Resurrection Politics and Rules for Radicals

Saint Francis of Assisi: Mediator or Political Activist Part 6

In Parts One and Two, I surmised St. Francis would choose the role of mediator or conflict specialist over the role of political activist. In Three, Four, and Five, I analyzed FAN’s “civility in discourse” guidelines and concluded it would be easier to be faithful to the axioms while performing the duties of a mediator or conflict specialist. I suggested the charism of St. Francis nudges us in the direction of mediation and reconciliation rather than activism.

In this and the two posts that follow, I take a closer look at liabilities that accrue when Franciscans turn to political activism.

This critique was written as a contemplative exercise, an attempt to understand the role best suited to the charism of Francis. Hopefully it is read in the same spirit of contemplation. Ultimately we must all decide on the path that best suits our gifts.

Resurrection Politics

Perhaps there is no better place to start this final analysis than at the paradoxical end that is also the ultimate beginning—Resurrection. In the FAN position paper titled “Resurrection Politics in the Easter Season” Dr. Maryann Cusimano Love advances a “call to action” that we can use as an example to illustrate the potential pitfalls of political activism.

After asking if we really believe in the Resurrection, Dr. Love argues the Resurrection provides hope for “dead on arrival” causes. She argues the lesson of the Resurrection helps us understand we are not helpless, that we can find value in “Faith-based Global Advocacy Networks in an age of globalization.”

Dr. Love explains that when we know we can “practice miracles” we have a historic opportunity to influence “international and local politics.” In “Resurrection Politics” we read, “We change the political space by drawing on the language and symbols of faith.” This includes the “opportunity to shame and name harmful policies and players in global politics.”

As much as this call for global political action (including climate change activism) under name of “Resurrection Politics” may ring true for some readers, for others the paper may appear to trivialize our Savior’s sacrifice; for yet others, the idea may raise fears of the collectivist, progressive agenda of one world governance, an agenda that evokes worrisome visions of a brave new world.

Subsidiarity

Tying the most sacred event in Christianity, the Resurrection, to a call for global political activism (and suggesting we use the language and symbols of faith in our activism) seems risky. Conflating the sacred with partisan globalist politics cannot help but offend many people, resulting in division and hostility.

In addition, the call for global political action can easily arouse suspicion that the principle of subsidiarity—which calls for government to be run at the most local level possible—is being overlooked or jettisoned. [Catechism 1883]

In addition, the language of global political advocacy often incorporates the rhetoric of collectivist political ideologies such as Marxism and Communism, which can cause justified alarm. The Church has been quite clear with regard to the danger posed by such ideology. Quoting Benedict XVI,

The modern age, particularly from the nineteenth century on, has been dominated by various versions of a philosophy of progress whose most radical form is Marxism. … What we have here, though, is really an inhuman philosophy.”

Deus Caritas Est

The catechism [1885] echoes this sentiment, “The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention.”

The inherent nature of many global political movements, however, undermines the subsidiarity principle: their approach results in forms of governance unresponsive to the individual and, indeed, unresponsive to the will of the people of any single nation.

Global political activism carries within itself seeds of division, as it rarely provides an opportunity for concerned stakeholders to discuss policy consequences. Decision-making elites inevitably end up distanced from those whose lives they impact; the perceived oppression of such rulers inevitably results in violent conflict.

Collectivist Ideology

The potential hostile reaction to “Resurrection Politics” from people wary of big government, global governance, and collectivism is exacerbated when Catholic activists join forces with political actors who promote Marxist or Communist ideology or extol the virtues of Marxist or Communist leaders. Such alliances set the stage for divisive and contentious discourse, the exact opposite of the “civility in discourse” desired by FAN.

The potential negative reaction to an activist’s association with radicals is easily overlooked, especially when those radicals serve the administration. Therefore, it is wise to be aware of the distrust that arises when White House staffers and advisers extol the virtues of Mao, as did Anita Dunn when she named mass murderer Chairman Mao one of her favorite philosophers. Distrust that is exacerbated when former “green jobs czar” Van Jones shouts out Communist ideology and calls for revolution; when the FCC’s Mark Lloyd praises the revolutionary virtue of Hugo Chavez for shutting down the media in Venezuela; or when the most frequent White House visitor, former SEIU President Andy Stern, uses socialist slogans and secures backroom deals for unions.

These events cause citizens to worry their government is under assault by those who wish to change its form and abandon its founding principles. When FAN or other well-meaning activists appear to work in concert with radicals, they face the additional burden of clearly separating and distinguishing themselves from those who advocate for collectivist forms of government, forms of government clearly opposed by Church teaching.

For example, the Franciscan community, tending to the business of ministering to the poor, may naively assume that others who advocate “social justice” are of a like mind, when they are not. Franciscans may assume they are allied with men and women of integrity but those associations may cause fearful outsiders to experience distrust and alarm.

In order to better understand how we risk losing credibility when we ally ourselves with radicals who do not advocate for Christ, I turn to the writings of Saul Alinsky, the late grandfather of community organizers. Alinksy is pertinent to the analysis, as many staffers and advisers for the current White House follow his legacy.

