I Speak Christian

Babies: All You Need is Love?

2009-02-12T16:05:00.000-08:00

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.

Did Bush Keep Us Safe?

2009-01-20T15:12:00.000-08:00

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.

Our Faith-Based Economy

2009-01-13T11:32:00.000-08:00

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.

We'll Get Change - But How Much?

2008-11-17T11:27:00.000-08:00

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.

What Would John Calvin Do?

2008-11-03T10:28:00.001-08:00

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.

Alas, Poor Pennsylvania

2008-10-23T16:30:00.000-07:00

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.

Why the Hardliners Love Palin

2008-10-23T16:15:00.000-07:00

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.

The Cracks in McCain's Foundations

2008-10-21T13:46:00.000-07:00

I noted a few months back that John McCain faced an almost impossible task if he wanted to win this election. He had to keep the loyalty of the 26% of the population that still like George Bush (i.e., the hardcore Christian right), while attracting an equal number of votes from people who don't like Bush.

For much of the campaign, he has managed to straddle this divide without falling in. But the dilemma was never more evident than when it came time to pick a running mate. McCain would have loved to pick his friend Joe Lieberman, a pick that would have been a clear move toward the center. But someone prevailed on him to use the pick to shore up support from the far right; hence, the hockey mom. As the campaign winds down, it's clear that Palin is turning off a lot of moderates. Meanwhile, McCain is trying hard to let us know he is not George Bush, but it's probably too little too late.

That political divide has now been dwarfed by a second, ideological rift in the form of the economic meltdown. While it's true that both parties contributed, there's no escaping the fact that the basic assumptions of Republican economics are being challenged. In the later debates, McCain and Palin both jumped back and forth between railing about greed and corruption on Wall Street and touting traditional Republican philosophy of limited government and low taxes. Now they are scrambling to label Obama a Socialist, but it's pretty hard to make that one stick when you've just voted for the most socialistic piece of legislation to go through in many a decade.

(By the way, many of the neocons - Bush's most trusted foreign policy advisors - were card-carrying socialists in their youth. Look it up.)

It's a bit sad that when this election is over, McCain's loss will be mainly attributed to the economic crisis. We will never know how things would have turned out if the landscape had not changed so drastically. I suspect Obama would still have won, but it would have been a real nail-biter getting there.

Let's Not Forget to Blame Karl Rove

2008-10-13T12:52:00.000-07:00

In recent days, as Wall Street melts down and Washington tries to react, I've heard several folks in leadership positions say, "Let's not play the blame game." I don't get it. When things go wrong, it's important to ask what went wrong and who did what, so we can see what to do differently next time.

In fact, throughout this election campaign, I've noticed how both candidates are willing to say, "Things are a mess in Washington," and, "It's time for change," but neither seems willing to talk in specifics about what George Bush has done wrong and how they would handle the job differently. Strange, given that the number one qualification to be the next President is "Not George Bush," that no one wants to talk about what that means.

So let's start talking about who screwed up: in the executive branch and the legislative branch and the Fed and the American financial industry, and everywhere else. And let's not forget to blame Karl Rove. Here's why.

The time-honored way to run for President has been to start with a solid base of support within your party, then reach out for moderates and members of the other party who can be persuaded to cross over. It was understood that elections are won or lost by how well you appeal to swing voters.

Rove's approach with Bush was fundamentally different. He looked at how low voter turnout was becoming, and realized that he could get enough votes to elect his candidate just by firing up the base. He used the churches and other conservative-minded groups to scour the countryside for conservative-leaning people who were not in the habit of voting. He knew that if all the red-leaning states voted red, they would win. Bush, meanwhile, wandered around saying reasonably moderate things, but not making any real efforts to win over traditionally liberal parts of the country. It worked in 2000, mostly by stealth. They had to work a lot harder to repeat in 2004, finding another 10 million or so voters to counter the growing anti-Bush sentiment, but they squeaked by again.

