.jpg)
The response is predictable when the Supreme Court rules that money can be spent more freely with regard to politics--a sense of outrage.
Don't people know how much money corrupts politics and politicians in particular?
Don't we realize that we are allowing the rich to have too much influence relative to the "little guy?"
Now "Big _______ (fill in the blank--business, labor, oil, environmentalism)" can pull the levers of power at will.
Note that I am not nor will I weigh in on the case itself, or the issue of money in politics. I have strong opinions on this matter, but have stronger opinions about you and me.
Why is it that we think money will inherently corrupt politicians? Is it because it contains some hidden power within itself? Is the U.S Mint really akin to Mt. Doom, with the money printed there bound to bend the will to the evil forces behind its making?
I know no one believes that money has magical power. I am exaggerating the point in order to highlight what we really do believe--we are wary of the hearts that give money and the hearts that receive money. We find the hearts of both corruptible, especially in the realm of politics.
Lord Acton once said that "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Behind this great quote still lies the presupposition that hearts are inherently corruptible.
Yet notice the gap between what we virtually all believe and what we say. We realize that behind the things we may loathe in politics--whether in be money in, or pork out, or partisan bickering, or religious affiliations--there is this same fundamental wariness of the human heart.
But when we play the part of activist, we do not go after the human heart. We go after those things that become potential conduits of the heart--corrupted decisions, susceptibility to influence, harsh and bitter words, etc. We attack money and words, which can't fight back. We attack the Koch brothers on the right or George Soros on the left, though we have never met any of them and might find them to be much more civil and charitable than we are.
We attack pieces of paper and men of straw because we are unwilling to accuse the heart. For it we accuse the heart, our fingers will inevitably turn back upon ourselves, forcing us to admit "I have seen the enemy. He is us."
If you are concerned about your congressman, write to him or if you are in the DC area, make an effort to go meet him. Many of them are decent folks. At the very least, you should be praying for him (1 Tim. 2).
But he is also you. Our politicians are our representatives. We empower them with the ability to act on our behalf. If we are wary of the corruption of our politicians, then we should rightly grow wary of the corruption of the human heart--of our own heart--that gives rise to these politicians.
Instead of attacking Big Oil, go plant a tree. Instead of attacking Big Labor, go educate a child.
Before you do any of these things, however, recognize that you share in the same heart disease as everyone else. If you want a renewed Church and/or a renewed culture, then first examine your own heart. Personal renewal comes in the saving work of Christ, who makes you a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), and transforms you more into His image by His Word (2 Tim. 3; Rom. 10) and Spirit (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24).
If you are really concerned about the state of your politician's heart, then stop blaming the money and show the same care and concern for your own heart. The problem will never be that there is too much of this product or that in politics. The problem is that there is too much you in politics.
In my opinion there isn't enough "you" in politics or enough "me" for that matter. We have two political parties: one for religion and one against it. Can you fairly divide the country into these two factions? Probably not. And that's where the issues begin really. We no longer have party's that represent the full swath of American life in any compacity. We are faced with two choices that are equally disturbing.
ReplyDeleteAnd money has never helped the situation to this point in history. Money is a figment of the human psyche. There are no natural laws to govern the numbers on paper and screen. We give the numbers immense power to become our new god of America. And this corrupts all who worship the numbers (all the politicians we see today). Now I don't mean every politician is a terrible human. Its just that once their individuality is taken away from them by their party in DC they just become part of the pretty hate machine. They perform dog and pony tricks on TV and toe the party lines carefully, hoping they get the funds and support for re-election. That is the focus of politics today, there is no argument against that fact. The focus has now switched to the money and power one can gain from being a politician instead of having true concern for Americans. There are decades of evidence showing this to bethe case, maybe more so today than ever before.
That being said is where I start to have issues with the multiple supreme court rulings. Instead of encouraging politicians to be more honest and to care or understand about the majority of America and our struggles today we have encouraged a system where money is the only factor in politics. It no longer is an issue of what is best for America anymore but an issue of which company gave me so much money that I have to pretect them first. And anyone should quickly be able to see through the rouse of this all.
Should anyone with money be hated? Absolutely not. I don't know if the Koch brothers should be so vilified for the fact that they are giving immense amount of money to insane causes, that's his right to do so. But should we trust anyone who places such high moral value on a social diseas like money?
Thank you for the input, G. I would argue that our two party system actually provide a check against the corrosive influence of money on already corruptible hearts. With two parties, it is not enough to represent a handful of special interests. You must win over the majority of the country or your constituents in order to get elected. If we had, say, four parties, a candidate could potentially win election by only appealing to the South and winning 30% of the overall vote. Instead, both Reps and Dems must to some extent appeal to both unions and corporations, environmentalists and oil companies, in order to secure victory. The special interests must compete against one another and their influence is limited as a result. If a party caves too much to a particular special interest, the competing interest that they must cater to will make them pay. And to make the point again, there are lots of high character politicians on Capitol Hill on both sides of the aisle. I may disagree with many of them, but there are a lot of politicians who are principled, regardless.
ReplyDelete