Like watching a trainwreck, I find I can't NOT pay attention to the story of the woman with octuplets, six other children and no visible means of support. As I watched her interview with Ann Curry on Dateline the other night, I couldn't figure out if she was completely wacko or just a product of our time.
Consider how marriage has changed over the last few generations. For most of human history, marriage has been a highly practical institution. People married not for love, but because that was the most orderly way to bring children into the world and pass on the family's property to the next generation. One's choice of partner was about family connections, class, status, wealth, education level, and so forth. Even as romantic attraction began to play more of a role, you still considered whether this was a "suitable match."
In recent years, the romantic ideal has almost completely eliminated practical considerations. Think about the basic plot of a romantic movie. Young woman is engaged to a guy who is a good partner, whom her family approves of, but is just a bit boring. She meets her soulmate, and despite huge practical obstacles, she rides off into the sunset with him, leaving the boring guy at the altar. And we cheer. Because love is the only thing that really matters.
However, as the rationale for marriage has changed, decisions about child-bearing have remained highly practical. In fact, as reproduction has become more of a choice, rather than the inevitable result of marrying, we've largely transferred the practical aspects of deciding to marry to decisions about children. We marry for love, whether we have money or not, but we usually choose to have children only if we have the means to support them.
What the octuplet's mother has done is carry the "all you need is love" rationale to its extreme. She believes that a heart full of love is enough for her to be the world's best mother. It's not hard to see how her thinking could go there, given how our culture looks at marriage. (Or consider that popular nugget of career advice: "Do what you love and the money will follow.") But what do we do with someone who completely disregards the practical to the point of endangering others?
For the children's sake, I hope she comes up some way to support them. What I fear is that what she will come up with is a way to cash in on her celebrity, which will set a terrible precedent.
All you need is love - and fame.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Did Bush Keep Us Safe?
I've read a lot of comments lately, from those trying to salvage some sort of legacy for George W. Bush, along the lines, "He must have done something right, since we haven't been attacked again since 9/11." This seems to be the main bullet point in any essay that claims Bush's record will improve with time, as it did for Harry Truman.
I have several problems with this line of reasoning. To start with, it's a logical fallacy to say since something didn't happen, therefore measures taken to prevent it must have been successful. It's like the old joke about doing something outrageous "to keep the wolverines away," then claiming it works, because there aren't any wolverines around.
It is also illogical, given that this administration has been so secretive about their dealings, to imagine that its legacy will improve over time. We must assume that nothing that would make them look good has been buried and that plenty that would make them look bad has. As more comes to light about what went on inside the Bush White House, the picture will get clearer, but it won't get any prettier.
Aside from mere logic, there are other reasons history won't improve Bush's record on security.
First, it's clear that the Bush team was pretty much asleep at the wheel when 9/11 hit. Better tracking of al qaeda and better use of the intelligence we already had might have prevented 9/11 from happening at all. So it's a bit of a stretch to give those same folks kudos for major attacks not happening twice on their watch.
Second, the hardliners in the administration wasted so little time in taking political advantage of the situation that you almost got the sense they were glad it happened. It gave them the opening they needed to attack Iraq, increase defense spending, and create a massive new government agency. And while all that money flying around has yet to be accounted for, it's clear that a great deal went to line the pockets of people close to Bush and Cheney.
Third, why should al qaeda attack again when the last attack worked so well? The goal of terrorism is not to start a war, it's to instill fear, to bring a rich and powerful nation to its knees. When we responded by bankrupting the country with spending on security, disregarding our constitution and violating our core values as a nation, then they accomplished their goals.
Are we any safer than we were before spending so many billions on additional guards, checkpoints, and other security apparatus? We already had a huge security infrastructure in place before 9/11, it just failed to do the job. But hey, in this country, we reward failure with massive federal spending. Just look at the Wall Street bailout.
Bush believed he could fight terrorism by spreading democracy abroad. Unfortunately, he compromised so many democratic values along the way, that instead of exporting democracy, he imported the values and practices of petty tyrants: valuing loyalty over competence, surrounding himself with only those he agreed with, punishing those who got in his way, and never admitting his own fallibility.
Sorry, George, but that's a legacy that time will not improve.
