Politicians, War and Generosity

I had a conversation this morning about a friend of our family who is a soldier and just left for a stint in Iraq. I can't remember why, but I related our conversation to the discourse that is coming out of the mouths of the frontrunners in the race for President of the United States.

The pervasive self-interest of our leading politicians disturbs me. Why? Because, while our country is often viewed as an oddity when it comes to our generosity and charitable giving, we are a people who hold dear the value of giving to others in need, often sacrificially.

It is my hope that this spirit of generosity and sacrifice reflects our orientation and a deeply-held value as a nation toward helping those in need.

I see our soldiers, as representatives of our country, as helping the Iraqi people. Sure, it's dangerous. It is absolutely risky. But it is indicative of a societal value (I hope) that we will give to others and offer ourselves and our resources where and when needed.

So, what do I find disturbing in the political talk?

Those vying for the Democratic candidacy frame the war as something that is wrong and distasteful, appealing to the loss of life and the pain that gives the families and loved ones of those who have given their lives in Iraq. When they do this, they imply that such an impetus is morally wrong and misguided. They say that our young men and women should be fighting and dying in Iraq and that they will do everything they can to get them home as soon as possible.

I don't have a problem with our soldiers coming home. But I do have a problem with rhetoric that is blatantly self-interested and implies that generosity of spirit and giving to/for others is wrong-headed and wrong-hearted. When did it become wrong for Americans to send soldiers to aid people and countries around the world? It has always been painful to lose loved ones in conflict-ridden zones. But does the value of helping those who cannot help themselves trump such sacrifice any more?

Turning to the Republican frontrunner; he proposes the same self-interest, but with a different twist. He says our troops are in Iraq so the terrorists are not on our soil here in America. Again, to me, that is also self-interested and has little to indicate that he is really interested in the well-being of the Iraqi people and other people of that region.

The bottom line for me is this: As a follower of Jesus, there come times when the value of giving, generosity and offering oneself and one's resources for the sake of others trumps self-interest.

I realize that we could leave Iraq, whether it is next month, next year or 20 years from now, and they might say something like: "Glad to see you go. Didn't want you here in the first place. Good riddance!"

As much as such an attitude would stick in my throat and the throat of the American people, it merely indicates the risk you take when you give yourself for someone else's sake. Jesus asked, when only one healed leper returned to thank him, "Were not ten healed? Where are the other nine?"

The French are an example of a nation we helped and who then didn't want anything to do with us as a nation and as a people. Try traveling to France and see what happens when you speak English or are identified as an American. Same in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. Not pretty.

When politicians appeal to our self-interest in order to get us vote for them, they call us to our worst places, not our best. The value of generosity is worth keeping alive. We lose sight of that value at our own peril.

As Christians, we should listen closely to what aspect of our collective character our politicians are appealing--and then decide if they truly represent what's best for us, and for our nation.