I take a lot of heat for not liking the things Jim Wallis says, but I have to say in all honesty that his piece yesterday in the Huffington Post was about the most egregious thing he's published in a long, long while. It's like a primer in all the ways Wallis' approach to religion and politics is flawed. It's so textbook, in fact, that I think I'll dispense with a conventional review and just list all the howlers for you, in no particular order:
A Commitment To "Compromise":
Those of us who have worked hard to find some common ground in this debate, to help forge some compromise that might let health-care reform proceed for the tens of millions of low-income families who desperately need it, are still trying to find some middle ground that both sides could live with (even if not happily)...
Here, Wallis tries to portray himself as a prominent leader in a process of reconciliation, rather than a partisan in the conflict. In fact, he was all too happy to stake out a position on one side of it. This isn't principled and it sure isn't reconciliation. It's simply Wallis trying to rally around a "compromise" that turns out to look an awful lot like his own position.
Making Charges Without Substance: Wallis says of the debate over what led up to the Stupak Amendment, "Well, people are just making stuff up, misrepresenting in such outrageous ways that you could just call it lying." Who? How are we to evaluate the truthfulness of claims without knowing exactly what was said? In the same way, later in the article: "some members of the Left long for the good old days when their party was avowedly secular and properly hostile to religion and all this talk about those annoying moral values voters." Again, who? Fred Clarkson very properly called this out in a Public Eye piece some months back.
Sanctimony: There are almost too many examples of this to name. Here's one: "Though Sojourners is now under attack from some angry pro-choice zealots..." and another: "The problem with not compromising is that when you lose, you can end up with less than you might have gotten otherwise." And another: "Leaders who refuse to talk to their opponents are not "principled"; they maybe [sic] also be unwise or unable to actually get things done." And another: "I have fought against religious fundamentalists most of my life, but it's quite sad to see this new assault of secular fundamentalism against religion of all kinds—even against progressive religion." Does Wallis believe he's the only principled participant in this debate?
Claims to Represent the Religious Left: It's true that Wallis states, "The religious community has different views on abortion." But then he goes on to speak in the name of the "faith community." Worse, he says that "some of the most hysterical comments from the Left this week have suggested the problem is that progressive religious groups have been listened to by the Democratic Party." This structures the controversy as Progressive Religion (meaning Jim Wallis and other anti-choice moderates) against the Secular Left. Never mind the pro-choice religious progressives who sat on their hands, as instructed, while Wallis and other Democratic-party anointed faith representatives sold their interests down the river in the name of compromise: Jim Wallis is the Religious Left, and the only bulwark against the frothing-at-the-mouth secular hippies. [This isn't the first time this has happened, either.]
Patriarchy: "I would humbly suggest that both sides in this debate need to remember the very small number of women who in real life will be involved in this dilemma, compared to the impact on a very large number of women who will be denied their "health" if the reform bill does not pass." This relies on a disingenuous interpretation of statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, which that organization has been decrying for a good week now. Many more women would be affected than Wallis assumes. But really: we're going to use moral calculus to decide which rights ought to get thrown overboard? Really? And believing that women ought to be able to own their own bodies makes you "hysterical," a "zealot"? It's nice to know that we have Jim Wallis to talk sense into such people.
There's much more, but I just don't have the stomach for it. It would take all day to properly fisk a piece like this. Why people continue to listen to Wallis, I do not know. In his passion for health-care reform, he seems not only willing to toss aside basic questions about human rights without a second thought, but unable to understand that some people might have a problem with that. Even worse, he's quick to blame the people who got screwed for not making a compromise more quickly. Despite what the media establishment might tell you, however, neither Wallis nor his allies such as Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good can claim to speak exclusively for religious progressives. There are many of us who feel that Stupak is a compromise too far. In fact, it seems to me that the further you get from the Beltway, the more likely you are to not accept the diminishment of reproductive rights as the cost for health-care reform.
But then I'm just a hysterical pro-choice zealot not interested in compromise. What do I know?
