By Bill Mefford
Back in 2008 when I worked for an agency of the United Methodist Church, I was tasked to rewrite the resolution for the church that focused on the need for humane and just immigration reform. It was a fairly important task as this was to provide the basis for all advocacy and organizing on this issue for years to come. It is, in fact, still the basis for all of the work on immigration by the UMC.
After I had written the resolution that I felt was politically impactful as well as a tool for teaching congregations on this issue, I welcomed the thoughts and edits of some of my colleagues in that agency and other general church staff who worked at other boards and agencies as well. Their edits were…well…interesting. There were a few, to be sure, that were helpful and strengthened the resolution. Others amounted to little more than over-used cliches and frankly, Marxist propaganda. I was still relatively new in my position and, against my better judgment, I allowed many of the edits to remain even though the resolution as submitted did not read well and was incredibly long and needlessly provocative.
Long story short, when it came up in the legislative committee of the United Methodist Church General Conference - the body of the denomination that decides the polity, policy, and rules for the church - it caused quite a stir. It narrowly passed through but conservatives promised a long and drawn out fight. Though many progressives in the UMC - including those who gave some of the problematic edits - suggested we just gear up for the impending floor fight the next day, I believed a better resolution that could gain wider support was possible. So, I spent that day listening to as many people as I could from the legislative committee on what they liked and didn’t like about the resolution. I listened to people I agreed with and others I shared much less in common. I listened and took notes. I spent the entire night rewriting it. I literally did not sleep that night.
The next day the rewritten resolution advocating just and humane immigration passed through the committee unanimously. And this was not really a moderate document. It just lacked the Marxist analysis and over-hyped chants and cliches that had scared so many people just the day before. In fact, I believe that the United Methodist resolution on immigration remains the most progressive resolution on this issue of any mainline denomination. And it passed unanimously out of committee and unanimously out of General Conference and it is still in place 11 years later. And to do it I just had to listen to everyone - even people I did not like and could not disagree with more strongly. They had to be included as well because this was their church as well. While Marxist class analysis may provide an over-arching narrative that gives solace to general church elites it was not the language that most people in the church - including people directly impacted by the broken immigration system itself - commonly use to articulate their hopes and fears for a just, humane, and workable immigration system.
On Saturday, in another remarkable rebuke of donald trump, Louisiana Governor, Democrat John Bel Edwards, was re-elected over trump loyalist and kooky businessman, Eddie Rispone, even after trump traveled to Louisiana three times in five weeks and after Rispone made this election entirely about supporting trump. Edwards won by focusing on issues that the people of his state cared about steering clear of grandiose plans or overly provocative campaign messages.
In addition to his multiple visits to Louisiana, trump also tweeted numerous times, even on the day of the election, urging his followers in Louisiana to vote for Rispone. Further, the Republican Party poured two million dollars into Louisiana to support Edwards. And it got them nowhere. Though it was a narrow loss for Rispone, it was a loss nonetheless.
The national media have been counting this as a rejection of trumpism – and that narrative certainly is fun to hear and has some credibility to it – but progressives cannot see this as a full-scale repudiation of trump and all things capitalism. Most certainly, it is not that. The truth is that Edwards is a popular conservative Democrat in a deeply red state who has faithfully responded to the needs of his constituents. I doubt many Democrats outside of Louisiana would vote for him because of his regressive positions on gun violence (he is steadfastly pro-gun) and abortion (he signed incredibly restrictive legislation into law). But he was definitely not trying to win the votes of Democrats who lived in blue areas.
Instead, he focused on local issues. When looking at his campaign website the priorities he lists are ones that the people in Louisiana care most about. They include:
State Budget
Healthcare
Economy
Criminal Justice Reform
Education
Taxes
Veterans
Coastal Protection and Restoration
And if you look at this page on his website it shows Edwards literally sitting at a kitchen table talking with a family. These are kitchen table issues; these are the issues that people sit around their kitchen table talking about, worrying over, hoping someone will do something to address.
I believe the lesson from this election, as well as Kentucky’s election of Democrat Andy Beshear and Virginia turning the state house blue, is that all of these candidates focused on what people in their states and districts care about; kitchen table issues.
We need not forget that donald trump is monster. He is a liar, racist, misogynist, and an all-around degenerate. But people want the people they vote for to reflect their hopes and dreams; to answer their needs with solutions that match their values. And I am starting to believe increasingly that the solutions we need might not come packaged in the most radical Marxist class analysis, but rather, in real solutions that bring about real change that people can buy into, understand, and articulate to themselves and their kin.
In other words, perhaps 2020 might not be the best time to swing for the socialist fences.