August
31, 2012
Hawthorne,
New Jersey
An
Open Letter to the Republican Party, National Convention, and the American
People.
Dear
Sisters and Brothers,
Grace and peace to you all. I write
this letter today, during the Republican National Convention, in the hope of
identifying some of the difficulties I have in voting for or supporting the
Republican party, or indeed even treating the GOP as a whole with credibility.
I do this as a student who is not well pleased with the current Administration,
just as I have not been well pleased by any Administration under which I have
lived. I do this as an American who values the rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness which are promised by our government. I do this as a white
man who is deeply concerned with the history of sexism, racism, political and
economic injustice, and hatred of all stripes in this country. Most of that
hatred has been produced and acted upon by persons with more relation to me than
to most of my fellow citizens. Finally I write as Christian, a candidate for
ministry, deeply concerned for the promotion of sane political discourse in
this country.
I wish, first, to address your
slogan: “We believe in America.” I do not know what this faith statement
signifies, but as a Christian I remember a time when other governments were
hailed as instruments of divine grace and salvation. I remember the Confederate
States. I remember the British Empire. I remember the Holy Roman Empire, and
the Roman Empire under Constantine, and the Romans who crucified Jesus of
Nazareth. These are the Romans who allowed people of my faith to be ripped
apart for public entertainment because they were “atheists”; meaning, at the
time, that they did not participate in public worship of the Emperor and the
state-approved “gods”. It is only fair to warn you that statements of belief in
anyone or anything except the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God
worshipped by Jesus, alarms me and tends to set me on edge.
That said, allow me to articulate
some of my confusion regarding your platform for 2012. On page 2 your party
platform says that the role of taxes is to provide for security and defense,
and to care for those who cannot care for themselves. You condemn capitalism
that creates political cronies and legislation that spends tax monies
inefficiently. And yet you also say that you oppose the use of taxes for the redistribution
of wealth. Perhaps I misunderstand this position. It seems to me that any
taxation program, by income percentage, by sales, or by any other means, will
automatically draw more money from those who have wealth and own means of
production (businesses) than those who are poor. Thus, from my perspective, taxes are defined as the redistribution of
wealth (in this case, revenues) by the government.
On page 9, you reject the forces of
hatred and bigotry, for which I applaud your party. And yet you also state that
you reject the idea that government mandates and requirements should be used as
primary defense against these. You assert that the government is to provide
protection for our rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; yet
simultaneously you assert that the government is to ensure a “fair chance”
determined by “potential and individual merit”. How do you propose to determine
what constitutes a “fair chance”? Does a schizophrenic who has been expelled
from a care facility because of government budget cuts have a “fair chance” to
avoid homelessness? What of those families who fall into poverty due to medical
emergencies and environmental disasters? How
do you propose to ensure fairness in a world that is unfair?
Marriage and the structure of our
society has become a contentious issue in our world and county. You address
this problem (leaving aside the issue of “activist judges” for the moment) on
page 10, where you say that the redefinition of marriage threatens a millennia-old
institution which has been the fundamental social unit in nearly every culture.
First, I question your historical methodology – this is the first time in
history that a substantial possibility has existed for children to be raised by
someone other than the couple that produced the child. That is, artificial
insemination and adoption were not commonplace in these past thousands of
years. For those who make this assumption regarding marriage from a biblical
standpoint, I encourage the reading not only of Genesis, but of Deuteronomy
(22:28-29, 21:11-14) and research into biblical characters of Abraham, Gideon,
Jacob, David, and Solomon. All of these are examples of marital relationships
which would not be considered standard nor acceptable according to the defense
of marriage act. Yet all of this is dwarfed by the assertion that somehow this
is the heart of many of our social ills. You have ignored the proliferation of
divorce in this country, a practice far more common among heterosexual unions. What evidence is there that a family unit
such as a single mother is any better than a same-sex couple?
Concerning State rights, especially
the platform outlined on page 10 and 11, I am curious about your statement that
the federal government is excessively involved in the self-governance of the
States. My understanding of our nation’s identity in the post-Civil War era is
that both state and federal governments are part of our self-governance, and
that the purpose of the federal government is to establish national identity
and relationships that further the goals of the Constitution. That aside,
however, I wonder how you can defend the Defense of Marriage act (a federal
proposal that would oblige the States to concur) while denouncing other federal
mandates on the States. Can you clearly
define a consistent limit to federal power for your platform?
On page 14, you have denounced
American accountability to foreign law and courts, including a statement that
those who use illegally-obtained goods in production are not accountable for participation
in an economy which involves crime. By this logic, it seems that isolationism
and the sovereignty of nations becomes paramount. How can we expect international cooperation in the war on terror with
this understanding of foreign relations?
Concerning both environmental and
energy issues, I must say that the party’s platform has completely baffled me.
On page 16, it is proposed that vast swathes of American territory be opened
for energy prospecting, including national preserves and parks. On page 18, you
suggest that national parks and other public lands could perhaps be better
protected as private property, owned and used by ranchers, foresters, and
miners (that is, business which employ those workers). It seems to me that
this, functionally, proposes that we collect natural resources through the sale
of public land to private business, on the proposal that a company that mines
for coal will simultaneously preserve and protect the environment in which it
mines. Can you produce a single example
to substantiate this position, or is it a simple guess?
