Contentious Politics and Extremes

[Dr. Shane]

Politics has always been contentious as far back as we have record of it.  However, like many things it runs in cycles.  There are times that political groups get along better with each other and times when they are far more bitter.  In recent American history, it seems that President Eisenhower brought in a time of reconciliation in US politics.  Of course, the 1960 election was contentious, many believed the Democrats in Chicago stole the election for JFK.  Watergate forced Nixon to resign.  Gingrich made is name by ousting Jim Wright long before the impeachment of Clinton.  But even during those times, elected politicians worked with each other in so-called backroom deals to pass legislation.  In the cycle of things, Eisenhower brought in a workable environment that would last fifty years.

For the sake of being transparent, let me share my bias.  Today I mostly avoid discussing politics in public because of my work in ministry.  Being political hurts our spiritual influence for Christ.  I won't post links to this thread on other sites or publicize it.  I was active in the Republican party in high school.  I started college as a political science major and joined the College Republicans.  I became independent in 1992.  I worked with the Ross Perot campaign that year.  I again supported Ross Perot in 1996.  In 2000 I supported George W. Bush because I felt he was a moderate.  Now, today, looking back, it seems I was right about that.  I also supported W in 2004.  I voted for Obama in 2008.  I voted Romney in 2012.  I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016.  I voted for Biden in 2020.  I tend to be more of a political criticizer than supporter.  So, the reader can see my history is varied.

It is undebatable that US politics are at their post-WW2 height of bitterness.  The American Civil Ware era was worse but for those of us alive today, this is as bad as we have seen it.  I believe the turn to bitterness happened due to the Democrats unwillingness to accept the results of the 2000 election.  George W. Bush was elected by the electoral college and lost the popular vote.  Democrats screamed foul and have still not accepted the results.  This came to light in a recent Netflix series "The Diplomat" (Just released last month April 2023).  One of the characters mentioned that he had worked on Gore's campaign and lost because the Supreme Court selected W.  Their cry was "selected not elected". 

The Bush v. Gore ruling remains controversial but what it did was stop a recount in Florida.  The citizens in Florida voted.  The ballots were counted on election night and recounted in a statewide recount.  Bush won on election night and he was still the winner after the statewide recount.  A second recount was ordered by the Florida Supreme Court in select counties with heavy Democrat majorities.  It was the second recount the Supreme Court stopped.  Their reasoning was the equal protection under the law clause in the 14th Amendment.  The Florida legislature had not passed rules to dictate exactly how a recount was to be done.  Therefore each county made its own rules.  Thus the votes in one county were not given equal protection as the votes in other countries.  Media outlets USA Today and Miami Herold later did their own recount, which cost over $500,000.  They concluded that had the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court been completed, Bush would have still won and increased his margin from 537 votes to 1,665 votes.  All the information we have tells us that Bush won Florida and thus won the presidency.  Yet we are still here, over twenty years later, with Democrats unwilling to accept that reality.

President Bush went on to do what no other President has ever done.  He is the only President, to have won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote, to go on to get re-elected.  However, when he did leave office, President Obama came in to get revenge for the 2000 election.  The nation was in a recession and in desperate need of help.  Obama got a stimulus package passed but no money went to build projects in congressional districts that had not voted for him.  President Obama publicly humiliated Senator John McCain by telling him that he won, McCain lost, elections have results and he (Obama) was in charge.  (Now, remember, I voted for Obama).  His confrontational attitude was exactly what extreme groups like the TEA Party needed to boost their recruiting.  Two years into his presidency, he lost control of Congress and radicals like Texas senator Ted Cruz were elected.  At the end of his presidency, Americans elected Donald Trump.  Trump sought revenge for Obama's revenge.  Trump was far more adversarial.  Obama burned bridges.  Trump burned entire cities.  The train flew off the tracks. Then a pandemic happened and public health became determined by partisan politics.

I feel we live in a time that is politically simular to the times of Jesus and the Apostles.  All the Roman politicians were bad.  They were not divided by political parties as modern day.  They were all part of the rich elite seeking more wealth, power and glory.    Christians, in contrast, sought to serve others and to meet the most basic demands of life such as food, clothing, shelter and clean water.  I doubt the apostles were concerned about which Roman group should have the most wealth, power or glory.  The one thing early Christians were concerned about in respect to the Roman government was religious liberty.  So that is where I am at.  I am more concerned with helping others than what is going on in the political world - although I continue to follow current events.  The political issue that most interests me is religious liberty.  I suspect that was the same for the Apostles.