On the trashing of Jim Wallis
Students of Richard Hofstadter will recognize what he meant by the paranoid style: a "sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy." Wallis is, unfortunately, not the only one who has recently been subjected to this style of polemic in the main posts. "Style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed," wrote Hofstadter, "than with the truth or falsity of their content." Small-minded posters who are hyper-sensitive about "ad hominen" rejoinders can apparently dish it out but not take it, another sure sign of the style. One should think that those living in big tents would be able to accommodate diverse and even conflicting views. Fuzzy thinking, contentiousness, and grandstanding are, of course, well-known impediments to living with diversity.
I have known Jim Wallis for more than thirty years. I respect him especially for his protests against unjust and immoral wars (often including civil disobedience), his longstanding concern about the environment, and his persistent outcry against the poverty that kills. While I do not entirely share his views on abortion, I believe they too are worthy of respect. His stance on abortion is not so different from that of Nat Hentoff. Mine is closer to that of Yale law Prof. Jack Balkin, that there are two rights to abortion: "The first right to abortion is a woman's right not to be forced by the state to bear children at risk to her life or health. The second right is a woman's right not to be forced by the state to become a mother and thus to take on the responsibilities of parenthood, which, in our society are far more burdensome for women than for men." I think Balkin is correct about the limits of the state. But abortion is also a moral issue, not merely a matter of "rights." Like many others, I believe (mainly on moral grounds) that we should work for a society in which abortion is safe, cheap and rare. To that extent I am with people like Wallis and Henthoff. Be that as it may, my main point is that it should be possible to engage such people in conversation and debate without descending to overheated rhetoric and phantasmagoric polemic.
The Democratic Party will not easily consolidate its recent electoral gains if it continues to be perceived as unfriendly to religious people. That is not only part of Jim Wallis's message. It is also a deficit that few are better positioned to do something about. As a progressive Evangelical, of which there are still precious few, he has enormous potential to help Democrats make inroads into the Republican religious base. The significance of that potential may be lost on some who frequent this site. Fortuntely, it does not seem to be lost on the Democratic leadership, which asked Jim Wallis to give this week's radio address. Excepts are included below.
| < Torture's cancerous spread | Bush v. Dodd: The Race To Not Change Military Tribunal Law > |