Regarding the health care crisis in
this country, I admit to being quite liberal in my interpretation of a “right
to life”. I believe health care should be affordable for all citizens, since it
is as vital as food, housing, and employment. It is difficult for me to imagine
how moving from a defined-benefit program (Obamacare) to a defined-contribution
model (the Republican proposal) ensures the availability of health care and its
affordability. The party’s position on page 22 thus evades my comprehension.
Let me be clear: we cannot expect people to use health care less until the
availability of health lifestyles in this country increases. Obesity rates are
tied to poverty and other economic factors which correlate with minority
status, as processed and fattening foods are consistently cheaper and exercise
has become a luxury of those who are not over-worked and under-paid. In a
nation where the growth of the over-60 population increases annually, it stands
to reason that the health care industry will consume more resources, as more
people come into health care programs such as Medicare. And yet it remains true
that millions of Americans are dependent upon others for health care (such as
myself), or cannot afford insurance of any kind (such as many of my fellow
students and young adults). How does the
Republican proposal lift the burden of such costs off of the poor who suffer
most from lack of health care, yet also have the least ability to afford
insurance?
I applaud the strong stance that
the GOP takes on page 24, in regards to economic malfeasance and fraud by those
who are entrusted with the investments of many of this nation’s citizens. And
yet, in the same paragraph, over-regulation is denounced. I can only assume
that here regulation refers to government action regarding industry giants,
especially banks, that are “too big to fail”. And yet I ask (as I also ask the
Democratic party), what legal and legislative action has been taken to insure
fraudulent business practices do not occur and are prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law? How can we expect
honest business practices when dishonest practices are not prevented and
penalized by government regulations?
Immigration, an issue close to my
own heart, is another complex issue in our society. I agree that further reform
and control of our nation’s borders is an important goal. And yet, on page
25-26, I read a platform which refuses any amnesty for those who have (as the
platform recognizes) fled to this country from desperation. I admit that my
position here comes from my faith. In Exodus 23:9 (NRSV) I read, “You shall not
oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens
in the land of Egypt.” It is difficult, then, for me to accept the idea that we
cannot be more merciful and gracious as a nation to those who have come here in
need. Is this what America means in our intention to be a nation of values and
morals? What worth are our values and
morals if they only serve our interests, and never guide us to become
vulnerable for the sake of the vulnerable?
This brings me to my final point of
contention, the GOP platform on “American Exceptionalism”. First, it is
important to realize this term smacks of the colonial mentality that produced
slavery and the decimation of this land’s native peoples under the
justification of our “manifest destiny”. Worse, the slogan of “peace through
strength” sounds more than a bit Orwellian from my point of view; how far is
this slogan from “war is peace”? The entirety of this viewpoint is based off of
assumptions regarding the United States’ relationship to the world in the
present and the future. If China were to publically state that the twenty-first
century would be the “Chinese century”, what would our national response be?
The idea that this nation is God’s gift to the world hearkens back to my
opening concern: the growing tendency to use idolatrous language in our
national political rhetoric. This is a concern, bear in mind, that is not
limited to party or platform. It both disturbs and offends me as a Christian.
It hearkens to the pride of Babylon and Solomon more than the faith of the
journeying people in the desert. It echoes the rhetoric of tyrants throughout
history more than the humble words of Lincoln, who said that he ventured to his
presidency with a task upon his shoulders greater than that which rested upon
Washington: “Without the assistance of
the Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance
I cannot fail.” As a nation, we cannot
afford to believe that our success is destiny or our precepts divine; we can
only trust in God and attempt to civilly resolve differences for the sake of
the common good. American values of compromise, integrity, and honesty – not American
exceptionalism – are what our political ideologies should be based upon.
It was Lincoln, a Republican, who said that we are
not enemies but friends; we must not be enemies.[1] I am
no enemy to the Republican party, nor to any person who disagrees with me. I
enjoy, more than most, a hearty debate. I recognize that argument and
compromise will never result in the utopia which is to come. Yet, while I here
do not have a city that will last, I hope for a nation that will endeavor to achieve
its impossible dreams. I am neither Democrat nor Republican, neither liberal
nor conservative, neither Tea Party nor Occupy movement. I was not raised in
wealth, nor in abject poverty. And yet all these people are my brothers and
sisters, people with deep beliefs and real needs. It is the role of our
political conversation to become reconciled to each other, so that we may
remember that we are here in this world for the sake of each other, and not for
ourselves. My friends, I write these words in the hope that our coming
conversations as a country will yet yield to the better angels of our nature.
In
the hope of the freedom that comes in service,
Gary
Andrew Bruce Woodruff
Bachelor
of Arts, Religious Studies, Bloomfield College 2007
Master
of Divinity, Lutheran Theological Seminary of Philadelphia, 2011
Candidate
for Ordained Ministry, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Intern
Vicar, Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd, Glen Rock, New Jersey
“It
is always a mistake to mention Lincoln. I am about to quote him again.” – Kurt Vonnegut
“The
cross alone is our theology.” – Martin Luther
[1]
Lincoln’s Farewell to Springfield, Illinois, February 11, 1861. “Better angels
of our nature” and “We are not enemies but friends; we must not be enemies” are
references that are very nearly quotations from Lincoln’s first inaugural
address.
