Are Today’s Politicians up to the Task?

This week the Navy announced that it was designing a new kind of ship to replace the existing class of amphibious vessels that are nearing the end of their useful life. As I read the article, I couldn’t help but wonder if our “existing class” of political leaders” isn’t “nearing the end of their useful life” as well.

What prompted this thought was a military official’s statement that the amphibious vessels we use today won’t meet the coming need “due to the concept of operations we are under today.” In other words, what worked before isn’t going to continue to work now, because the nature of warfare and the landscape of the battlefield have changed.

And the same is true of our political landscape. It’s changed from what it was in 1776 and even as recently as the 1950s. Those who don’t understand that will wonder what happened when they get run over. But the change is not just a result of technology and political methodologies, which is what most political parties, politicians, and political organizations think. It’s more than that. The whole nature of the political “conflict” has changed.

In the past, American politics operated more or less on the basis of a shared set of fundamental beliefs. The political conflict or divide rested in how to apply those beliefs to a particular problem. Today conflict over application still exists, but the nature of the conflict or divide is different because the conflict manifests at the level of a core fundamental belief.

By “fundamental” I’m not referring to something as superficial as a belief in whether a strong economy is a “good” thing. And by what “divides” I’m not referring to a belief that more government or less government regulation or taxation is what will bring about a strong economy. I’m taking about something even more fundamental than that.

The dividing line today—the new “battleground,” if you will—is our view of the universe itself, namely, is there a God who intervenes in time and space to hold men and the governments accountable for righteousness and justice according to immutable standards of the same? That is the dividing line.

There are some politicians today who would give lip service to that belief, but many of them betray themselves by the way in which they govern. For example, many of those politicians, Democrat and Republican, believe that the “right” tax and regulatory policies by civil government will produce a strong economy, even if on the cultural front we flaunt God’s design for marriage rooted in His very nature, kill our children in the womb, and worship the creation rather than the Creator.

Too many of today’s politicians either embrace these cultural views or run away from talking about them like they were running away from a devil who has set their hair on fire.

For those who believe that this “kind” of politician is fundamentally wrong and not up to the task that lies ahead, we have to ask ourselves: are we going to do what we have to do to train up a new kind of politician, one who is prepared to challenge the prevailing God-is-dead-or-irrelevant view of the universe and who will talk about the issues the current crop won’t talk about?

If we’re not ready to do that, then like warships no longer fit for battle, our ship of state may be sunk.

David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.
Learn more about all our RSS options.

Does Mozilla Have the Right to Be Intolerant?

I’ve read several great commentaries this week on the “resignation” of Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla Corporation. But some of the comments I saw made in his defense made me ask, “Does a business have the right to be intolerant?”

At the outset, let me be clear, it is not good that a group of people would try to cost another person his or her job simply because the person exercised a right to participate in the political process. To boycott a business because of its policies or its business practices is one thing, but to make it about getting a particular person fired on the basis of political disagreement is quite another.

That being said, here are two comments made by several commentators in Eich’s defense that gave me pause: First, he never brought his politics into the workplace, and second, Mozilla was very “gay friendly” in its workplace policies.

The First Question We Must Ask

So, at the risk of drawing the ire of fellow conservatives, I must ask, “Is it good that a CEO who will be providing direction for a business is able to leave his political beliefs aside when he comes to work?”

I know most today would say, “Absolutely,” and there is a part of me that wants to agree. Yet something nags at me.

Unlike beliefs about the best brand of ice cream, political beliefs flow from beliefs that go to the very core of how we see God, man, and the world. And aren’t those the kinds of beliefs that should influence the decisions we make, regardless of the context in which those decisions are made?

For Christians, the ability to put our personal religious beliefs aside when we walk out the church door is often called “compartmentalization.” That’s not a commendable quality, because we Christians are effectively saying that some “thing” about our existence—reputation, wealth, power, etc.—is more important than the will and truth of Him who created us and sustains our existence.

The Second Question We Must Ask

Holding that thought, let’s now turn our focus toward Mozilla. If Mozilla’s corporate value system embraces a worldview that says sexual acts between two men or two women is ethically virtuous, that marriage is not a relationship between a man and a woman, and that there are no differences between men and women and therefore men should be allowed to behave as women and women behave as men, then does the corporation have the right to employ leaders who embrace those values?

Putting these two thoughts together, if Mozilla, having learned of Mr. Eich’s political contribution, believed that his contribution reflected a deeply seated moral value grounded in a worldview incompatible with its corporate worldview, then should it have the right to not promote him or to fire him once they realize what his beliefs are?

Conservatives need to be careful before they answer. If Mozilla does not have that right, then neither does the Christian business owner who has different beliefs about human sexuality and marriage.

Why the Questions Are Important

While we rightly condemn the viciousness of those who, as outsiders to a business, would seek to deny a person their livelihood because of political disagreement, we better be careful if and when we ask civil government to intervene in the affairs of business employment decisions.

In Tennessee, that day is coming. What will our legislators do when asked to make sexual orientation, gender, or even marital status a “protected class” in the workplace? The answer will depend on how much “intolerance” our respect for liberty is willing to tolerate.

David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.
Learn more about all our RSS options.