Balance and inclusion

Historically Democrats have had no special claim as the party of balance, since both parties have had influential moderate wings. This is in spite of the fact that a central aspect of liberalism is the willingness to see issues from all sides, to try to understand and address opposing points of view. Now that the other party has explicitly abandoned the pursuit of balance, in favor of an inflexible absolutism, many Democratic leaders have correctly perceived the need to re-assert the importance of balance in public policy. The challenge is to adopt balanced perspectives that are still true to our core values, in fact true to the core values of the vast majority of Americans.

A key point of assurance the public needs is that a balanced approach doesn’t mean an unpredictable outcome, that "anything goes." What it means is that we acknowledge the competing rights and responsibilities in a public policy debate, and we reach a fair outcome as consistent as possible with our values, vision and the competing perspectives. The result should be predictable. This is what will help the public feel confident that when they vote for our candidates, they will get what they expect. Consistent balance makes us less vulnerable to fear-mongering by the other side.

In these essays we have spotlighted many issues where competing rights need to be balanced. Gun control, for example, involves balancing the right to personal safety, against the right to bear arms. Everyone wants the freedom to go about one’s life without feeling helpless in regard to personal safety. But the practical implication in terms of gun ownership varies from one place to another.

Similarly, a balanced approach to equal rights in general means not singling out specific groups where we think equal rights are a special concern, but simply affirming our commitment to equal rights for everyone. Here the balance comes from the fact that no one is singled out or forgotten. Balance implies inclusiveness.

Spirituality is a place where balance is especially needed. In a way, a spiritual message is the ultimate form of populism. We talk directly with God, so no one can rank any higher. This is a powerful affirmation, a source of personal identity, and we need to take it seriously. If neither party has much to offer for the material needs of many people, it should be no wonder that the party that talks about spiritual needs is the one to capture the populist vote.

Democrats are puzzled by concerns about "gay marriage," "creationism," and other concepts that we wouldn’t expect to find in political debate. Our inappropriate reaction makes it appear that we are anti-religion, which is just the opposite of the truth. The solution is not to reject religion, nor is it to deny equal rights or the scientific method. The solution is to speak to both the material and spiritual needs of those who are feeling left out of the Democratic platform.

We need to reconnect with the material needs of the poor, both urban and rural; and we need to affirm the spiritual need for conscience and for personal responsibility to each other. The essays on Responsibility and Opportunity are an attempt to show how this can be done. Part of the duty of a politician is to make everyone feel included, validated, and uplifted. This means de-emphasizing interest group politics. An inclusive approach, true to our values, will neutralize the politics of division.

See the Sojourners web site for especially good resources and commentary that remind us of our liberal roots and how they relate to spirituality and our changing world.

Political themes: Good public policy recognizes and balances competing rights. Consistent balance builds public trust. Liberalism implies balance and inclusiveness. Evangelical politics is a potent form of populism, pointing to people and needs that we are failing to reach. Favor inclusiveness rather than interest group politics.