I have several problems with this line of reasoning. To start with, it's a logical fallacy to say since something didn't happen, therefore measures taken to prevent it must have been successful. It's like the old joke about doing something outrageous "to keep the wolverines away," then claiming it works, because there aren't any wolverines around.
It is also illogical, given that this administration has been so secretive about their dealings, to imagine that its legacy will improve over time. We must assume that nothing that would make them look good has been buried and that plenty that would make them look bad has. As more comes to light about what went on inside the Bush White House, the picture will get clearer, but it won't get any prettier.
Aside from mere logic, there are other reasons history won't improve Bush's record on security.
First, it's clear that the Bush team was pretty much asleep at the wheel when 9/11 hit. Better tracking of al qaeda and better use of the intelligence we already had might have prevented 9/11 from happening at all. So it's a bit of a stretch to give those same folks kudos for major attacks not happening twice on their watch.
Second, the hardliners in the administration wasted so little time in taking political advantage of the situation that you almost got the sense they were glad it happened. It gave them the opening they needed to attack Iraq, increase defense spending, and create a massive new government agency. And while all that money flying around has yet to be accounted for, it's clear that a great deal went to line the pockets of people close to Bush and Cheney.
Third, why should al qaeda attack again when the last attack worked so well? The goal of terrorism is not to start a war, it's to instill fear, to bring a rich and powerful nation to its knees. When we responded by bankrupting the country with spending on security, disregarding our constitution and violating our core values as a nation, then they accomplished their goals.
Are we any safer than we were before spending so many billions on additional guards, checkpoints, and other security apparatus? We already had a huge security infrastructure in place before 9/11, it just failed to do the job. But hey, in this country, we reward failure with massive federal spending. Just look at the Wall Street bailout.
Bush believed he could fight terrorism by spreading democracy abroad. Unfortunately, he compromised so many democratic values along the way, that instead of exporting democracy, he imported the values and practices of petty tyrants: valuing loyalty over competence, surrounding himself with only those he agreed with, punishing those who got in his way, and never admitting his own fallibility.
Sorry, George, but that's a legacy that time will not improve.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Our Faith-Based Economy
With the election now 2 months behind us and the inauguration near at last, the country does seem fundamentally changed. But for all the analyzing that's been going on, I don't think we as a country have a very good handle on HOW we have changed.
I've read a lot of comments about what's happened to the Republicans and how they can rebuild a majority. Most of it misses what I see as the fundamental fissure in their coalition. Saying there's a divide between moderate and extreme conservatives misses the point. The real divide is between religious conservatives and non-religious conservatives. These groups threw their lots in with each other about 30 years ago, and it's not clear that either side ultimately benefited.
After several years of unprecedented influence over national policy, what do the religious conservatives have to show for it? Not much that I can see. They have been able to impede progress on social issues, such as gay marriage and abortion, but they have not made fundamental changes.
But the non-religious conservatives, at least those whose main interest is fiscal responsibility, have fared even worse. Despite record deficits, the economy is in shambles, and the public is in the mood to spend our way out of the recession. Fiscal restraint is now seen as a luxury that we hope to be able to afford a couple years down the road, but not right now.
Indeed, it may be a legacy of the religious conservatism of the GW Bush era that we now take things on faith. Because in religious thinking, the moral rightness of something trumps cost considerations. And when you think about it, the Bush administration practiced faith-based policy on lots of things. Attack Iraq and hope for the best. Hand out stimulus checks and hope they help. Keep disaster victims in our prayers.
So now we are getting a new President we largely elected on faith. We don't really know him that well, but we're handing him the checkbook and the keys, and we're praying that he will get us out of this mess. To succeed, he will need to manage the enormous faith people have placed in him, and at the same time manage the nuts and bolts work of returning us to fiscal sanity. Because the country doesn't run on faith alone.
I've read a lot of comments about what's happened to the Republicans and how they can rebuild a majority. Most of it misses what I see as the fundamental fissure in their coalition. Saying there's a divide between moderate and extreme conservatives misses the point. The real divide is between religious conservatives and non-religious conservatives. These groups threw their lots in with each other about 30 years ago, and it's not clear that either side ultimately benefited.