Tags: abortion, common ground, jim wallis, pro life, pro choice, pro life, pro-choice, stupak
Thank you for articulating everything I was thinking about the Wallis piece. I lost all respect for him after he reasoned that we should care about poor people because they are the canaries in the coal mine - once they go down, then things are threatened for the "rest of us." I sincerely hope that he sticks to publishing his magazine and stays out of mediating public policy.
Wallis is engaged here in a campaign of what is, in the end, disingenuity.
In this piece, he leads by portraying himself as someone "who [has] worked hard to find some common ground in this debate." By saying this, he implies two things simultaneously: First, that he's being the "reasonable" one, willing to negotiate his position; and second, that his opposition is being "unreasonable" by NOT being willing to negotiate their position. He's also making it look as though his opposition is the sole reason there hasn't yet been any "common ground."
While it may be true that pro-choice folks aren't willing to negotiate their position, it is NOT true that HE is willing to negotiate his own. I know of NO anti-choicer who is GENUINELY willing to compromise on his/her principles. Wallis is no exception to this rule.
His claim to want to find "common ground" is absurd on its face. There is NO WAY on earth you can convince me he genuinely wants to find some middle position between his own anti-choice position and that of his opposition. There is also NO WAY that I buy that it's SOLELY the pro-choice lobby which is unilaterally preventing "common ground" from being reached.
Wallis not only factually wrong, then, in his presentation, he's purposely misrepresenting himself and his own faction. Hence, he's disingenuous. There is just no other word for what he is. (And it happens to be the kindest descriptor I can think of.)
The bottom line is, it's one thing to SAY one wants a "compromise" or "to find common ground." It's quite another to SINCERELY make the kinds of concessions required to arrive at it. I don't see Wallis making a single concession here. Rather, what he's saying is that HIS position IS the "common ground" he claims to want to find, then places the burden on his opposition, to give up the fight and agree with him.
What tripe.
I've listened to Jim Wallis both here in Toronto, and in the US a couple of times - and was underwhelmed all three times. I've never thought of him as a Progressive Christian, and if he claims that for himself he is being egregious indeed. This latest has put him right outside the pale.
If you want to understand Jim Wallis, you have to understand the audience he is trying to reach. He is not speaking to those on religiondispatches. He is speaking to those on huffingtonpost.
That makes it okay? No, that just makes it sillier - as if those who care about women's rights would be cowed by his long and arrogant sermon.
I have long had a problem with Sojourners, finally unsubscribing to sojo.net years ago when Wallis and Co. came out against gay rights and the full humanity of the LGBT community. Sojourners is not progressive in regard to sexuality and women's rights, and this has been obvious for a long time.
Wallis and other so-called 'progressive christians' who are against abortion rights have long had a disregard for the situation of women who find themselves facing the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy. Now Wallis wants health care reform (and the House bill is not a good bill by any stretch, but a windfall for the private insurance industry) and is willing to sacrifice these all-important rights of choice on that altar.
How many self-proclaimed male religious 'leaders' have insisted that women give up, sacrifice, or wait -- and wait and wait - regarding their human rights and dignity until the men have accomplished their other agenda. Women, in this case poor women (rich women will be able to afford to pay for their abortions), are asked to waive their rights, even lose the ones they now have, for the sake of Sojourners,' Catholic bishops,' and conservative evangelical leaders' anti-choice agenda.
Just say no.
Wallis's complaint about the political left has been annoying for a long time. We are not a faith-based country; we are a secular country. One of the most important protections we have in this secular democracy in regard to the defense of human and civil rights is to make sure that religion does not make decisions about those rights. Faith-motivated people who endorse basic rights have been key in many of thesse struggles, but we see right here the danger when religious leaders try to impose their values on the rest of the society.
I respect the rights of anyone to be opposed to abortion on moral grounds, as long as that does not effect the rights, grounded in constitutional law, of those facing this decision.
By the way, it is no accident that studies reveal that the most secular societies have the best record in regard to respect for human rights.
Margaret
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.