Here’s a conversation that I have had several times (in slightly different forms) in the past few weeks:
“So, who are you supporting for the next UUA [Unitarian Universalist Association] president?” someone says to me.
“Well,” I say, “I’m not supporting either one, but I think I know who I’ll vote for.”
“I feel the same way,” says the other person. “I can’t say I’m supporting anyone….”
“So who are you going to vote for?” I say.
“I’m going to vote for Laurel Hallman,” says the other person, “not because I think she’s any better than Peter Morales — i don’t think that — but because I think it’s time for a woman to be UUA president.”
“I’m going to vote for Peter Morales,” I say, “not because I think he’s any better than Laurel Hallman — he’s not — but because I think it’s time for a UUA president who is not the choice of the UUA power elite.”
We sit in silence for a moment or two.
I break the silence: “It really is past time for a woman.”
The other person says almost simultaneously: “We really do need someone who is not part of the UUA power elite.”
Then we both agree that both candidates are perfectly capable, that neither one of them would actually change things much, that we both might change our minds before the election, and that neither one of us actually supports either candidate.
I have also had the following conversation a few times in the past few weeks.
“So, who are you supporting for the next UUA president?” someone says to me.
“Well,” I say, “I’m not supporting either one, but I think I know who I’ll vote for.”
“Well, I don’t really want to make this public, but I know who I’m supporting,” says the other person.
“So who are you supporting?” I ask.
“I’m supporting Peter Morales,” says the other person, “but I don’t want to go public with my support because Peter has pretty much promised me that he will implement my [insert innovative growth program here]. So I don’t want to come out as supporting him, because if Laurel Hallman gets elected, if it doesn’t come out who I vote for then maybe she will consider my [insert innovative growth program here].”
We sit in silence for a while.
“Too bad it has come to this,” I say.
“Yeah, it’s all about politics and who you know and who you support,” says the other person.
There’s an old saying that goes something like this: if the head of a nail sticks up, it will get noticed and hammered down; so don’t be like the head of a nail, don’t do anything to get noticed. It feels to me as though supporting one or the other of the UUA presidential candidates in this election is a good way to get hammered down. I’m not blaming the candidates, but their supporters are so rabid, and they are so insistent on asking you to support one or the other. And after the election I do have the feeling that those who support the winner will be blessed with smiles and maybe favors, while those who support the loser will be cast out away from the denominational center into the wilderness. This is what happened in the last UUA presidential election; why would it not happen once again?
Therefore, I want to avoid UUA presidential politics like the plague. I want to go off and serve in a nice local congregation, and do good things there and in the surrounding community, and nurture my own spiritual life, and spend time with my partner Carol, and enjoy life. Call me chicken, but I support neither UUA presidential candidate — listen carefully — neither one of them.
Update: Responding to a comment below, I’m adding a disclaimer: I don’t think either Peter Morales or Laurel Hallman has a vengeful bone in their bodies — but I know from experience that the system is vengeful, and has a long memory, and does not value those who speak out on the “wrong” side of an issue in denominational politics.
Wow.
No one has asked me who I am supporting, or voting for, nor has anyone tried to convince me to vote at all.
Welcome to Kentucky!
interesting…and i’m certain of who I’m voting for – and certainly won’t put my name on any websites….
learned enough as a rusty nail, to watch out for the tetanus…
You seem to believe that both candidates are at heart Stalinist apparatchiks, that nothing distinguishes them, and that anything they say is calculated PR jargon.
Is this a joke?
I have gotten to know Peter Morales very well. I’m a member of his congregation and have come to strongly support his candidacy after seeing him and Laurel Hallman square off at GA in Ft. Lauderdale – I took sides exactly because I felt the differences were stark. I have since met Laurel Hallman once and read most of her literature as well as watched her (online) at various debates. While I do not agree with Laurel’s choice of priorities, they are reasoned convictions clearly in line with what she has been doing and promoting for a long time.
As for Peter, he committed himself to this very expensive and grueling campaign (instead of enjoying his thriving congregation in Golden) because he realized that business as usual at the UUA and the inward focus that Laurel Hallman promotes will do nothing to address the coming challenges for our movement. Those challenges are real, but until recently were barely even on his opponent’s radar screen.
