I’m pleased today, and I’m praying. I’m pleased, both because, in general, things went more or less the way I had hoped they would, or better, than any prior election in many moons. And I’m very pleased that election season is over and I’ll be spared deceptive ads and multiple political phone calls for a good long while.
I’m prayerful for a number of reasons:
Even though many candidates who articulate a vision for America that I can share did well last night, and even though I’m pleased that the Democrats took the House and might even take the Senate, I’m mindful that neither political party is perfect and neither is immune to criticism or the temptation of power. I rejoice that it is no longer the case that the Republicans control everything. I’m thankful for the message sent regarding a need to reassess a quite crucial campaign against Islamic Terrorism and perhaps momentum to change some of the worst abuses of the last two years–particularly regarding our bending of the rules with regard to torture and domestic surveillance and other cherished rights. But I’m not naive enough to think that we’ll move quickly in a direction I think we should: it will take work, it will take compromise, it will take an articulated vision, and it will take discernment.
I’m also thankful for the public servants–the politicians and their staffs–who have accepted this responsibility, regardless of party, and prayerful that a spirit of serving may fill everything that they do while in office. I rejoice that I have the opportunity to participate in elections and that we can thereby determine the course of our government.
Finally, Jan Edmiston has a very good post reminding me of prayer for those who lost yesterday. I want to reprint it here (and I even stole her picture…):
Elections are different here in the Washington, DC suburbs.
Many years ago, our church’s young adult group was having a Game Night, playing “Taboo” at somebody’s house. This game involves one person trying to get his/her team to say a word without using assorted “taboo” words as clues. Someone picked the word “whip.” And the taboo words included selections like “crack,” “bull,” “flog,” and “lash.”
The clue given was: “De Lay.” And, in unison, everybody in the room said, “Whip.” (At that time, DeLay was the majority whip in the House.) There is no other place in the country where someone could use this clue and unanimously get the correct answer without missing a beat.
On Wednesday we will face unique pastoral concerns in our church: Some
Hill Staffers will have lost their jobs (or at least they will end in January.) Other Hill Staffers will have uncertain futures. Some will awaken to a vast array of fresh opportunities and others will awaken to slammed doors. These are all basically good people who long to serve our country and their lives will have changed long after Brian Williams and Wolf Blitzer close shop Tuesday night. These citizens work long hours and make personal sacrifices to serve our nation. There will be reality to process on Wednesday.This is what I’ll be doing November 8th. Pray for peace in the nation today.
May peace be with us all.
I’m also pleased.
I heard several calls during the election, mostly from pundits, for a greater degree of bi-partisanship no matter who won the election. So, I’ve been thinking about this and am not sure that I agree. Partisanship is not just putting on blinders and doing whatever the party says. It is maintaining that a legislator’s individual whims take backseat to a party platform that has been articulated to voters.
So, while I don’t hope for gridlock and inaction from our new congress, I do hope that our newly elected folks will stay true to the partisan promises they made during the election.
Great post-election post!
I can’t speak for others, but when I talk about bi-partisanship, what I actually want is not for people to abandon the platform they articulated to voters. Instead, it is for people to put the good of the country ahead of their personal ambitions. Sometimes, by refusing to work with members of the other party a poltiician is trying to make that other party fail in order to further his own career. This is what *I* complain about when I complain about excessive partisan politics . . . not people keeping their word to constituents.
Thanks for both of your comments, Brett and Will.
I was fairly careful not to use the term bi-partisanship or its cognates. I’m not sure that compromise has to be cross party, though it might. Any ruling government is going to have to find a majority somewhere, and while the outgoing republicans were fairly (and artificially, in many cases) unified under a Rovian agenda, I’m not sure that the incoming class will be nearly as similar-minded. In other words, some compromise and discernment–for the common good–will be required.
I’m also not one who thinks that everything should be compromise. Politics, democracy, sometimes has winners and losers; the beauty of our system is checks-and-balances, on the one hand, and peaceful transition of power through the articulated will of the people (via elections). Some things will and should require a broad support of some in both parties; but neither party should exclusively seek that as a modus operandi. OTOH, using partisan positioning more as a political cudgel than as actively pursuing the common good (which is what I’ve seen too much of lately) is too much.
Okay, that’s rambling. Off to get some coffee….