Love Me, Love My Dog

A Sermon by Donel McClellan
First Congregational United Church of Christ, Bellingham, Washington

Hot Topic #2
I propose . . . an End to 'Love Me, Love My Dog' Foreign Policy
Romans 8:26-39 - Pentecost 10 - July 28, 2002

LET US PRAY

Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, our strength and our redeemer. Amen.

About a hundred years ago there was an explosion of talented political cartoonists working for the nation’s major newspapers. One of the most prolific was Harry J. Westerman of the Ohio State Journal. One cartoon from that era portrays a moment in American foreign policy.

On one side of the picture stand three caricature figures. A German with wooden shoes and an over size helmet with a benign eagle on the top, a tiny Italian and a larger rotund Englishman with the Union Jack prominently displayed on his large belly. These three are looking rather bewildered.

On the other side of the picture is a tall and stately Uncle Sam in striped trousers and tails, holding a large top hat and gesturing to his feet. There, at the bottom of the picture, is a tiny dog wearing formal attire to match that of Uncle Sam. A text bubble by the dog says “Monroe Doctrine.” The title of the cartoon is “Uncle Sam—Love Me, Love My Dog.” ^{^[1]}

This was my motivation for connecting the familiar phrase “Love me, love my dog” with the practice of American foreign policy. I readily admit that I am no political scientist, nor have I any credentials as an historian. Many of you are far more versed in the intricacies of foreign policy than I am. So, my approach will be simply to raise questions from the perspective of theology.

My theological understanding of the world is grounded in Paul’s amazing vision captured in the eighth chapter of Romans. Writing to the fledgling Roman church, Paul asserts first that God’s vision of a world of unity and cooperation will ultimately prevail. Second, Paul that affirms the place of followers of Jesus Christ is working towards that ultimate goal.

Paul promises:

We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to God’s purpose.^{^[2]}

But the hope of Paul’s promise is grounded in the harsh and depressing realities the Roman Christians are facing. They are feeling assaulted by powers and forces beyond their control. So Paul names all the factors that might stand between individuals and the ultimate victory of God:

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. ^{^[3]}

In this chapter Paul stresses the two points I mentioned earlier. First, that God is still guiding the cosmos, and second that individually and collectively, human beings have the power and responsibility to influence the political and social direction of culture.

I believe that American foreign policy ought to receive the benefit of good theological critique. One of the difficulties with this sort of venture is that one side of the Christian church generally disagrees with the other side of the Christian church about what should be said. This has often puzzled me since we rely on the same Bible and share a common theological history. Why is there this disagreement between conservative and liberal Christians?

Reading George Lakoff’s book, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, I found an explanation that makes sense to me. It is rather detailed and quite complex, and I can’t hope to do justice to it in a sermon, however the basic concept was so helpful that I want to try to share its essence.

According to Lakoff,

Contemporary politics is about worldview. Conservatives simply see the world differently than do liberals, and both often have difficulty understanding accurately what the other’s worldview is. ^{^[4]}

The core of Lakoff’s thesis is that there are two primary models upon which our worldview is based. He calls one the Strict Father model and the other the Nurturant Parent model. These models of moral behavior help to explain some of the perplexing contradictions in liberal and conservative beliefs.

For example, why do conservatives so strongly support the protection of unborn children but resist providing support and health care to the children of poor families? On the other hand, why do liberals oppose the death penalty but pay so little attention to the problems of abortion? Lakoff’s explanation would be that both conservatives and liberals are consistent with their own worldview.

The first perspective is the Strict Father view. Imagine a nuclear family with the father taking the role of supporting and protecting the family as well as the authority to set family policy. For this father, the world is a dangerous place, full of traps for the lazy or unwary. He teaches the children right from wrong by setting clear rules for behavior and punishing them—often physically—if they disobey the family rules. He also rewards good behavior by showing love. The father fears that coddling the children will spoil them. A spoiled child cannot learn the discipline of moral behavior and grow to be self dependent.

The mother of the family has responsibility for maintaining the house, rearing the children, and enforcing the father’s authority. The children are taught to obey the rules of the household, partly for their protection and partly as a means of learning self-discipline.

When the children are grown, they will take upon themselves the responsibility of providing for themselves and their own families. They are expected to have mastered self-discipline and to be capable of passing it along to their children.

This model envisions a clear pathway to success. If you are obedient to your father’s authority, you will become self-disciplined. Only through self-discipline can you become successful. Therefore, since obedience and self-discipline are moral qualities, success is the reward for following this moral system. And success itself is seen as a moral quality.

The Strict Father system has other values as well. It cherishes competition because that brings out the best qualities in people and rewards those who follow the moral principles. Competition is to be encouraged because it helps to create self-disciplined people.

To apply this to the political realm, government’s purpose is to maintain order and support the moral system. It is to protect those under its authority from threats within and without and it must work to help citizens, through self-discipline, to become the right kind of people.

