
The polls suggest that people in Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Alaska and Kansas seem poised to cast a vote that many would not have predicted. People of many identities will vote in revulsion against an unaccountable corrupt king. Bishop Scott Jones, who ordained the Reverend (and possible Senator) Adam Hamilton once described Kansas Methodists as the “extreme middle.” May we all be so extreme.
A few years ago a dull blade caught a knot in some walnut spinning at 800 revolutions a minute on my wood lathe. My hand was mangled before I could shout, much less comprehend. But it was blood, not bone, that flew across the room, so I lived to turn again, wiser for the injury. Lazy words are more dangerous than dull tools because it is our families, friends and neighbors that are spinning faster than we can discern. I have four high voltage lights shining on the wood so I can see clearly. We need similar bright lights for our civic language so we can see, not just to vote for, but who to work with afterwards to craft mercy in a hard-hearted time.
Most of our fellow citizens are not rejecting conservatives or embracing progressives. MAGA is not conservative; it is a radial attempt to change our system of government, especially who votes and how government power is distributed among different branches and levels of elected offices.
The issue at hand is not about conservatives or progressives. It is between those who believe in the rule of law based on one-person, one-vote representation and those who want someone with royal prerogatives to rule like a King. The royalists say we need a “unitary Executive”—same thing. This is a very old, very bad idea. But even at the time of our American Revolution, about a quarter of the colonists wanted King George. But even they thought the King should not steal.
Two groups I am part of have great challenges with words about the important things: those in public health and those of faith. In July two brave friends bravely stirred both groups with an article in the American Journal of Public Health, suggesting that public health needed more conservatives. But what Conservatives, exactly? The ones about to vote for Hamilton and Talarico or the royalist radicals who reject democracy and basic public health services such as vaccination? They note six characteristics of conservatives that I doubt anyone in Texas or Oklahoma has ever heard of. Nevetheless, their simple point is that the field of public health would be better in these contentious times if it were easier for conservatives to be part of it. Karl and Tyler (they’re friends) are academics talking about the intellectual side of the public health movement. They barely note the vast majority of public health workers who labor in mostly dull anonymity doing the daily work of public health at the end of the road. Public health achieves its astonishing life-extending effects by what President Carter called “the mundane revolution.” We (I am of the tribe) focus on the obvious opportunities to conserve, protect and serve our fellow citizens (I’m borrowing the police motto on purpose).
Beside overlooking most of the people who actually do public health, they also ignored many leaders of the field who are and always have brought faith and science together in public service: Bill Foege, David Satcher, Jimmy and Rosallyn Carter, Soma Saha, Heidi Christensen, Christoph Benn, Howard Koh, Ray Baxter, Carl Taylor. Oh, and the fellow who spent at least a third of his time healing, Jesus (Martin Marty said that he spent three-thirds of his time doing that). Every one of these people knew that religion could warm the hearth or burn the house down in the hands of extremists, so they tended to talk with their hands, not from the pulpit.

They knew that academic squabbles are like pillow-fights compared to religious conflict that have often involved cages, bricks and fire. We were in Crete last week, where memory is still tender from 1823, when members of one religious group were burned alive in a cave by people of a different religious opinion. This is why we need our religious language to reflects the hope for the world, not our tribal fears.
Some of the same friends are hosting another surprise in Boston where you’ll be able to attend a conference on Christianity and Public Health on October 24th. This is a long overdue dialogue across the wide spectrum of Christians about how public health science illuminates how to partner with a God who so loves the world—who so loves the public.
Public health science is inherently anti-royalist because its focus is on the whole public, not just this or that tribe. And the field is not ashamed to advance health using strategies which increasingly include the social, psychological and, yes, spiritual, factors that shape the health of entire public over time. That science cannot help but pose questions about complexity, diversity and inclusion that are harder for some political theories and theologies than others. This is no problem for conservatives who accept democracy. But royalists have long preferred medieval Catholic theories about God and government. Recently we’ve seen any number of “Baptists,” sound more like 14th century Catholics: Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas says that the book of Romans “teaches that God has given government the role of protecting society.” And “when I look for somebody who does that, I don’t want somebody with a demeanor of Jesus necessarily — be nice if they did — but I want the meanest, toughest S.O.B. I can find.”
Others like JD Vance find shelter in very old fashioned Catholicism for policies stripping healthcare from the poor and cruelty to the immigrants that no Pope for hundreds of years would recognize, certainly not the current one from Chicago. I’m on the Quaker side of the Christian spectrum but I agree with the Pope.
Words that might have shed some light ten or 40 years ago now cast shadows like dancing monsters on the walls. “ Liberal,” “religious,” “democrat,” “progressive” and, least helpful of all, “conservative.” Those words wear as poorly as bell bottoms or narrow ties. More seriously, dull words can mangle hands that could be joined to share the weight of a very heavy lift ahead.

We need language to help us imagine what might be possible when one aligns the most mature faith with the most relevant science. Public health science helps. Conservatives like my father and progressives like me can talk a long time about both of those qualities and how to turn them into wise government policy for a free people.
////
You can get the AJPH article from Karl Johnson, PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive, CB #7469, 4105 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7469. Reprints can be ordered at https://www.ajph.org by clicking the “Reprints” link.
Oh, and don’t forget to subscribe for free. It helps me know what works.






























