The Election’s Over: Let’s All Work Together?

I was never going to be happy with the results of yesterday’s election.

The leadership of both major American political parties is deeply compromised by corporatist interests who are served by an inflationary monetary policy managed by people who largely used to work for those interests and/or will do so again. Both major candidates are representatives of this entrenched political class. So there was no way I was going to be happy with who won. There are many problems with this political class and what it pursues (many of which are enabled by the aforesaid monetary policy), no matter which party banner it happens to wave, and I have a lot of criticisms for it, so no one who is a champion of this class is likely to garner support from me.

As such, I was prepared this morning to see elation by the people whose candidate won the election and not really to feel good about it, even if one candidate was slightly closer to me in terms of his rhetoric. But I didn’t really think too much about what else I might see, which turned out to be some folks’ attempt to be gracious and conciliatory following a bitterly fought campaign. (And I do hope that at least some folks out there will note the irony of a corporatist-backed candidate fighting bitterly against a corporatist-backed candidate. Will Pepsi win? Coke? O! the excitement!)

This graciousness has essentially boiled down to one major sentiment: Let’s put all this behind us now and work together.

I’ve seen a lot of rather nicely warm posts online about America “coming together” to stand “shoulder to shoulder,” etc., to “work on our problems.” The sentiment behind such comments is of course laudable. We should indeed be united. We should indeed work together. But such sentiments imply that there are common goals.

Some goals at least seem to be common, to be sure—jobs, peace, etc., but they are so nebulous in their terms and the means to achieve them required by different political philosophies so divergent that one has to wonder whether such goals really can be worked on together. If, for instance, you believe that it is wrong to increase employment by making more people into employees of the state or your neighbor thinks it’s wrong to increase employment by giving rich employers their tax money back, neither of you are “against job-creation.” You’re both for job-creation, but your principles require different means to achieve that goal. One or both of you may of course be wrong about whether those means actually work.

But there are goals that some of our politicians have that I absolutely refuse to work with anyone toward putting into effect.

I will not work with anyone to pay for, encourage, or permit abortion on demand. Likewise, I abhor faceless drone warfare and extra-judicial assassinations, undeclared wars, interventionist foreign policy, the surveillance state, the notion that all property belongs to the state and may be confiscated at any time for any reason, the increasing centralization of political and economic power, the sanctioning and subsidy of every base human impulse (and I don’t just mean sexual ones), the drive to shove religious liberty and even discussion out of every facet of public life, and several other things besides. Most of these convictions are based directly on moral principle determined by my core beliefs, while others are derived from those principles.

To “work with” anyone to accomplish these goals is a violation of my beliefs. I am also saddened by the reality that most of these things, either by explicit commitment, by omission or by the weakness of political will, are indeed the goals of both of the major American political parties.

Thus, when I read these calls for us to “set aside our differences” and “work together,” while I fully understand and appreciate the sentiment behind them, it’s hard to read them as saying anything much different than “Stop believing in your principles and work with me on mine instead.”

No, I don’t think so.

I’m not a “culture warrior,” at least not in the sense that I think that the force of law should be used to make people behave as I would prefer them to. If they become a public menace, yes, of course the law should restrain them. But I cannot make them moral by passing laws against immorality. That said, I do think that there is a war going on, and it’s a war that requires that people stick to their principles, even (and especially) in the face of calls to “work together.”

There is a very deep problem with our modern political culture, and it’s one that I think that not only Christians—who believe in the inherent and infinite worth of the human person as created according to God’s image—but also non-Christians who also believe in that same worth on other bases need to take note of. For every problem, there seems to be a system that needs to be invented, a new machine that will solve everything. Why can’t everyone just shut up and submit to the machine? Don’t they realize that this machine will finally be the machine we have all hoped for? Don’t they realize that we should all work together to make the new machine a reality?

The temptation is not only to utopianism, which is the eschatology of secularism, but it is something even more insidious—a direct attack on the integrity and sanctity of the human person. That is what stands behind the drive by our whole political class always to begin some new programme, some new initiative, some new regulation, some new standard, some new thing to which we must all submit so that we will have happiness, peace and prosperity, whether we like it or not.

This affliction, you see, is much deeper than DECISION 2012™, etc. It goes down to the root of our desire to dominate all life, all matter—whether animal, mineral, vegetable or especially human. Once we decided that all the world must finally be malleable to our will, then we decided something very dangerous.

This has become something of a rambling rant, I know, and you can probably tell that thinking overmuch about our political state is not something that brings out much hope in me. But I will try to leave you, gentle reader, with some hope, nevertheless. You have, after all, deigned to read this far.

I know a number of Orthodox Christian clergy who are quite vocal about their politics, even in terms of parties and candidates, though I don’t know any who use their position as clergy to make any official endorsements. I can’t be one of those, at least not in that way, if only because I see little that is redeemable in our current political culture.

