How a spirit of gentleness can lead to public service – and better politics

Michael Wear worked in the Obama White House, advising on faith-based initiatives as one of the administration’s youngest staffers. He is now the founder and CEO of the Center for Christianity and Public Life. In his book “The Spirit of Our Politics: Spiritual Formation and the Renovation of Public Life,” Mr. Wear calls for a change in Christian political discourse by defining the political arena as a place of service. He argues that sectarianism is not inevitable, and challenges thinkers of all religious backgrounds to let their political interactions be guided by a spirit of gentleness. He spoke recently with the Monitor. The interview has been edited for length.

What was the inspiration for the book?  

What became clear to me writing [my last] book, and with everything that was happening in the country, was the deep formational force that politics was having on the lives of individuals, communities, and our culture. I think there’s this idea that politics is downstream of culture. I think that misses the fact that politics is a culture producer – that especially in this time and context, you can’t separate out politics from our culture. So this book gets at the root, I think, of both the dysfunction of our politics, and hopefully a way of empowering the individual responsibility and role that citizens have in improving the state of our politics.

How does approaching politics with a spirit of service tangibly change our actions and conversations?

When we stop going to politics primarily as a source of entertainment, or as a forum for sort of solely personal expression, we free up space to go to politics in an others-centered way – in a way that centers the interests and well-being of the communities in which we live. And that opens up tremendous horizons. But what it requires are people who can genuinely will the good for their neighbors – that they can consider interests that are not their own to be their own.

Political sectarianism is a big topic in the book. What effect does political sectarianism have on trust? 

Political sectarianism has a profound effect on trust. Because it suggests not just that there’s antagonism and profound disagreement in our politics, but that our politics is operating on the logic of conflict and antagonism.  

The collapse of trust in government is not detached from, or removed from, rising social distrust outside of politics proper. The political sectarianism that expresses itself in statehouses and in the Capitol is expressing itself in churches, and in families, and in relationships. And so just as in individuals – there is no political you, there’s just you – there is no political America, and then the real America.

I think what we’re seeing is the fact that we can’t so easily set these parts off from ourselves. The state of the workplace in America is tied to the state of politics in America, is tied to the state of mediating institutions and church life, is tied to the state of the family – these things are not identical, but they all feed into one another. 

And we can’t hope to have a politics that is full of mistrust and antagonism, and not expect that to have effects for how we relate at the community level, the familial level, and between different groups and backgrounds of people.

You talk about anger and manipulation actually not paying off in the way we think they do. Can you say more about that?

There’s this notion that anger is the necessary companion to advancing justice. I’ve seen justice implemented without anger. Do you know what I’ve never seen? I’ve never seen injustice without anger. I’ve never seen injustice without contempt for the person. ... There’s this notion that if you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention, as if the most just response ... is just to continue to pile on and add to the anger in our hearts. But who is that helping? How is that the best that we could do in response to what we read in the newspapers? I think that there are much better things that we could build up in our hearts, including love. ... At best, anger can be an immediate reaction on behalf of someone who has been wronged, and I think that's a natural human impulse and is not wrong as far as it goes. But when we get to the cultivation of anger, what we find is that as we begin to cultivate anger, anger cultivates us. There is no one who is more easily manipulated in political life than the person who is angry. They can be directed just about anywhere.

What are practical steps that people can take in their everyday conversation and actions to rebuild that trust?

We need to regain a sense of deep humility about our political solutions, while having a deeper commitment to the work of self-governance – under the umbrella of humility, to be able to say “I’m going to fight for what I believe in.”

It’s OK to disagree. We have a political culture in which you can’t say anyone’s “wrong” about public policy, but you can say that they’re “evil.” And I think we need a political discourse that is much more willing to argue prudentially ... and much less willing to make categorical, sweeping judgments about people’s intentions, and the moral goodness of people, because of their political opinions. 

What gives you hope that the changes you describe in your book can be implemented – that it’s possible to have a better politics? 

I’m sure other people have had this experience, but come across a person who is truly joyful and it will change your life. Come across a person who’s converted anger to forgiveness, who’s converted hatred to mercy, and it will change your life. And it’s changed our politics before, and it can do it again. 

Our public life is filled with these kinds of people. I think, though, when you have a political culture that is oriented around entertainment and self-expression, then it can sometimes be hard to see those people and to recognize service in our politics when it shows up. But when you come across it, that’s when you think about, who counts as an admirable person in your life? Who counts as someone who inspires you? 

And when you start asking those questions, and then taking that into politics, you realize, maybe politics doesn’t have to operate by this sort of lowest common denominator, or this expectation of self-interest and corruption. Maybe, with the limited influence we each have as citizens, we can come to politics with a different expectation.