I delivered the following remarks at Morning Prayers at Harvard this morning. The scripture passage I refer to below is Matthew 25: 31-46.
As a kid growing up in a working-class, Catholic home, I took Jesus pretty seriously—not always in the way my priests and parents would have liked, but as a pretty good role model for how we might conduct ourselves in this world. Feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the naked, heal the sick and the suffering—these are not random items on some Biblical “to do” list; they are radical directives for living an intentional, moral, and just life.
We often hear people ask the question, “What would Jesus do?” For me, the answer is too often the same: not this. We all know that we live in a world full of violence and prejudice and suffering of all kinds—stains on our humanity that have been enabled by political indifference, personal ignorance, and structural inequalities in which all of us are implicated. Here in the United States and across the globe, we have far too many people who are hungry, homeless, naked, sick and suffering. As today’s scripture illustrates, Jesus was very clear about these things—after all, he spent so much of his time talking about poverty and peace, about “loving thy neighbor as thyself,” never about gay marriage or abortion or immigration or affirmative action. It is a sorry statement about our modern world that so many of us—including Christians and other people of faith—fail to embrace the better angels of our nature. As Gandhi once lamented, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
Mitt Romney has never been a champion of the Little Guy—that much we know—but in the first Presidential debate last week the former Massachusetts governor showed his true colors: he declared war on Big Bird.
This may seem like a trivial point, but bear with me.
“Conventional wisdom” is produced almost immediately these days through social media. So if Twitter and Facebook are any indication, it’s pretty clear that President Obama “lost” last Tuesday’s debate. I’ll admit, he did seem flat, distracted, frustrated at times, and unwilling, as ever, to be “aggressive” and go on the “attack” (that most pundits and the majority of Americans don’t get why is a source of never-ending frustration to anyone who understands the history of race and racism in America). Keeping in mind the fact that Obama had everything to lose and Romney had everything to gain in this week’s debate—and putting aside pesky little things like truth, substance and consistency—I do agree that the Governor had a better night than the President. After all, optics are everything in our new political culture.
On September 20, 2012, the nation marked the first anniversary of the repeal of the discriminatory “don't ask, don’t tell” policy, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, prohibiting gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving openly in the US military.
The anniversary was accompanied by the publication of a scholarly report from the Palm Center, “One Year Out: An Assessment of DADT Repeal’s Impact on Military Readiness.” The study concluded that the repeal of DADT has had no negative impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, recruitment and retention of troops, and overall morale. It also found that there has been no increase in assaults or harassment of LGB service members.
While this is all good news, my reaction to this is simple: “don’t ask, don’t tell” was much ado about nothing. Queer folks everywhere can say, “We told you so.”
Americans have a peculiar relationship to war. It structures and shapes much of our history: the nation was forged in war (American Revolution), divided by war (Civil War), emboldened by war (World War II) and radicalized by war (Vietnam). Too often, we tend to speak of war in positive, patriotic and Manichean terms: wars for “freedom” and “liberation”; wars to “extend American democracy” and “protect our American way of life”; “good” wars versus “evil” enemies. One consequence of this is that we tend to romanticize war, especially in hindsight, as an unambiguous catalyst for “progress”: the birth of the nation, the end of slavery, the empowerment of certain marginalized peoples, the defeat of fascism, communism or terrorism. All of this involves glossing over the hellish aspects of war (the immense violence, the death toll and civilian casualties, the suffering of loved ones, the physical and psychological trauma, the devastation of land and people) and forgetting that our history is chock full of invisible wars, illegal wars and wars we choose to ignore. The most recent example of this—the war in Afghanistan—is now the longest war in American history, a modern “quagmire” if ever there was one, and yet most of us go about our daily lives as if it doesn’t even exist. Of course, this was similarly true of Iraq. Sadly, our national ADD—to say nothing of what the late historian Howard Zinn called “our addiction to massive violence”—has produced a perilous state of denial over our collective PTSD. But let us not fool ourselves: war is still hell, whether we choose to fight or forget.
I’ve spent a lot of time in recent weeks thinking about war—the history of war, the realities and consequences of war, the future of war.
Two weeks ago, on the morning of the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, I got together with several of my current and former students on the steps of Memorial Church at Harvard. We were a diverse group—men and women, gay and straight, multiracial and multi-faith—precisely the kind of gathering of good souls that makes me feel blessed to be alive, even in this precarious moment in history. Over the course of an hour or so, we prayed, offered readings, shared reflections and sat in silence. It was the first time I had marked the occasion in any formal or collective way. Usually, I keep to myself on 9/11, quietly reflecting on the scope of this tragedy, not only the 3,000 innocent lives that were lost to violent lunacy but also the countless lives—American, Iraqi, Afghan and the like—that have been lost in a subsequent fog of war that has only produced more violence, misunderstanding and terror. I have long argued that 9/11 destroyed America by unleashing some of the worst angels of our nation. This is never more evident than in the toxic mix of patriotic vengeance and pathetic indifference that has accompanied the wars waged in our name since that terrible day more than a decade ago.
Sometime over the summer, I made a promise to myself: stop fighting with my progressive friends about whether they should vote for President Obama on November 6. Frankly, I had grown weary of the strident, even silly arguments some of my friends were making, mostly that “there’s no difference” between Obama and the Democrats and Romney and the Republicans, that this election amounts to nothing more than a choice between the “lesser of two evils.” That may have been true at certain points in our recent political history. Not so in 2012.
The Left has made these arguments before. Every election cycle, it seems, we seize the occasion to wail and gnash our teeth in public, to lament the fact that Democrats have failed us in any one of a number of ways. It’s as much a national ritual as our four-year election cycle. Of course, now as in the past, there is ample justification for such disappointment and dissent. Historically, America’s two-party political system has more often than not constrained our political choices, to say nothing of our progressive aspirations. In the twenty years since I cast my first Presidential ballot (for Bill Clinton), I have often made these arguments—especially in 1996 and 2000, when my disaffection from the Democratic Party led me to vote enthusiastically, and unapologetically, for Ralph Nader, and in 2004, when my disgust over Democratic cowardice in the wake of two manufactured wars reached a fever pitch (I ended up voting for John Kerry nonetheless). In my adult lifetime, it has been a rare thing for me to vote for a national Democratic candidate without holding my nose. In an ideal world, we would have more than two viable political parties, and a much broader range of options, to choose from. But alas, we live in the real world even as so many of us struggle to change it.
My intention here is not to lambast the Left. There is more than enough of that going around these days—from the war on workers and women to the scapegoating of immigrants and the poor, from the caricature of public school teachers and college professors to the crackdown on Occupy and other forms of radical dissent. Given this wholesale conservative assault, I am as proud as I’ve ever been to stand firmly on the left. But given the enormously high stakes of this year’s election—and the GOP’s increasingly zealous crusade to dismantle everything that is decent and just about this country—I need to break my summertime promise and make a strong case to my progressive brothers and sisters that it is in our collective interest to get out to vote and give President Obama a second term and a Congress he can work with in November. If we don’t deliver, Mitt Romney and his mendacious band of right-wing plutocrats will deliver us back to the Stone Ages.


