I imagine this is an all-hands-on-deck day at Chick-Fil-A. It is, after all, a relatively impromptu Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. I’ve always respected the company (like their refusal to open on Sunday), and I’ve always loved their food. Pam and I often eat there on the way to music practice on Thursday nights.

Years ago, while traveling across the country from Indiana to Arizona to spend the Christmas holidays with my family, I saw a billboard for a Chick-Fil-A restaurant. I was ready to eat, and Chick-Fil-A sounded great. My mouth was watering. So I pulled off at the appropriate exit, went into the mall…and it was Sunday. Chick-Fil-A was closed. I was SO disappointed.

I’m glad Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy has the backbone to take a public stand on biblical principles. And to take what is, from a business standpoint, a politically incorrect stand. I’m not in total agreement with his statements, and I’m definitely not in agreement with some of the organizations Chick-Fil-A supports. I don’t think taking a public stand like this against homosexuals is going to win anybody to the Lord (just push people away, more likely). But hey, the world’s a better place with Christians who hold strong convictions, and it’s certainly a better place with those delicious chicken nuggets.

Now, Dan Cathy is not suffering religious persecution, as some people hysterically claim. He is merely suffering from disagreement. That happens when you are a prominent person and take a public stand. People disagree with you, perhaps vehemently. But in a pluralistic society, disagreeing with a Christian stand does not constitute religious persecution. It’s just a matter of passionate disagreement. (We are WAY too quick to cry “Religious persecution!” in America; we really don’t understand the concept.)

If Dan Cathy had stated a preference for Ford cars over Chrysler, it would have made Chrysler owners mad, and they would have criticized him. But that doesn’t mean they would be persecuting Ford owners. Or that Cathy was bigoted against Chrysler. So people–chill out, okay?

Is this controversy good for Chick-Fil-A?

I suspect that, from a marketing standpoint, the company would rather be known as a restaurant chain with great food, rather than as a right-wing restaurant chain. They’ve always been up-front about their Christian values, but never in an in-your-face kind of way. More a matter of living their values, rather than of flaunting them. But now, they’ll be known in some people’s eyes as a right-wing company.

But it’ll blow over. Remember those Christian boycotts of Disney back in the 1990s, because they were extending benefits to the gay partners of employees (seems like that’s what it was about, anyway)? My denomination endorsed the boycott, and since we never rescinded anything, I assume the boycott still stands. But nobody knows about it. I’m sure United Brethren people spend thousands of dollars every year on Disney movies, theme parks, and products.

We Americans have a short attention span. We follow whatever pundits tell us to follow at that moment, and when they move on, so do we. This controversy will have a short shelf life. Chick-Fil-A will have a big spike in sales today, and continuing for a few weeks. But then things will return to normal, and people who just like their food–conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike, and people of all faiths–will patronize their local Chick-Fil-A without thinking any political thoughts.

So if you want to get all worked up about this, and if you want to post somebody else’s graphics on Facebook, go right ahead. Knock yourself out. Give Chick-Fil-A this moment in the sun. Couldn’t happen to a better company.

For the moment, biblical values are getting lots of play in the media. But considering all of the vitriol associated with it, and the nastiness being flung around by people on all sides of the issue, I’m not sure that’s a good thing. It’s sad how quickly Christians can be incited to raw incivility, if not full-blown hatefulness. I suspect that this bothers Cathy, and that in the future, he will not be so vocal.

(Perry Noble, a megachurch pastor with an edge, a solid evangelical who knows how to talk straight, wrote an excellent blog post about the controversy: “Ben & Jerry’s, Chick-Fil-A, and Political Correctness.”)

On the July 15 edition of “Meet the Press,” I saw something which I thought was all but dead: two partisan operatives being objective about, and negative toward, their own candidates. Republican strategist Mike Murphy criticized something Mitt Romney was doing, and Democrat strategist Hilary Rosen responded by giving a simliar criticism of how Barack Obama was falling short.

It was so refreshing!

This is something we’ve lost in our polarized culture: the ability to have an objective conversation. That “Meet the Press” exchange was not a conversation–a TV show isn’t built for that–but it showed me that Rosen and Murphy were capable of stepping back from their partisan roles and engaging in a real conversation.

I long for a conversation in which people can freely argue both for and against a particular candidate. I can give you pluses and minuses for Barack Obama, and pluses and minuses for Mitt Romney. I’d love to have a conversation with someone who can put aside partisan preferences and just talk freely, without thinking he must convert me…or I him.

I’d love to feel free to voice my many criticisms of Barack Obama, and to hear my Republican friends respond with their reservations about Mitt Romney. Just talk, and see where it ends up.

You just don’t see that anymore. Instead, people argue tooth and nail in favor of their prefered candidate, and will not accept any criticism of their candidate (or will dismiss it or rationalize it away). I’m at fault, I admit. When people take nothing but an anti-Obama position, then I’m goaded into responding in kind. I seldom affirm pro-Romney or anti-Obama statements, so I’m as guilty as the next person. Guided largely by my assumption (right or wrong) that the other person has no interest in a conversation, I default to argument mode. And I hate that.

I would love to have an actual conversation. A conversation where someone makes a point in favor of Mitt Romney, and I can say, “You’re absolutely right.” And the person then says, “But on the other hand…”, and then gives a criticism of Romney. And I can respond, “I disagree. Here’s how I would defend Romney.” A conversation without dividing lines.

Because nearly everyone I know is a Republican, I’m normally cast in the position, at least out of fairness, of defending Obama. Of defending him against someone who will not admit the slightest shred of good in anything Obama has done. There can be no conversation with such people, and that disturbs me.

I just want to talk. Not argue. I’m tired of arguing.

Can’t we just talk openly, honestly, about politics? Can’t we try to follow Stephen Covey’s principle, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”?

The fate of our country does not hinge on whether you vote for Obama or Romney, or whether I vote for Obama or Romney. So ferociously trying to win every political argument is silly. The fate of our country, more likely, hinges on our ability to engage in civil dialogue with people who disagree with us, and to honestly seek to understand the merits of opposing viewpoints.

A friend pointed me to this video. Good stuff. It’s a song by Cindy Lee Berryhill (who I’m not familiar with).

Dick Lugar didn’t go quietly into the night. After losing last night’s primary for his Senate seat to a Tea Party guy, Lugar released a lengthy statement giving his thoughts about the polarization which engulfs Washington…and which his opponent, if elected in the fall, will deepen. It was a wonderful statement, filled with common sense counsel. Evan Bayh, in giving up his Senate seat two years ago, said much the same thing. Indiana, then, was blessed with two senators–one Republican, the other Democrat–who were committed to getting things done and to working with the Other Side. But they, Statesmen, have become dinosaurs.

Here is Lugar’s statement. I think it’s well worth reprinting in full. I highlighted a few lines.

Richard Lugar

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.

Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today – from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that. I hope we will demand judgment from our leaders. I continue to believe that Hoosiers value constructive leadership. I would not have run for office if I did not believe that.

As someone who has seen much in the politics of our country and our state, I am able to take the long view. I have not lost my enthusiasm for the role played by the United States Senate. Nor has my belief in conservative principles been diminished. I expect great things from my party and my country. I hope all who participated in this election share in this optimism.