. Never has such an outsider captured the nomination ol a major political paity, and no woman has ever come this close to winning the presidency. Whatever the result in November, this is a historic election. Some ol those reading this essay are supporting one ol these two candidates, while others are looking for an alternative. The diversity ol political perspectives in American public lile is a wonderlul aspect ol our democracy, and the new outlets for expression on social media have allowed for a more participatory piOcess.
Page 18
Yet the reclaiming of mutual trust seems far from ceitain in our current political climate, and baneful pride at all levels is playing a key role in dividing us from one another. The xenophobic, misogynistic, and divisive rhetoric used to great effect by Donald Trump has echoes of many of the political hgures I mentioned above, especially George Wallace, and the whole country is in a surreal fog as a result of his unprecedented candidacy. My task here is not to assess the likelihood of Mr. Trump winning the election, a highly remote possibility as of the writing of this essay, but rather to consider the saying from Proverbs in light of our current political dynamics . And rather than rehearse once again the many incendiary comments made by Mr. Trump over the course of the current campaign season, rather than reiterate the shortcomings of Secretary of State Clinton in the interest of a fair balance, we return to the same line cited by Edmund R. Murrow, which is more relevant than ever: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Our entire society and recent cultural trends, not just Donald Trump, created the atmosphere that led to such a toxic election season. We have segregated ourselves far too much according to race, income, and political persuasion; we have allowed our neighborhoods to become a place where we check Facebook rather than get to know those aiound us; and we have decided thiOugh self-righteous indignation that the other side is wrong and our beliefs are always correct. Moreover, our ever-shortening attention spans, fascination with celebrity, and fear of the other have created the envilOnment for some of the views espoused by Mr. Trump to gain such traction. He has masterfully exploited longstanding mistrust as a means of advancing his own foitunes. All politicians seek self-advancement, but the damage wrought by this incendiary election season cannot be placed back in a bottle after November 8. Our political atmosphere has been so poisoned by prideful mistrust that a rebuilding effoit is necessary. One essay cannot begin to plot a comprehensive blueprint for rebuilding, but a few suggestions are worth noting. The hrst is the need to separate the political piOcess more cleaily from our cult of celebrity. Over the last few decades, the foitunes of publie servants have become another form of celebrity enteitainment. This development can be traced at least as far back as the 1980s. In a piOvocative and convincing book. Matt Bai cites the increasing superhciality of American political discourse, tracing this development to an obsession with personal scandal that intensihed with the infamous episode involving Senator Gary Halt in 1988 and ceitainly with the scandals a decade later involving President Clinton. Bai does not defend such behavior, but he does point to our obsession with drama as a national distraction at the expense of pressing issues like poveity and the solvency of Social Security. He argues that our nation and its media have taken “a hard turn towards abject triviality. ”4 I recently went with my family to the Center for Civil and Human Rights in Atlanta. The area of the museum focusing on human rights includes heartbreaking descriptions and photos of piOblematic regions in the world, and the impact on visitors is understandably jarring. My 12 year-old son Chailie looked carefully at the exhibit on longstanding strife in Congo, and he turned to me and said, “Dad, why are we talking all the time about what Mr. Trump did or said at a rally, but this is the hrst time I am ever hearing about what is happening to boys my age in Congo’?” I did not have a good response except to agree. The inclusive visionforjustice in Scripture demands that believers seekto piotect
Page 19
the most vulnerable in society, especially those on the margins. This imperative is apparent in the Torah: “You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Exod 22:21). Jesus embraces this call for benevolence: ‘”I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing , I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me’ ” (Matt 25:35-36). The “abject triviality” into which we have descended reflects both pride and fear, and a reclaiming of community is the only way to transcend our current predicament. In a recent editorial. Garrison Keillor argues that kindness and humility are the keys to rejuvenation:
The old America endures, as long as baseball endures, or gardening, or joke-telling, or the state fair where people go to see pigs the size of Volkswagens and ride inside something like a salad spinner. It endures along with church suppers. They are dying out some places because the Myitles and Gertrudes who were the brains of the church supper movement faded away, but the suppers survive in small towns, a cultural institution.؛
This last point is not an incidental one: churches have a role to play if we are to reclaim mutual trust. Churches can celebrate our cultural diversity, seek to foster generational friendships, and perhaps show greater flexibility with regard to outreach within the community (e.g., diffei’enttimes foi’WOl’ship, innovative leadershipmodels, creative outreach ministries). Solidarity can triumph over the poisonous balkanization of our public discourse if forms of community, including church, are fresh and welcoming. Our model in this effoit is the life and witness of Jesus Christ. The current calendar year does not culminate with the presidential election, but with the hopeful expectation for a miraculous bilth. Jesus, thiOugh his lowly beginnings and model for humility, reminds US that human pride is never the ultimate goal. The hymn of Philippians 2 explains this perhaps better than any other passage: “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave” (Phil 2:5-7). While capable of attaining any eaithly treasure, Christ did not regard his status as something to be exploited (Greek harpagmos), but took the path of servant leadership. Such a model works against common human instincts. Our prideful inclinations are basic to our humanity, reflecting our fallibility. Yet Advent reminds US of the humble loots of the Christ-child, the expectation of a “new and glorious morn,” and our need to live into this new reality, however impeiTectly. We return to our original question: do we reap what we sow? Is there retributive justice, both reward and punishment, on a consistent basis? The answer in many cases is no. Qoheleth was surely correct that the weak often perish, and those who abuse positions of power do not necessarily receive appropriate punishment. Even so, we can also affirm the veracity of the saying ftom Proverbs: excessive pride leads to destruction. We have operated too ftequently with the assumption that sophisticated methods for communication, gadgets, and othertechnological advances send us on an ever-upward spiral of advancement. And yet the loss of community has perhaps never
Easter 2016
Page 20
been more profound. Regardless of who wins the presidential election, the imperative stands before people of faith to be voices for inclusion and hospitality, to find creative ways ofbringingtogetherthose fiom across the ideological spectrum, andto minimize the politics of personal destruction. Withdrawal fiom society is not the best option within the Reformed tradition: the breakdown of community and rancorous division demand our earnest attempts at reform. A rebirth of mutual trust can happen most effectively at the local level, where koinonici (“community” or “fellowship”) is not just our best hope, but one of the essential elements of the Christian faith. One of the most common clichés is that Elections have consequences.’’ This particular cliche is accurate. Perhaps a consequence of the current election is that we might turn away fiom pride and excessive partisanship, seeking to unleash what Abraham Lincoln so eloquently described as ־־the better angels of our nature.” The alternative is a filrther worsening of our fiayed communal life, such that we collectively prove the veracity of the ancient saying: ־־Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a
Notes t. Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Αία,; and Immoral Society (New York Simon and Schuster, 1932), 4. 2. WarrY Carter, The Politics oj Rage: George Wallace,The Origins oJThe Ne >١١Conservatism, And The Transformation of American Politics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 468. 3. Edward R. Murrow, “See It Now: A Report on Senator loseph R. McCarthy,” CBS-TV, March 9, 1954. 4. Matt Bai, All The Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid (New York: Allred A. Knopl, 2014), 218. 5. Garrison Keillor, “Make the most ol your briel time on Earth,” The Washington Post, August 18,
Leave a Reply