Radical Activism

In Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals we are introduced to a self-proclaimed radical who, it appears, used the Catholic Church to further his personal social agenda. This previous alliance is puzzling, as his view that “ends justify the means” contradicts Catholic teaching [1887]:

The inversion of means and ends, which results in giving the value of ultimate end to what is only a means for attaining it, or in viewing persons as mere means to that end, engenders unjust structures which ‘make Christian conduct in keeping with the commandments of the divine Law-giver difficult and almost impossible.’”

And Alinsky, it is safe to say, was not concerned about the conversion of souls for Christ. His goals were different: “Remember we are talking about revolution, not revelation; you can miss the target by shooting too high as well as too low.”^[1]

And he wrote,

Political realists see the world as it is: an arena of power politics moved primarily by perceived immediate self-interests, where morality is rhetorical rationale for expedient action and self-interest.“^[2]

The contradictions make us wonder if the alliance was a mistake, leading us to ask if current alliances with Alinsky devotees is also a mistake.

Unlike Francis, who focused on the salvation of souls and cared deeply about a man’s conscience, Alinsky had little use for such matters: “The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s ‘conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action.’”^[3]

He also asserted, “Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation.”^[4]

It begins to be clear that St. Francis and Alinksy should not be considered soul mates.

The political activist, in Alinsky’s view, must avoid the impulse to sow love and bring reconciliation. Instead, activism derives its success from driving men apart:

Before men can act an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil. He knows there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree.”^[5]

Reading these words, we begin to discern a difference in approach between an activist and a mediating peacemaker. St. Francis brought men together using the power of love in the tradition of the beloved apostle John, who spoke frequently and eloquently of love’s role in Christ’s teachings.

Alinsky takes a different approach: “It is only when the other party is concerned or feels threatened that he will listen—in the arena of action, a threat or crisis becomes almost a precondition to communication.”^[6] And he explained, “Love and faith are not common companions. More commonly power and fear consort with faith.”^[7]

In contrast to FAN’s call for adherence to “civility in discourse,” political activists tend to be trained in Rules for Radicals, which does not promote civility: “The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community: fan the latest hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression.”^[8] In contrast to the loving glance of Francis, the approach is hostile:

Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”^[9]

The mindset of political activists trained in Rules, which includes White House staffers, motivates them to promote conflict in order to achieve their aims: “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”^[10] The “rule” we frequently see in action today reads, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”^[11]

We also find the use of triangulation—cited by St. Francis as a diabolic destroyer of relationship—is standard fare for the radical: “This calculated maneuvering of the power of one part of the Haves against its other parts is central to strategy.”^[12]

Radical Rules or the Admonitions of St. Francis?

When our “action” companions include those trained in community organizing and Rules for Radicals there is a risk that their tactics, attitude, heart, and faith will undermine the charism of St. Francis and undercut our potential as peacemakers.

Francis approached life with his simple presence, with poverty and humility, with the advocacy of the Holy Spirit, and with sweetness: “Because I am the servant of all, I am obliged to serve all and to administer the fragrant words of my Lord to them.”^[13]

Peace was always on his mind. “In all of his preaching, before he presented the word of God to the assembly, he prayed for peace saying, ‘May the Lord give you peace.’” These words, in my estimation, are the words of a mediator and peacemaker, not an activist.

We may not be morally “wrong” when we battle for causes using the tactics of Alinsky, but I argue we end up betraying our unique Franciscan charism for which the world has a much greater need.

In our role as mediator or conciliator we sacrifice the opportunity to enjoy the noisy defeat of our opponent; we forsake the chance to garner medals that celebrate our battlefield heroism. In the unassuming, loving role of a meditative peacemaker, we acclaim the parties who work hard to make peace, and we praise the Prince of Peace for working in the hearts of men and women.

In the mediator role, we walk closer to Francis, keeping in mind the words of John quoted in the opening lines of Benedict XVI’s first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est: “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” (1 Jn 4:16)

In the next post, I look closer at these same issues in the context of immigration reform.

References

1. ^ Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Prologue xviii
2. ^ Ibid 12
3. ^ Ibid 25
4. ^ Ibid
5. ^ Ibid 78
6. ^ Ibid 89
7. ^ Ibid 99
8. ^ Ibid 116
9. ^ Ibid 128
10. ^ Ibid 129
11. ^ Ibid 130
12. ^ Ibid 131
13. ^ “Later Admonition and Exhortation to the Brothers and Sisters of Penance” in Early Documents, 45

St. Francis: Mediator or Political Activist? Series Posts

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4: Civility in Discourse
• Part 5: Facilitating Engagement & Dialogue
• Part 6: Resurrection Politics and Rules for Radicals
• Part 7: Immigration Reform
• Part 8: Beyond Corruption and Deception

Related Posts

• Saint Francis of Assisi: Mediator or Political Activist? Part 2
• Immigration Reform
• Beyond Corruption and Deception
• Saint Francis of Assisi: Mediator or Political Activist? Part 3
• Mosque in Manhattan