Sunday, March 28, 2010

Confronting The Vitriol of The Fringe Right // Theological Aesthetics & The American Culture Wars

Back on January 11th, New Creation riffed off of conservative columnist David Brooks' excellent op/ed piece "The Tea Party Teens" by asking, "Is there a role for the arts to play in mediating the American culture wars?

Today we raise the question/issue again in relation to this Sunday's Op/Ed from Frank Rich entitled "The Rage is Not About Health-Care Reform." More precisely, the point put on the question/issue via Rich's op/ed moves one to ask in what ways a theological engagement with the arts, both in churches (rural and urban) and in the academy, can help assuage the inevitable changes in America's demographics and national identity which Rich views to be at the heart of the white-hot anger of the Tea Party.

As pastors across the country struggle to confront the vitriol spewed by the fringe right, they'll need every tool at their disposal to soothe and appropriately reframe the fear and anger that many members of their congregations now feel. While Theological Aesthetics certainly has a role to play here, exactly what that looks like is an urgent and practical question which could help determine the future of the church in America.

Contemplate these questions and others while reading Rich's column, excerpted below, and linked in full here.

// Excerpt //

The historic Obama-Pelosi health care victory is a big deal, all right, so much so it doesn’t need Joe Biden’s adjective to hype it. But the bill does not erect a huge New Deal-Great Society-style government program. In lieu of a public option, it delivers 32 million newly insured Americans to private insurers. As no less a conservative authority than The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed last week, the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas.

Yet it’s this bill that inspired G.O.P. congressmen on the House floor to egg on disruptive protesters even as they were being evicted from the gallery by the Capitol Police last Sunday. It’s this bill that prompted a congressman to shout “baby killer” at Bart Stupak, a staunch anti-abortion Democrat. It’s this bill that drove a demonstrator to spit on Emanuel Cleaver, a black representative from Missouri. And it’s this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it, that has incited an unglued firestorm of homicidal rhetoric, from “Kill the bill!” to Sarah Palin’s cry for her followers to “reload.” At least four of the House members hit with death threats or vandalism are among the 20 political targets Palin marks with rifle crosshairs on a map on her Facebook page.

When Social Security was passed by Congress in 1935 and Medicare in 1965, there was indeed heated opposition. As Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post, Alf Landon built his catastrophic 1936 presidential campaign on a call for repealing Social Security. (Democrats can only pray that the G.O.P. will “go for it” again in 2010, as Obama goaded them on Thursday, and keep demanding repeal of a bill that by September will shower benefits on the elderly and children alike.) When L.B.J. scored his Medicare coup, there were the inevitable cries of “socialism” along with ultimately empty rumblings of a boycottfrom the American Medical Association.

But there was nothing like this. To find a prototype for the overheated reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar majorities in Congress; the Civil Rights Act received even more votes in the Senate (73) than Medicare (70). But it was only the civil rights bill that made some Americans run off the rails. That’s because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance.

Continue Reading

No comments:

Post a Comment