Last Tuesday, as the swinging arm of the voting booth clanged shut and a curtain separated me from all the other people in that school gym, I looked at the familiar levers; I read every row and all the names on them. Each begged, choose me! take me! push me! While I had made my decision long before I stepped into the booth, I still felt the excitement of the occasion. I do believe that my vote counts; I do believe that voting is a precious privilege as well as a right and thus whenever I vote it feels important. But this time, as I pushed the lever I knew that I was participating in a historic moment. Either an African American man would be entrusted with the highest office in the land, or a woman with the second highest. In this country we have never made either choice before. The tears ran down my face as I pushed the levers and gave form to my convictions and I didn't bother to wipe them away as I swung the curtain open and rejoined the world.

As it became clear later that evening that 52% of those who voted chose Barack Obama, I felt overwhelmed by the momentousness of that vote. How far we have come. How much have we lived up to our better selves. Does this election erase our slave-owning, racially discriminating history? No. Does this election solve the problems we still have regarding racial inequality and its intersections with class and gender in this country? No. Nevertheless, this election does represent a shift of trust in this country. A majority of the voters trusted this African American man to lead them to what they fervently hoped would be a better future. For me, this is the transformative moment: this expression of trust, hope and optimism. No matter what happens now, we can never go back on the choice we made last Tuesday. No matter what personal situation or political ideas brought us to it, the choice to trust this man and his message of hope and optimism represents a transformation for our country.

While I assume that most, if not all, of us appreciate the historical significance of this vote, I do not assume that everyone in our congregation voted for Obama. I do not assume that everyone is celebrating. I do not assume that we all think the same way politically. I do, however, assume that we will try to understand each other's points of view and speak to each other with respect for our differences.

That said, we ask What now? How do we live in this post-election world? One thing remains the same: today we find ourselves in the very mess we wallowed in before the election. You know the litany of issues: the economic situation -- credit, jobs, the stock market; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; health care; climate change; energy use and supply; education, marriage equality and so forth. Yet even so, we are different. We are differently in the same situations. What now? Opinions vary.

In the Friday Op-ed section of the New York Times, David Brooks wrote that the administration of his dreams would begin by: "explaining to the American people that there are two stages to their domestic policy thinking, the short-term and the long-term.The short-term strategy will have two goals: to mitigate the pain of the recession and the change of the culture of Washington. The first step will be to complete the round of stimulus packages that are sure to come. Then they'll take up two ideas that already have bipartisan support: middle-class tax relief and an energy package. . .. . When the recession shows signs of bottoming out, then my dream administration would begin phase two. The long-term strategy would be about restoring fiscal balances and reforming fundamental institutions. . . . Having built bipartisan relationships, having shown some fiscal toughness, having seen the economy through the tough times, my dream administration will then be in a position to take up health care reform, tax reform, education reform and a long-range infrastructure initiative. These reforms may have to start slow and on the cheap. But real reform would be imaginable since politics as we know it would be transformed."

On the other hand, Paul Krugman wrote: "Right now, many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small. Some make the case on political grounds: America, they say, is still a conservative country, and voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left. Others say that the financial and economic crisis leaves no room for action on, say, health care reform. Let's hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice. . . What F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address ” "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics" ” has never rung truer. And right now happens to be one of those times when the converse is also true, and good morals are good economics. Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it's also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it's also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy's slump. So a serious progressive agenda ” call it a new New Deal ” isn't just economically possible, it's exactly what the economy needs. The bottom line, then, is that Barack Obama shouldn't listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself."

Two different approaches from two different, but well respected and knowledgeable commentators. I agree with Brooks that the culture of Washington must change and that Obama and the leaders of both houses of Congress must bring bi-partisanship back to decision making. I agree with Krugman that the Obama administration should not turn "anything and everything into an argument for its preferred policies," and at the same time we cannot in good conscience ask those who suffer the most to wait for some indefinite amount of time before relief is provided. I agree with both of them that the economy must be attended to, but I think all these issues are inter-related and the big picture must be looked at with an eye that each affects each before the details and the priorities can be sorted through.