After several years of unprecedented influence over national policy, what do the religious conservatives have to show for it? Not much that I can see. They have been able to impede progress on social issues, such as gay marriage and abortion, but they have not made fundamental changes.
But the non-religious conservatives, at least those whose main interest is fiscal responsibility, have fared even worse. Despite record deficits, the economy is in shambles, and the public is in the mood to spend our way out of the recession. Fiscal restraint is now seen as a luxury that we hope to be able to afford a couple years down the road, but not right now.
Indeed, it may be a legacy of the religious conservatism of the GW Bush era that we now take things on faith. Because in religious thinking, the moral rightness of something trumps cost considerations. And when you think about it, the Bush administration practiced faith-based policy on lots of things. Attack Iraq and hope for the best. Hand out stimulus checks and hope they help. Keep disaster victims in our prayers.
So now we are getting a new President we largely elected on faith. We don't really know him that well, but we're handing him the checkbook and the keys, and we're praying that he will get us out of this mess. To succeed, he will need to manage the enormous faith people have placed in him, and at the same time manage the nuts and bolts work of returning us to fiscal sanity. Because the country doesn't run on faith alone.
Monday, November 17, 2008
We'll Get Change - But How Much?
It's been almost 2 weeks since the election, and I haven't posted anything, because so much has been written that it is hard to add anything new. Overall, I think the outcome was historical and earth-shattering, but also inevitable. There's a lot of finger-pointing among the R's about who lost the election, but I don't think McCain could have won this, and I also don't think any other R could have won it, under the circumstances.
The big unanswered question is this: It is very clear that this election is a repudiation of the last 8 years. But is it a repudiation of the last 28 years?
The last "sea change" in US government came with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan. He campaigned on ideas that were starkly different from what had been the norm for the '60's and '70's. There were 3 main themes: smaller government with lower taxes, higher defense spending, and conservative social values. While the last 2 of those had their proponents, it's fair to say that what swayed middle America to give the conservatives a turn at governing was the basic economic message. After many attempts at addressing poverty, racism, and other social ills with government programs, people were open to hearing that government can't solve all their problems, that individuals and local communities were better equipped to improve things than the government bureaucrats were, that you know better than they do how to spend your money.
Through the ups and downs of the last 28 years, the basic principles of Reaganomics have remained the law of the land. We had one Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who was elected after George Bush 41 tried to move things in a more moderate direction but ended up not making anyone happy. But 2 years after electing Clinton, who was definitely not a 60's style Dem in the first place, the country sent a wave of conservative Republicans to Congress, who made sure Clinton didn't wander to the left.
Obama's election offers the first real opportunity to deviate from the philosophy that's held sway simce 1980. But is the country ready? Can we begin to acknowledge that government isn't always part of the problem, but a necessary part of the solution? Can politicians begin to risk advocating tax increases to pay for what needs to be done and relieve the next generation's debt burden? Can we have an honest discussion about how much military power we can afford? Can we begin to appreciate that money given to the government doesn't get flushed down the toilet, but actually creates jobs?
(We should stop here and remind those who want to nominate Reagan for sainthood that the original premises of his economics never worked. He claimed that he could cut taxes, increase defense spending, and still balance the budget. Instead he created large deficits that even his own budget advisors acknowledged could not be fixed without more revenue. And the big efforts at deregulation, with first the airlines and then the savings & loans, resulted in large government bailouts.)
Obama was careful during the campaign to promise change without providing very many specifics about what that change will mean. His presidency could just bring small tweaks to the federal budget and tax code that clean up the worst of Bush's messes. Or he could "out-Reagan" the Republicans by actually finding ways to eliminate programs and cut spending, thus reducing the deficit while still providing targeted tax cuts. Or he could take the country in some bold new direction economically: Large investments in new, greener technologies? Creative new initiatives to deal with poverty, education and health care? A leaner, more efficient military and homeland security structure? Comprehensive reform to the tax code? The country is open to change. But what kind of change and how much change? Those are the big questions.
The big unanswered question is this: It is very clear that this election is a repudiation of the last 8 years. But is it a repudiation of the last 28 years?