But I am indeed interested in politics, and I have strong political opinions. I propose a politics, however, that is far more subversive than any SuperPAC ever can be, one that will not please any party and probably very few candidates. And what is that more subversive politics? It requires taking some of our central political ideas and reinterpreting them.

It is part of the American political mythos that any single person can change the world. There is a sense in which I believe that, though I don’t believe it in terms of the “any kid can grow up to be president” piece of it. (Statistically, almost no one will grow up to be president.) Rather, I believe that the infection which afflicts our political culture requires not merely some policy nor even a philosophy. Neither is what is needed merely a new marketing strategy to reach the electorate. What is needed is a new electorate. As long as the electorate continues to prefer the Machine, they will continue to get the inhuman and dehumanizing effects of the Machine.

The only way to a new electorate is the change of the human person, a genuine spiritual reorientation and movement toward a different set of goals than comfort, predictability and domination over the whole earth.

How do I intend to change the world? Primarily, I must change myself. But I also hope to influence you to change, too. What can we work together toward? We can pursue humility. That is a goal I think we all really can embrace together.

But this call to set things aside and work together comes with a price and therefore a warning: If we really seek humility, learn it and practice it, then we will find that our desires for comfort, predictability and domination will be stripped away. But we should also take joy in that, because in casting those things aside, we will find freedom and become people who don’t just “care about” particular classes or categories of people, but actually self-sacrificially love the person next to us. Such people need few (if any) programmes or policies.

Never give in on principle, not even to “work together.” But here is something we should all be able to agree on—humility, the most neglected virtue of the modern age. Let’s all try it and see what happens, shall we? Hardly anyone can grow up to be president. But everyone—without exception—can grow up to be a saint.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matthew 6:33)


  1. Well said FrAndrew…w/a couple of real zingers…(“Statistically, almost no one will grow up to be president.” and “…note the irony of a corporatist-backed candidate fighting bitterly against a corporatist-backed candidate. Will Pepsi win? Coke? O! the excitement!”)

    But then, as some friends have of a sort said to me “you have completely missed the fundamental and radical differences between Pepsi and Coke!” 🙂

  2. In the words of the great Admiral Adama: So say we all! Thanks for this wonderful perspective this morning, Fr.

    1. Galactica Blood and Chrome started airing online. Who knew they were other Orthodox Galactica geeks?!

  3. Amen. This has been such a painful election in many ways, and your perspective and thoughtful insights are very refreshing. Thanks, I needed that!

  4. true dat! Right on point. Well try to create Eden in any way we can, we’re so wounded from the fall. Here’s a line from a poem I wrote recently called Paradox,
    “…Give me the words to tell the world that no legislation nor occupation can appease the insatiable hunger that Eden’s exodus has left in our souls”
    Just wrote about this same topic too on my website
    Great write up, you hit it on the head.

  5. Bang On Father!!! A timely and prescient message. We need to stop pursuing a “salvation” through politicians and live as CHRISTIANS. The circumstances now at work may force us too.

  6. Father Andrew: Thanks so much for a balanced and sensible outlook on the 2012 election. It seems we’ve come to the point that whatever party wins the election, the new boss is the same as the old boss.

    I read articles written by Christians basically saying that the results of this election are the beginning of the end for America. That it’s God’s judgment upon our nation, etc., etc. As if the Republican Party is Jesus’ Party and the Democrat Party is Satan’s Party. Rightly have you expressed that when boiled down, both parties are pretty much the same. It’s as if the political parties have become homogenised although they would like to convince the general populace otherwise. I think the results of the election are telling. The lack of voter turnout and those who voted for a third party candidate indicate that some folks weren’t willing to be fooled again.

  7. As someone whose votes in the last two elections amount to protests against incumbents and the political class, good to hear I am not alone in my frustrations and share the thought that there may be an opening for something completely different – a renewal of the definition of what it is to be human, a citizen of this world as well as the next. The descent of politics and this world into the mire makes an alternative more attractive, but not for politics. Fact is that the only thing worse than today’s circumstances would be to crown them with some sort of self-proclaimed “renewal” or “spiritual purity”. That would simply add quadruple insult to double injury. Renewal has to transcend politics entirely.. by which I suppose this means stand outside politics – else it gets trapped in the vortex. This is where the political Evangelicals and even (especially?) the Catholic bishops – as well meaning as they are – often seem smarmy in their unwillingness to surrender power and prestige to spark real renewal. No, I think you have to get your hands dirty following the inverted pyramid… and surrender all the trappings and pretense.

    Sadly, the drone policy… simply attests that perhaps the Imams are more right than we care to admit and we really are a culture of death that sees enemies everywhere and in everyone – even our neighbor. I’d contend most Imams understood us better when we at least professed to being more overtly christian and paid some attention to – or at least squirmed before violation of the commandments. Today we have neither shame nor virtue.

Comments are closed.