A Letter to Mr. Bush

Dear Mr. Bush,

I recently saw you at the Coretta Scott King Funeral with all those Democrats and I do have to say it was one heck of a sight. Many people have written about the dynamics of that day, but I wanted to write and tell you about something I witnessed. I saw a man who is the embodiment of what is both good and flawed in this country. To me, you are a white male of privileged descent, claiming to be compassionate but influenced by the hundreds of years of puritan history that precedes you. On stage there were times where you looked as if you wanted to laugh in joy at the stories of love and triumph, but also cry for those who had been so challenged by struggle. What I fear is there’s something in you, like so many other of our white American political leaders, that has been conditioned to believe that vulnerability is weakness and true compassion is somehow a handout.

As a seminary student who questions traditional definitions of religion and the divine, it has been interesting to study the founding of America from a religious viewpoint. Understanding how this country was founded and why, and then looking at you up on that stage with all those African Americans, I could not help but note the irony. In fact in one of my textbooks in a chapter titled, “Religious Consequences of the Revolution,” it talks about the same the heritage of the leadership of this country that I believe in some ways has been passed down to you. The informative words of the textbook read as follows:

While there were no religious tests for citizenship, most states restricted officeholding in some way. Five states reserved offices for Protestants. Delaware required a belief in the trinity, and Maryland restricted religious freedom to Christians. When Pennsylvania attempted in 1776 to broaden the loyalty oath for office in ways that might allow deists and Jews to serve, the Protestant clergy objected and persuaded the Constitutional Convention to adopt more restrictive language.

It goes on to say,

The theory was that only knowledge of a future heaven and hell would bring honesty. Under the same theory, some states refused to allow atheists to testify in court. Jews could not hold office in Virginia until 1857 and in Maryland until 1867, and North Carolina restricted office holding to Protestants until 1868.

So you see Mr. Bush, although you have appointed many people of different backgrounds to your administration, I view your approach to governing as coming from this lineage of punishment and reward with the father as the all powerful enforcer of self-proclaimed righteousness.

The point I am making is, the history of America confirms that the struggles of race and religion are deep-seeded. The leap I am making, in case you do not see it, is that as the white male protestant President of a country founded on religion, you come from a long line of issues that continue to need moral evolution.

In fact it is not just you. I believe we have come to a time where the world is at a crossroads influenced by three major forces. None of them are black and white and each of them has fuzzy edges. Unlike the fight of good vs. evil, characterized by the cold war and your own administration’s rhetoric, I think there is a continuum. On one side of the line are totally secular forces with fundamentalists for their position. At the other end of the continuum are religious fundamentalist. We all know that those on that extreme also have equally strong views as to the "rightness" of their position. In the middle, somewhere between the fuzzy lines, are those who believe in something; some who believe in the mystery of it all or "spirit," who lean one way perhaps and those who believe in God, Jesus, Mohammad or others that lean the other way. (These are simplistic examples for purposes of illustration for there are obviously any number of combinations.)

We are at a crossroads with these influences on the world. Picture three paths, one path is polarization and conflict, the middle path is incrementalism and politics as usual and the third path (for the purposes of this discussion) we can call a "new bottom line," (a phrase I borrow from Rabbi Michael Lerner). To me the new bottom line is focused on creating connections, focusing legal, social and political actions on enhancing community across traditional boundaries and, especially for religious people, thinking of your actions towards others, (ALL others), to be part of one’s spiritual practice. It also is based on emphasizing change that strategically approaches the structure of issues rather than the symptoms. Our current model is set up to deal with symptoms not structure. Trying to change structure is something that runs head on into money, lobbyist and political constituencies.

It is true Mr. Bush, that on the other side of “the aisle” you have not had much of a challenge or in fact, any real coalition of ideas to debate. I feel that this is a bit of a failing by my progressive friends. Our real challenge in helping to set a new course or agenda for this country is the well meaning but inadequate proliferation of progressive groups in opposition to your conservative issues. Frequently issue-based or overlapping, I have now actually lost count of how many progressive organizations have great and similar ideas to do basically the same things. Democracy for America, True Majority, MoveOn, and the Network of Spiritual Progressives are all organizations basically saying the same thing while having similar goals in mind. Perhaps it is time to fold all of these organizations into one movement, or perhaps one political party, the Progressive Party of America. At least then we could coordinate the message and the movement, something that until recently you Republicans have accomplished so effectively.

If progressives can’t pull it together for that idea, perhaps what we can create is a Pedagogy of Transformation (again not an original term). After years of fundraising in nonprofits and working in politics, I (and many others) have come to the conclusion that convincing people to change/increase their commitment to something based on intellectual discussion or arguments does not create long-term systemic change. You can not tell people things in presentations and hope that they see the light. I think long term change comes when change happens within. Although we all want to believe that a presentation, marketing or advertising will work on its own for the topics and issues we are dealing with, I believe people must want to do things based on their own perceptions, (what it means to them) and a change of heart, spirit and/or soul.

I hope my progressive friends consider the formula written below. It is a variation of something that I have used in fundraising when trying to understand a person’s decision to donate to or get more deeply involved with a cause they care about. Perhaps this formula is a beginning of a Pedagogy of Transformation:

- Properly presented awareness of progressive issues leads to opportunities
- Opportunities lead to engagement
- Engagement leads to relationships
- Relationships lead to involvement
- Involvement leads to understanding
- Understanding leads to increased commitment
- Increased commitment leads to increased participation
- Increased participation leads to deeper commitment
- Deeper commitment leads to longer term actions
- Longer term actions lead to true change

So Mr. Bush, and this is an important point, although you may not like it, I would like to suggest that we on the progressive end of the spectrum unite for this common purpose.

Personally, what I am trying to do by attending seminary is to learn a new language and a new paradigm in preparation for engaging others, not those who think like me or the progressives I know, but those who think like you and the conservatives you know. I truly believe this type of engagement is where the hope is; those who think differently must cooperatively engage in community, cross traditional boundaries and over time facilitate change. This is what a true progressive effort might look like. We must at least take the middle third of this country, unite for common purpose and if nothing else, change the structure of the corporate based political system.

So, as you reach the final years of your presidency, I beg you, please take the truly courageous step of evolving your heritage and party toward true compassion. Take that difficult step and cross your political line in the sand. The world needs reconciliation not puritanical posturing. The country needs ideological healing not the politics of polarization. If we are going to survive the challenges of history, brave leaders need to take steps in new directions. And, I also want to ask my friends in the progressive movement who may be reading a copy of this letter a question; can we give up our own issues to come together and work as a coordinated movement? (Or at least sacrifice some of our individual efforts to work together.) I ask this because should Mr. Bush decide that it is too late to change, we must seize the higher ground and continue to work for true community filled with cross-cultural compassion that builds hope for all our futures.

Most sincerely,

David