The last "sea change" in US government came with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan. He campaigned on ideas that were starkly different from what had been the norm for the '60's and '70's. There were 3 main themes: smaller government with lower taxes, higher defense spending, and conservative social values. While the last 2 of those had their proponents, it's fair to say that what swayed middle America to give the conservatives a turn at governing was the basic economic message. After many attempts at addressing poverty, racism, and other social ills with government programs, people were open to hearing that government can't solve all their problems, that individuals and local communities were better equipped to improve things than the government bureaucrats were, that you know better than they do how to spend your money.
Through the ups and downs of the last 28 years, the basic principles of Reaganomics have remained the law of the land. We had one Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who was elected after George Bush 41 tried to move things in a more moderate direction but ended up not making anyone happy. But 2 years after electing Clinton, who was definitely not a 60's style Dem in the first place, the country sent a wave of conservative Republicans to Congress, who made sure Clinton didn't wander to the left.
Obama's election offers the first real opportunity to deviate from the philosophy that's held sway simce 1980. But is the country ready? Can we begin to acknowledge that government isn't always part of the problem, but a necessary part of the solution? Can politicians begin to risk advocating tax increases to pay for what needs to be done and relieve the next generation's debt burden? Can we have an honest discussion about how much military power we can afford? Can we begin to appreciate that money given to the government doesn't get flushed down the toilet, but actually creates jobs?
(We should stop here and remind those who want to nominate Reagan for sainthood that the original premises of his economics never worked. He claimed that he could cut taxes, increase defense spending, and still balance the budget. Instead he created large deficits that even his own budget advisors acknowledged could not be fixed without more revenue. And the big efforts at deregulation, with first the airlines and then the savings & loans, resulted in large government bailouts.)
Obama was careful during the campaign to promise change without providing very many specifics about what that change will mean. His presidency could just bring small tweaks to the federal budget and tax code that clean up the worst of Bush's messes. Or he could "out-Reagan" the Republicans by actually finding ways to eliminate programs and cut spending, thus reducing the deficit while still providing targeted tax cuts. Or he could take the country in some bold new direction economically: Large investments in new, greener technologies? Creative new initiatives to deal with poverty, education and health care? A leaner, more efficient military and homeland security structure? Comprehensive reform to the tax code? The country is open to change. But what kind of change and how much change? Those are the big questions.
Monday, November 3, 2008
What Would John Calvin Do?
Once a year we Presbyterians, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, commemorate Reformation Sunday. My preacher chose to focus on Luther this year, but I found myself instead pondering the election and the economic crisis, and thinking that what the USA needs right now is the second coming of John Calvin.
Our Puritan forebears were good Calvinists. They valued hard work, individual responsibility, and strong communities that were devoted to justice and the common good. It's true they also desired limited government and free markets, which is to say they were capitalists, but their economic philosophy was much different from today's conservative economics.
The key difference between Calvinist capitalism and today's free-market system is the basic assumption about human nature. Calvin believed in the "utter depravity" of humankind. This sounds quaintly extreme to modern ears, so we might prefer the scriptural version, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." So a Calvin-based economic system allows for free markets, individual initiative and private ownership of property, but it recognizes that human greed and covetousness need to be controlled. It says I have a right to own my own home or business, but is clear that my rights end when I start to take unfair advantage of others, or to use my property in such a way that it infringes on my neighbor's right to use his.
Modern conservative economics, on the other hand, is based on a very optimistic view of human nature. It says that if people are left alone to pursue their economic goals, they will benefit themselves, and that in turn will benefit the community. If government tries to regulate economic activity, it will just get in the way and mess things up, so we should just let the free market work without government interference. Theologically, this thinking is not Calvinism, it's more in tune with the "prosperity gospel," which says God blesses the holy with economic success.
The recent Wall Street meltdown clearly show the failure of the optimistic approach to economics. It's been interesting to hear how McCain, Palin, Bush and other conservatives have tried to explain this crisis while not abandoning their basic assumptions. They rail against greed and corruption in the financial system, then turn around and advocate for limiting government even further. And they do it all with a straight face.
I'm not holding out much hope for Calvin himself appearing to rescue us. But here's hoping that the next President and Congress can inject a good healthy appreciation for human depravity into our economic system.