Opinions and preferences aside, the truth is that I do not know which approach would work better and I wonder if anyone does, really. What we know is that past methods did not work. The current situation is something we will experience and learn from as we go through it so I call upon the new president to have the open-mindedness, intelligence and common sense to listen to a wide variety of views and choose the one with the greatest chance of success and fairness, regardless of ideology.

In pondering the question, What now? we can debate national policy for hours. And while national policy affects our lives, we elect representatives whose ideas and values we agree with and they make the policy. We do not have much direct influence on it, without great and sustained public effort. Therefore, if we turn the question inward and ask How do we, how do I, live as citizens in this post-election, post-transformation world? we come up with more directly actionable ideas. Our country is in a moral and spiritual crisis, as well as an economic and social crisis. What role do we play in that? How can we participate in calling ourselves back to our better selves?

How do we start? By identifying the morals and the ethics we use as guideposts and as touchstones for accountability. Our government, whether local or national, does not exist to give a few people power to enrich themselves and to pursue policies that take no account of the people's needs, best interests, and wishes. This country was founded on a set of principles and our system was always meant to exemplify those principles. They have to do with equality, freedom, democracy, and justice. It is a government by the people, for the people and of the people.

What are the ethical values that I want my life, as well as my government: national, state and local, to exemplify? How do we understand equality, freedom, democracy and justice to play out? Paraphrasing the Unitarian Universalist principles, I would begin with their manifestation as respect for the inherent value of every person, meaning an end to the objectification of people, meaning a thinking in terms of "we" rather than solely of "me." I would continue with their manifestation as justice and equity, meaning social and economic fairness, and compassion in human relations. Freedom of thought and conscience as we each search for truth and meaning, which implies a respect for differences of ideas and spiritual beliefs and a determination to find ways to live peacefully with such differences. Finally, I include as justice a responsible stewardship of the earth so that we use our time here more sustainably.

How do we live these values as citizens given the moral and spiritual crisis we find ourselves in? Some possibilities occur to me. First, as Rabbi Sharon Brous noted on the radio program Speaking of Faith (September 25, 2008), we remember that regardless of the changes that have come, the three most important things remain the same: tending our spiritual lives, tending and repairing our relationships and working for justice in the world. These are inter-related. Our spiritual lives give strength and direction to our relationships and to our work. Our relationships give us the opportunity to be justice and peace, to be love, to be the change we wish to see. Our work in the world allows us to live the values that arise from our spirits and extend them outward.

Taking the long view will serve us well here. Change comes slowly and often in increments that we cannot see. This requires patience and persistence and confidence in our work and in the values and beliefs that undergird it. There will continue to be times, even now and in the months and years ahead, when we cannot see what difference our efforts have made. Take the long view. Theodore Parker, the Unitarian minister who fought for abolition of slavery, a long, long fight, and one which he himself did not see to completion, said, "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one¦ And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice."

Our congregation has been involved for far too long in trying to get the NYS legislature to change the Rockefeller Drug Laws, which have proven themselves harsh, racist in outcome and counter-productive. We lobbied our representatives in Albany for years and they told us yes, change is coming. It has not come yet. I, for one, feel incredibly impatient and frustrated with that. But if this is our chosen work we must persist. The representation in the legislature has changed, perhaps our time has come. If we expect a new president to take office in January and solve all the problems facing us, we will inevitably be disappointed. Take the long view. Persist. Remember that "Yes we can" is neither easy nor quick.

Secondly, democrats must learn to rule. For many years people who identify as liberal and/or progressive have stood in a place of opposition to prevailing policies.? With a democrat in the White House, democrats in the majority of both houses of Congress as well as the New York State legislature, that oppositional stance may no longer make sense. The question becomes, what does it mean to hold the majority?? Does it mean that a specific agenda will be pushed through regardless of all else? How will democrats do politics? Will they perpetuate the cut throat, vengeful partisanship of demonization that seems to be the norm? Will they perpetuate the politics of lies, innuendo and fear that our country has seen too much of in the past forty years? Or will they, at our urging, do differently? With greater access to our representatives and greater influence with them, we do have a shot at change. We can both model and call for bi-partisan decision making, responsible and accurate public debate. That means letting go of ideological rhetoric, whether on the right or left. It means embracing a willingness to listen and to understand and to foster a climate of mature disagreement: personally, locally and nationally. As citizens we can do that ourselves and we can hold our elected officials to that.

Who are our models in governing? Nelson Mandela, who for years spoke out against apartheid, spent decades in jail and then emerged as the president of South Africa. As the one who governed he set the tone for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, designed to give both victims and perpetrators a voice, with the intention of reconciliation and forgiveness. Eleanor Roosevelt, who understood the suffering and the needs of the people, yet had to curb her impatience in the recognition that in order to get anything through, her husband had to compromise. Did she give up? No. Did she withdraw into a state of alienation and/or righteous opposition? No. She supported and encouraged and persisted and she held onto her convictions. She made use of the same skills and strengths when she chaired the UN committee that produced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Thirdly, we must remember that we cannot hold all the problems of the world as individuals or as a congregation or even as a nation.? We cannot solve or fix them as individuals or as a congregation and if we expect to be able to, we will burn out. Anne Lamott, in her book Plan B - Further Thoughts on Faith wrote, "How are we going to get through this craziness? I asked. There was silence for a moment. Left foot, right foot, left foot, breathe, (my friend) said." We must identify common goals, based upon our values, and work together for them, pragmatically. Build coalitions with people who might think differently. It does not mean that we make a hierarchy of needs and insist that everyone get onboard. Take a piece and work on it. Our problems and our needs are inter-related and working on one part influences the whole. Some of us believe that environmental concerns carry the most weight. Fine -- put your efforts there. Some of us think that marriage equality and its implications for civil rights is important. Fine--put your efforts there. Some of think that peace is important. Fine. Take a piece and persist with it. Educate yourself, talk to others, take appropriate actions, share what you think and say why you value it. Hold to your work, one piece at a time.

What can our congregation do in this post-transformation world?? We can shine as a beacon on the arc that bends toward justice. We can continue to foster and build upon an atmosphere that promotes spiritual growth with freedom of belief and conscience. We can continue to build upon the UU example of religious pluralism. We can intentionally practice kindness, compassion, respect, responsible and mutual commitment in this community and in our personal lives. We can choose to foster peace within and peace without. With clarity about our ethics, we can choose to focus upon certain issues, take actions, and devote ourselves to them for the long haul. As we have become known in Ulster County and beyond as the congregation that works for restorative justice, we can become known as the congregation that also works for -------. We can become an example for creative and respectful disagreement through public forums and discussions that bring different points of view together for the education of all and with a view toward moving forward. We can consider how we might best influence our legislators as a religious body. We can build upon what we already do and find new ways of helping those in distress, both inside our community and outside of it. In the past two weeks I have been approached by three or four different people, unknown personally to me, with requests to find them jobs, housing and/or pay their rent. The times call for us to be creative in how we help one another.

What I am saying is that a transformation has already occurred in our country and we have choices, as individuals and as a congregation, about how we will participate in it. We are in a moral, spiritual, economic and social crisis. What part will we choose to play? I am suggesting that our choices be intentional ones. Remembering the three important facets of life: our spiritual development, our relationships and our work for justice, we can hold up our ethical values and shape our choices and actions around them. I am asking if it would serve our congregation to articulate, with broad support from the membership, two or three issues and paths of action and dedicate ourselves to them with vigor and with patience and with persistence? I am asking if we will choose to participate in politics as usual or will we carve a different path and offer it to the broader community? I am asking if we will respond innovatively to the increased needs of people? I am wondering if we will transform ourselves and our ways of doing and being in the world? I hope so. We have something important to offer. The details are yours to work out. The choices are yours, mine, ours. May we choose wisely and well. May it be so.

Closing words by W.E.B. DuBois (adapted)

Let us seize the day and the opportunity and strive for that greatness of spirit that measures life not by its disappointments but by its possibilities. And let us ever remember that true gratitude and appreciation shows itself neither in independence nor satisfaction but passes the gift joyfully on in larger and better form.