The primary power of government, in this view lies in its moral strength. Lakoff writes:

The metaphor of Moral Strength sees the world in terms of a war of good against the forces of evil, which must be fought ruthlessly. . . . It reifies evil as the force that Moral Strength is needed to counter. Evil must be fought. You do not empathize with evil, nor do you accord evil some truth of its own. You just fight it. ^{^[5]}

Lakoff’s second perspective is that of the Nurturant Parent. Here the ideal family has two parents who share household responsibilities. This model views the world as an arena for growth and positive experiences. The goal of the family is to create caring and nurturing relationships as a model for those to be established in the larger community.

Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant by receiving care and caring for others. Children must be protected from the hazards of the world, of course, but they are given responsibility for making good choices as soon as they are able. Parents communicate the reasons for concern and listen to the children’s ideas.

The goal of the Nurturant Parent model is that children will grow themselves to be nurturing, and will be committed to family and community. The model expects that the skills of empathy and co-operation will be learned and that each child will be free to exercise their unique gifts in the community.

Lakoff asks what kind of world would be required for this kind of citizen to grow and thrive. He concludes that:

It must be a world that encourages people to develop their potential and provides help when necessary. . . . it must be a place where those helped feel a responsibility to help others . . . It must be a world governed . . . by empathy, where the weak who need help get it from the strong. It must be a world governed as much as possible by bonds of affection, respect and interdependence. ^{^[6]}

These are two very different models of government and, not surprisingly, they lead to contrary theories of foreign policy. The Strict Father system considers the world to be a dangerous place and other nations to be potential enemies. The primary criterion for judging other nations is on the basis of their Moral Strength. This view tends to divide the world into friends and enemies. It rewards those who can have a mutually beneficial economic relationship with America and punishes those nations who do not honor and support the moral vision of America. In short, this system is paternal, hierarchical, and exemplifies “Love me, love my dog.” as a means of setting policy.

I propose and end to “Love me, love my dog” foreign policy.

The Nurturant Parent on the other hand, engages other nations in ways which seek mutual benefit. It encourages treaties of cooperation and is willing to compromise when that is better for the community of nations. This view does not require that other nations have the same Moral view, except in some overriding instances: no genocide, no political persecution of a nations citizens, no starvation as a military strategy. The hope is that co-operative relations will build a strong community of consensus which will, in the long run, protect us better than adversarial relationships can ever do.

In a book I found quite enlightening, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone, Joseph Nye, Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, analyses America’s power in today’s world. He notes that we are in a battle between unilateralists—those who want America to act independently in pursuit of it’s goals—and multilateralists—those who seek international cooperation in the pursuit of America’s goals. ^{^[7]}

Those positions compare roughly with the Strict Father and the Nurturant Parent divisions. Do we tell the world how it is going to be, or do we engage other nations in seeking strategies of mutual benefit?

Dr. Nye notes that there are areas of hard power and soft power in international relations. Examples of hard power are military might and economic strength. Most of our foreign policy attention goes to these. To remain strong, Nye suggests that we much concentrate more on the soft power we wield. He defines it this way:

Hard power can rest on inducements (carrots) or threats (sticks). But there is also an indirect way to exercise power. A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries want to follow it, admiring its values, emulating its examples, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness. In this sense, it is just as important to set the agenda in world politics and attract others as it is to force them to change through the threat or use of military or economic weapons. This aspect of power—getting others to want what you want—I call soft power. ^{^[8]}

These days, soft power doesn’t seem to have much purchase in the halls of government. Let me just observe that soft power is what Paul’s letter to the Romans is all about. Soft power is what the Good News of Jesus Christ is all about. Perhaps it is time to reconsider its power.

Let me close with two lessons from history.

I have heard that the colony of Pennsylvania founded by William Penn was founded upon two successful moral principles. The first was a guarantee of total freedom of conscience, based upon the principles of the Quaker faith. The second was a unique system of security. The state was guarded by neither fort nor soldier. It protected itself from attack by American Indians by a just social policy that treated Native Americans fairly and as friends.

For 70 years the colony was safe, its borders respected and its people unharmed. All this changed in 1756; when the British government ordered the colony to arm against the French, driving the Quakers from power and the colony into the Seven Years' War.

A few years later our nation was in the midst of the revolutionary war. The army under the command of General George Washington was fully engaged. One company advanced into Canada under the leadership of Benedict Arnold.

In 1775, Washington wrote a letter to Arnold, concerning the treatment of the Canadian and the native people the army would encounter. He advised:

Avoid all disrespect or contempt of the country and its ceremonies. Prudence, policy, and a true Christian spirit, will lead us to look with compassion upon the errors without insulting them. While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to him only in this case, they are answerable.

This was an enlightened foreign policy. Would it still work?

It would certainly be worth considering

Amen.

NOTES: