The results of the 2002 election are in and I will comment on the significance of these results in a future program.  An important article by Matthew Crenson and Benjamin Ginsberg develops the theme of the voter as consumer.  It has rather profound implications as to where our nation is going as a democratic-republic.  How should we think about this?

• First, a summary of their article.  Crenson and Ginsberg argue that “we are watching the slow-motion collapse of American citizenship.”  Candidates for political office see American citizens, “not as a coherent public with a collective identity but as a swarm of disconnected individuals out to satisfy our personal needs in the political marketplace.”  Increasingly, public officials regard us as “customers” rather than as citizens.  Citizens own the government.  Customers just receive services from it.  Citizens belong to a political community with a collective existence and public purposes.  Customers are individual purchasers seeking the best deal.  “Customers may receive courteous service, but they do not own the store.” 

1. Our customer-friendly government makes it possible for private citizens to play politics on their own, without hitching their interests to those of like-minded citizens.  The new political order is a “personal” rather than a popular democracy.   For ordinary citizens, the most potent political resource is the power of numbers.  When they deal with government one by one, they lose their leverage.
2. The new channels of access to public decision-makers permit political and economic elites - with the aid of lobbyists and lawyers - to get what they want from government without the nuisance of mobilizing a constituency of citizens to support them.  They exploit bureaucratic procedures to remove the making of policy from the sight of the public.  In the process, millions of citizens who might once have been called to the aid of their parties remain passive bystanders.
3. Washington is full of “citizen” groups whose membership is nothing more than a mailing list.  The “advocacy explosion” of the past 30 years has doubled or tripled the number of organizations with Washington offices.  However, the percentage of Americans belonging to such organizations has not increased, because today’s citizen groups rarely mobilize citizens.  They litigate, they testify, they network but rarely do they mobilize citizens.
4. The truth is that neither major political party makes much effort to mobilize the millions of Americans of modest means and education who stand outside the electorate.  Neither major party supports electoral reforms such as reforming voter registration requirements or a shift to weekend voting, which European voting suggests increases turnout.
5. Finally, think about the way we educate children for democracy.  In the 1950s and 1960s, civic education was about electing leaders of the student body and debating public issues.  Mock elections were held and organized around the processes by which citizens asserted their ownership of government.  Today, civic education is about community service.  The goal of service learning is to get students involved in their communities, an admirable goal.  But this development has not led to greater voter participation.  More young people are volunteering for community service than ever.  But since 18-year-olds won the right to vote, turnout among voters under 25 has been dropping.  Fewer than one-third voted in the last presidential election. 

• Second, what we are witnessing in America today is the rise of the “selfless volunteer” together with the self-centered consumer.  Politicians treat Americans as consumers, not citizens, and that is dangerous for our democracy.  For them, Americans are consumers, not citizens, buying the best deal for themselves through government.  With the rise of the welfare state in western civilization, we have seen the growth of dependency on government and the result has been that people vote, if they do vote, as consumers, not as virtuous citizens.  This is a frightening trend for our democracy.  Public virtue is being replaced by the consumer mentality of getting more from government.

• Finally, Mart De Haan has written a small pamphlet which contrasts the “political voice” versus the “prophetic voice.”  Allow me to summarize his contrast:

1. A political voice often mobilizes support by concealing its own faults while calling attention to the weaknesses and limitations of the opposition.  A prophetic voice is first brought to its knees by its own wrongs and failures (e.g., Isaiah and Nehemiah).
2. A political voice tends to speak for the special-interest groups it represents.  A prophetic voice represents the best interests of all.
3. A political voice calls for external regulation and legislation that often focuses on curbing the freedom of its opponents.  A prophetic voice calls on all to submit themselves to God for a personal change of heart.
4. A political voice often represents the special interests of supporters who expect material benefits or social influence in exchange for donations.  A prophetic voice represents the interest of God in a manner that seeks justice and mercy for all.
5. A political voice needs to compromise to get things done.  A faithful prophetic voice does not waver from timeless values with accountability to God alone.
6. A political voice works for change through opinion polls, ballots and government appointments.  A prophetic voice calls for change through loving confrontation and persuasion.
7. A political voice rises and falls on the changing tides of public opinion.  A prophetic voice rests on the ultimate and eternal authority of God.
8. A political voice seeks changes in social behavior by applying the external pressures of law-making and enforcement.  A prophetic voice calls for change in individual hearts as the means for transforming culture.