Our Puritan forebears were good Calvinists. They valued hard work, individual responsibility, and strong communities that were devoted to justice and the common good. It's true they also desired limited government and free markets, which is to say they were capitalists, but their economic philosophy was much different from today's conservative economics.
The key difference between Calvinist capitalism and today's free-market system is the basic assumption about human nature. Calvin believed in the "utter depravity" of humankind. This sounds quaintly extreme to modern ears, so we might prefer the scriptural version, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." So a Calvin-based economic system allows for free markets, individual initiative and private ownership of property, but it recognizes that human greed and covetousness need to be controlled. It says I have a right to own my own home or business, but is clear that my rights end when I start to take unfair advantage of others, or to use my property in such a way that it infringes on my neighbor's right to use his.
Modern conservative economics, on the other hand, is based on a very optimistic view of human nature. It says that if people are left alone to pursue their economic goals, they will benefit themselves, and that in turn will benefit the community. If government tries to regulate economic activity, it will just get in the way and mess things up, so we should just let the free market work without government interference. Theologically, this thinking is not Calvinism, it's more in tune with the "prosperity gospel," which says God blesses the holy with economic success.
The recent Wall Street meltdown clearly show the failure of the optimistic approach to economics. It's been interesting to hear how McCain, Palin, Bush and other conservatives have tried to explain this crisis while not abandoning their basic assumptions. They rail against greed and corruption in the financial system, then turn around and advocate for limiting government even further. And they do it all with a straight face.
I'm not holding out much hope for Calvin himself appearing to rescue us. But here's hoping that the next President and Congress can inject a good healthy appreciation for human depravity into our economic system.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Alas, Poor Pennsylvania
After GWB squeaked out the win in 2000, he pretty much spent the next 4 years campaigning for re-election. Whenever he wanted to make a major (or minor) announcement about something or other, he would fly to some "swing" state to do it. His favorite target seemed to be Pennsylvania. I don't have a count of how many times Bush visited the Keystoners from 2001 to 2004, but the number is substantial. For all that effort, Pennsylvania voted pretty much the same in 2004 as in 2000: for the Democrat by a few percentage points.
Now McCain has picked up where Bush left off. His campaign has decided that with a number of red states slipping away, the only strategy with a shot at winning is to try to turn Pennsylvania red. My advice to Pennsylvanians: Maybe if you vote Obama by at least 5 points this time, the Republicans will leave you alone for a few elections. It worked for us in Oregon.
Now McCain has picked up where Bush left off. His campaign has decided that with a number of red states slipping away, the only strategy with a shot at winning is to try to turn Pennsylvania red. My advice to Pennsylvanians: Maybe if you vote Obama by at least 5 points this time, the Republicans will leave you alone for a few elections. It worked for us in Oregon.
Why the Hardliners Love Palin
When you watch news reports of Sarah Palin drawing huge crowds, and you read quotes from her speeches, it's easy to find yourself scratching your head and wondering what in golly gosh heck those folks see in her. At these times, it's helpful to remember that conservative Christians don't see elections the way the rest of us do. For them, the person's beliefs are the only thing that really matters. Qualities you and I might consider in a candidate, such as experience, intelligence, leadership ability, or even personal integrity, are much less important. They believe that the President should be a vessel through which God leads the country. The only thing that matters is how open to being led by God the human leader is.
They also believe that the election is in God's hands. That means that if McCain and Palin manage to win (God forbid) that would be seen as a mighty work of God. Of course, when they lose, it will not be seen as evidence God was not on their side. Instead, you will hear Christian leaders talk about how God saw fit to turn the USA over to the dark side for 4 years, so we could have a time of testing. They'll probably include a list of sins we are guilty of that warranted this punishment.
If none of this makes sense to you, don't worry. Rationality is not the point.
They also believe that the election is in God's hands. That means that if McCain and Palin manage to win (God forbid) that would be seen as a mighty work of God. Of course, when they lose, it will not be seen as evidence God was not on their side. Instead, you will hear Christian leaders talk about how God saw fit to turn the USA over to the dark side for 4 years, so we could have a time of testing. They'll probably include a list of sins we are guilty of that warranted this punishment.
If none of this makes sense to you, don't worry. Rationality is not the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)