I’ll add that because Peter became a UU later in life he does not accept the status quo of our UU movement as somehow ‘natural’. Where others confess ‘humility’ in the face of stagnation he systematically identified practical steps successfully employed by growing UU congregations as well as processes that will allow the UUA to pick up steam. Here’s a man who points out why we need change, who details how to get there and what it will take, and you simply shrug it all off as hot air and say, bah, nothing will ever change, except the winner will punish the loser??
Your readers would be better off to go to the source and read or view the candidates’ answers at various forums, as referenced here
http://www.uua.org/aboutus/governance/elections/index.shtml
or on my own site.
I promise they will get an excellent sense of the meaningful differences between the candidates and will, I hope, openly talk about their decision.
Martin Voelker
UUA? What’s that?
Oh, sorry. I’m in Indiana.
Never mind.
I’ve never heard anyone at Church talk about the election. In fact, you rarely hear anyone talk about UUA.
I would have wished there was a younger candidate. Someone without the baggage my generation brings.
I just hope whomever elected doesn’t embarrass us with goof ball, unreflected-upon, progressive talking points as Rev Sinkford did with Ahmenajad. I hope they have the humility to avoid the habit of talking-on-every one’s behalf all the time. Just getting their own thoughts straight and expressed in plain English good enough. Skip all the jargon and cant.
Martin @ 3 — See ms. m’s comment @ 2. And I should emphasize that this is not about the candidates, this is about the way that UUA politics works in the real world. I don’t think either Peter Morales nor Laurel Hallman has a vengeful bone in their bodies — but I know from experience that the system is vengeful, and has a long memory, and does not value those who speak out on the “wrong” side of an issue in denominational politics.
Bill Baar @ 5 — You write: “I would have wished there was a younger candidate.”
That certainly is one of the reasons I am not enthusiastic about either candidate.
You also write: “Skip all the jargon and cant.”
Oh, I would that such a thing would be possible….
Did you take the same position of nonsupport in the recent U.S. presidential election? What are our moral obligations under the UU 5th principle of using the democratic process?
You write that “the system” is vengeful. Pogo had it right years ago: We’ve met the enemy, and the enemy is us. There is no “system” from which we may exclude ourselves as moral agents.
Tho I’m a lifelong UU, I’ve only recently entered the ministry and have not been much involved in denominational politics. It’s distressing to me that a more experienced UU minister is so distrustful of our religion’s democracy.
OD/HR @ 7 — You write: “Did you take the same position of nonsupport in the recent U.S. presidential election?”
As a leftist, with no leftist candidates (Obama is center-right), it was hard for me to support any candidate whole-heartedly.
“What are our moral obligations under the UU 5th principle of using the democratic process?”
I do believe we should vote (as long as we can more or less trust that our vote means something). I do not believe we have a moral obligation to publicly support any candidate, unless we can do so in good conscience.
“It’s distressing to me that a more experienced UU minister is so distrustful of our religion’s democracy.”
I hope you have a better experience with our denominational politics.
I decided since I knew who I was going to vote for, I’d go ahead and tell the world via an endorsement. Then I started talking colleagues, who said things like you quote above: “Oh, I’m voting for Laurel, but no way, I’m not putting my name on anything.” I haven’t run into any rabidity yet from anyone’s supporters. But then, showers of preferential treatment have failed to fall upon me even though I voted for Bill last time. (Maybe I needed to actually endorse him, not just wear the pin.) Oh well, you can’t win for losing.
I’ll make the most of it: I’ll claim moral courage for putting my name and photo on Peter’s site. And if Laurel wins, maybe she’ll bestow favors on me just to prove her bipartisan spirit.
OH/HR Min says: “It’s distressing to me that a more experienced UU minister is so distrustful of our religion’s democracy.”
Politics is politics. I’m a 40+-year UU with 24 years in the ministry. I endorsed a candidate early on, but I’m not at all rabid about it. What I am is nervous. Politics is politics. It has nothing to do with either candidate’s being personally vengeful. I’ve seen it work that way too many times before.