John C. Rankin

April 30, 2010

Introduction

   As our political and economic culture gathers speed in its death spiral, the redemption of the nation is found in understanding and advocating the pre-partisan in contrast to the de facto reality of the post-partisan.

   The pre-partisan rises above the baggage of all other political labels, is intrinsic to biblical and constitutional realities, and is most natural to those who identify as pro-life libertarians (ultimately the same as that of the Founding Fathers).

   Pro-life libertarians can lead the way in embracing the pre-partisan, as rooted in The Six Pillars of Honest Politics – language and substance that has proven above reproach in the sight of all political partisans, and is deeply attractive to the vast majority of the voting public.

   This is central to the nature of the Mars Hill Society (www.marshillsociety.org), and its purpose in the Committee on Political Ideas (COPI), as reiterated below, and the goal of taking Occam's razor to state and federal law..

   In the 28 years since my trajectory into public policy ministry began, all I have done has been pre-partisan in nature. This has been intrinsic to the biblically rooted Mars Hill Forum series. I have yet to engage in partisan politics in terms of active involvement in a political party, or in support of a particular candidate (…).

   Any honest partisan should love to debate opposing partisan positions in such a fashion where he or she genuinely wants to understand the concerns of the opposing partisan. Anything less truncates our representative government, anything less reflects a loss of conviction that our own partisan positions have and seek integrity. And honest partisan debate is only possible when we first agree on a pre-partisan basis for doing so.

The Nature of the Pre-Partisan, as rooted in the Six Pillars of Honest Politics, and in Contrast to the Post-Partisan

   When I first heard Barack Obama use the language of post-partisan, I was a bit miffed. What did he mean by it? That somehow he was going to get past partisan political debate? I had never heard the term before, yet for years I had been using the language of pre-partisan.

   To be pre-partisan is ultimately a theological question, and with dynamic political implications. It is rooted in the proactive nature of the biblical order of creation, where an honest definition of terms allows us to choose between good and evil, life and death, freedom and slavery.

   By definition, in political terms, the pre-partisan precedes and serves the partisan. Honest partisanship is a good, and is intrinsic to the nature of checks and balances in a free and vital society. We all have our partisan ideas, and they need to be debated openly.

   But too, partisan is a pejorative for so many people. It makes them think of blind and biased opinions, only in service to agendas found within competing ego-turfs. Non-partisan is little better, so often being a convenient cover for partisan agendas. And bi-partisan is of less value yet – a stand-off until one partisan position can gain the upper hand.

   By definition, the post-partisan follows after the partisan. But what does it mean?  I see three possibilities, one of which can be positive, and two of which are dangerous.

1. First, the post-partisan can mean a simple appeal to move past petty partisan agendas.
2. Second, the post-partisan can mean that debate is over because everyone agrees, and thus, there is no further need for it. The only biblical possibility for this is the full arrival of the kingdom of God, so such a claim would be dangerously messianic.
3. And third, the post-partisan can mean debate is over because those in political authority say so and insist upon it. This is also dangerous, because it is the opposite of honest debate and checks and balances in representative government.

   Thus, the term is liable to misunderstanding. The best way to avoid misunderstanding is by jettisoning the post-partisan altogether, and rooting ourselves in the pre-partisan – a term that is clearly understandable.

This leads me to the definition of the six pillars of honest politics.

1. The power to give affirms that the unalienable rights given by the Creator belong to all people equally, and leaders in human government should serve such a gift.
2. The power to live in the light means leaders in human government at every level should be as fully transparent as possible.
3. The power of informed choice is rooted in an honest definition of terms in political debate, providing a level playing field for all ideas to be heard equally, apart from which political freedom is not possible.
4. The power to love hard questions is in place when political leaders honor and answer those who pose them the toughest questions.
5. The power to love enemies recognizes that even the harshest of political opponents share a common humanity and are to be treated with respect.
6. The power to forgive recognizes the need to address our individual and societal transgressions against one another, and to work toward justice and reconciliation.

   These six pillars are by definition pre-partisan. In other words, they set the foundation for healthy partisan debates over public policy, in service to the consent of the governed. The deepest partisanship is the creation of a level playing field for all partisan ideas to be heard equally, where the pursuit of truth in any and all matters becomes possible.

   As a minister of the Gospel, and a member of the consent of the governed, I am fully accountable to these pre-partisan six pillars, and as they are unpacked in a thousand ways.

   Are any of these pre-partisan ethics not attractive to all people of good will?

   Two days after the 2008 elections, I hosted Mr. Obama’s former pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, in a public forum, where we looked at the question, “The Bible, Race and American History: What are the Issues?” It was a very positive event (much to the chagrin of most of the media there), even as I disagree with key assumptions in Black Liberation Theology. I rooted my comments in the pre-partisan, not the post-partisan, organizing my thoughts around the six pillars of biblical power and honest politics. Dr Wright specifically affirmed several of these pre-partisan pillars in response.

   Thus, to overcome petty and blind partisanship, we need the pre-partisan, not the post-partisan.