May we seek to be prophetic voices representing God’s view of things as we also seek to engage the political process.

See Crenson and Ginsberg’s article in The Washington Post (3 November 2002) and De Haan’s publication “The Political Challenge” as published by Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Back to top

THE DEFAMATION OF W. DAVID HAGER’S CHARACTER

President Bush recently suggested Dr. W. David Hager for membership on the Food and Drug Administration’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.  (He has not actually officially appointed him yet.)  Incidentally, this committee has not met for two years and currently has no members.  But those on the left-wing have made Hager’s potential appointment a major political issue and have begun to defame his character.  How should we think about this?

• First, Dr. Hager’s appointment makes perfect sense.  He is highly credentialed.  He received the “Outstanding Physician in America Award” from Modern Healthcare Magazine in 1994.  This year Ladies Home Journal named him one of the “Best Doctors for Women” in the Southeast.  He has edited two medical textbooks and published over 41 articles in prestigious medical journals and has served on the faculty of Emory University’s and Kentucky University’s Schools of Medicine.  In addition, he has served as clinical research investigator for the Centers for Disease Control and served as assistant surgeon of the US Public Health Service.

• Second, Hager is a committed Christian.  He has written several books detailing the “restorative power of Jesus in one’s life.”  He has raised serious questions about the safety of RU-486 and has consistently advocated a pro-life position.

• Third, the left-wing has castigated him, even before his official appointment.  The National Organization for Women has written, “A person who . . . chooses not to separate evangelical religious beliefs from his medical and scientific judgment” should not sit on this committee.  Representative Carlyn Maloney of New York has stated that “this administration seems to have expanded its faith-based initiative to faith-based medicine.”

Obviously, despite his significant credentials, the left is engaging in anti-Christian bigotry.  It is patently absurd and intellectually dishonest to argue that Hager is not qualified for this advisory panel.  It is equally absurd to demand that because he is a Christian he is not qualified.  If this is the test for public service, then few would meet that test.  The left is once again demonstrating its commitment to ideology over truth.

See World (2 November 2002), p. 7, and “Breakpoint” (1 November 2002).

Back to top

THE SUDAN PEACE ACT

In October, the Congress passed and the President signed the Sudan Peace Act.  The law condemns the Khartoum regime’s “overall rights record” and blames it for “abetting and tolerating” the slave trade and manipulating humanitarian aid.  It sets a six-month deadline for Khartoum to negotiate in good faith with the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), the single largest rebel faction.  It also demands that the executive branch report to Congress every six months on whether the government is “engaged in good faith negotiations.” 
 
If that fails, the President can broaden economic sanctions against Sudan and petition the UN Security Council to embargo oil and arms sales with Sudan.  The President is also authorized to spend $100 million in humanitarian aid to areas not under government control, specifically where Khartoum has prohibited UN relief flights and where the greatest abuses are located.  Finally, the State Department is empowered to investigate war crimes committed against Sudanese Christians. 

This is a law long overdue. It finally answers the cry of Christians from southern Sudan, who have been persecuted, killed and enslaved by the Muslim north.  It is a victory for the Christian worldview, because salt and light Christians fought for this law and got it passed.  It is a remarkable achievement, one I believe that was energized by God’s Spirit.  Please take a moment and thank Him for this new legislation.

See World (26 October 2002), p. 18 and “Breakpoint” (23 October 2002).

Back to top