The power of the pre-partisan, in the face of political labels

   I am a pro-life libertarian, and this is a penultimate label I can live with. All political labels are by definition penultimate – bound by the temporal, and short of the kingdom of God. My deepest identity is found in the kingdom of God and the definitive nature of biblical language. The strength of the pro-life libertarian label is that it is rooted in the unalienable rights given by the Creator in the biblical order of creation – life, liberty, property, and hence the power for a socially healthy pursuit of happiness. And as such, being a pro-life libertarian is both pre-partisan and honestly partisan. It intrinsically celebrates the foundation of the nation, and thus, celebrates checks and balances on power, and invites honest partisan debate accordingly.

   But too, in our present political culture, to mention the Creator, or dare say, the name of Jesus, even in service to unalienable rights; to treat women and their unborn as equals; to affirm man and woman in marriage as foundational for political and social health; to affirm the idea of limited federal power – all this is seen as partisan by those who believe otherwise. That is fine, and thus I am accountable to competing partisans if they can present superior definitions of the pre-partisan, or why the post-partisan may be superior yet.

   I have chosen a label I am glad to affirm, one that is intrinsically positive, one that welcomes all peoples as equals, and one that does not denigrate or pejoratively dismiss those who hold other labels.

   But what about other political labels? Are they all not chosen for positive reasons, at least in terms of historical origins?

   Conservative means to conserve that which is good. Okay. Liberal means to be generous. Okay. But to conserve what, to be generous with what resources, and to whom? I like both terms in their original essence, and I am an enthusiastic advocate of a genuinely liberal arts education. But too, how much does “political correctness” (to use another label) sully educational freedom on “liberal” campuses?

   How much baggage does “conservative” carry if related to ego-turf protection of incumbent political power? How much baggage does “liberal” carry if related likewise? To speak of “conservative” elements in Russian and American politics in the same breath – are they the same thing? Do “conservatives” in China or Iran have in mind the same priorities as the conservative Ronald Reagan? And I think Reagan’s conservatism was in the deepest sense pro-life libertarian in its devotion to unalienable rights and the Founding Fathers as they produced the U.S. Constitution.

   Also, the labels of the religious and political right, and the religious and political left have great baggage, and can be easily manipulated into pejoratives by opposing partisans. Some historical interpolaters say that Stalin was on the “left” and Hitler was on the “right.” Yet both were totalitarian. So how helpful is it to use language with baggage if we want to be clear?

   The terms Republican and Democrat are rooted in positive assumptions, in appealing to complementary elements of a constitutional and democratic republic. But too, they are used as pejoratives across the barricades of party politics. They carry baggage, for in both parties there has been intramural debate as to what political philosophy carries the day. To press the pre-partisan into the partisan, the Republican Party presently allows pro-life libertarians in their midst. What about the Democratic Party?

   In philosophy, there is a term called the metaethics of language. This means that we need to be sure that our language is clearly understood by others, especially outsiders, and more especially, to those who might presuppositionally think they disagree with us.

   Here I find the language of the pre-partisan compelling.

   Thus, in the midst of our present political and economic meltdown, I would suggest that all of us who are pro-life libertarians make all other self-chosen labels secondary at the least, if not out to pasture entirely. If we believe that a pro-life libertarian view is a) biblical, b) pre-partisan and therefore c) honestly partisan, and that the “pre-partisan” identity is above reproach in the metaethics of language, especially in the face of top-down government partisans.

The pre-partisan nature of the Committee on Political Ideas

   An idea that allows the power of the pre-partisan to serve the nation well is the Committee on Political Ideas (COPI). Its most logical place would be The U.S. Senate Committee on Political Ideas (SCOPI), but also the COPI could be convened by the President or the House of Representatives; and at the state level, by the Governor, Senate or House.

Rooted in the pre-partisan ethics of the six pillars of honest politics:

1. COPI’s purpose is to be sure that all ideas for political debate are discussed in an open-ended fashion.
2. COPI has no lawmaking purposes, but rather serves as an information resource for Committees that work on writing law.
3. On a chosen topic, COPI receives applications from partisans, prioritizes their testimonies, and works through them until all ideas have been fully and publicly aired.
4. Written presentations for COPI are a maximum 2,000 words, presented orally, there is no limit on footnotes and attachments, and are followed by open-ended dialogue in all directions until the partisan is satisfied that he or she has been fully heard.

   The purpose is simple – to allow such public debate a full airing so that all partisans are ministered to first as human beings. Namely, when we know we have been fully and honestly heard on issues we care about, we can relax more readily in our souls, and soberly listen to others. Too, such an open-ended and public conversation will prove attractive to all people of good will, but will also be fearful to those with ulterior agendas. Thus it may prove self-selecting in a sense most conducive to good public policy. And by making COPI a non-lawmaking function, it serves communication across partisan divides as well as possible, and in the long run, serves those charged with lawmaking responsibilities.

   There is so much political manipulation today in a sheer Nietzschean “will to power.” The only antidote is real, thorough and patient debate on all matters, where those of use who believe in the power of the consent of the governed know that truth will rise to the top, and a free people will regain their freedom.

###