The big problem with Rove politics is it ignores the relationship between elections and governing. So you get 270 electoral votes, then what? How do you govern when you are only President of half the country? Bush had a bit of room to try things in his first term, but his reelection in 2004 left him the lamest of ducks. By 2006, he was completely irrelevant. By the time the financial crisis hit, he was past tense. People are looking at him as the guy who used to be President.

In the current election, I give Obama a lot of credit for the campaign he has run, because I truly believe he has been running to be President of the United States, not just of the blue states. McCain hasn't quite figured out how to do that, and is desperately tring to figure out how to keep enough red states to get to 270. The only tactic left is to try to make people afraid of Obama for irrelevant reasons, but now even McCain has decided to back off from that approach.

One positive result of McCain getting drubbed will be that as the Republicans try to rebuild their coalition, they have a chance to repudiate Rove-style politics. Some day when they manage to get the Presidency back, it may be with a candidate who truly is, in the words of that funny-looking guy whose name escapes me now, "a uniter not a divider."

Does Christian America Stand for Anything?

2008-09-25T13:30:00.000-07:00

One of the most significant changes in American culture over the last 40 years has been the growth of Christian America. By which I mean the emergence of a subculture of Christians with their own institutions - churches, schools, etc. - who separate themselves from the mainstream to some degree. The news media have not paid much attention to this phenomenon; they are interested in how evangelicals will vote during election years, but mostly ignore them the rest of the time.

But there are important questions to be asked about this new wave of religious separatism. What does it mean to have a large number of our children educated in Christian schools, rather than in public schools? What are they learning there that is different? What motivates people to want to separate themselves from the mainstream? What does the future hold: a deepening schism, gradual reassimilation, or more years of two parallel Americas?

I find it strange how little Christian America has to say to the mainstream. They do not seem to be offereing anything transformative. There have been many examples of Christian separatism throughout history. Consider the monastics, the Puritans, or the Amish people. They separated themselves from the excesses, the abuses and the temptations of the world, in order to practice a holier life. To show by example that Christian living was not dependent on material goods, the whims of earthly rulers, taking advantage of other people, or any of the other sins of this world. They hoped by leading an authentic Christian life they could help transform the larger culture.

But the Christian America phenomenon appears to be different. What great moral example is being set by their separatism? They appear to be just as materialistic as the rest of us, just as prone to excess, just as celebrity-obsessed. They do not appear to be united by desire for a more moral life, only for a more "Christian" life; the label seems more important than the substance.

In fact, what has held Christian America together has been defending the faith against a series of mostly made-up enemies. At first it was the Secular Humanists, that well-organized group who were determined to rid public life of any hint of Christianity. We don't hear about them much anymore. Today the boogie men include "activist judges" and "the liberal media." Christians are continually exhorted to stand united against these insidious anti-Christian forces.

It's not hard to come to the conclusion that instead of a movement in the noble tradition of Christian separatism, Christian America is mostly about sincere believers being duped and used to further a political agenda. The truth however may be even darker. The leap from Christian separatism to White separatism is not a long one. How many people choose Christian schools for their children at least in part because they will not be forced to mingle with children of other ethnic groups? Recall that one of the key historical moments for Christian America was coming together to defend the racist policies of Bob Jones University. Those "activist judges" that gave us Roe v Wade also forced the country to integrate the races.

A sincerely Christian subculture should have something to say to the rest of society about how to live an authentic moral life in service to the Prince of Peace. What I see in today's conservative American Christian subculture is separation based on invented enemies and perceived threats, with an agenda of delivering Republican votes while providing cover for racism and xenophobia.

Is the Conservative Revolution Dead?

2008-09-19T10:44:00.000-07:00

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected President, and Republicans took control of Congress, with a radically different philosophy of government. After two decades of sweeping new federal programs to address society's problems - hunger, housing, racial inequality, etc. - the new conservatives argued that government was not the answer. We should reduce the size of government, cut taxes, and let the private sector thrive. The booming economy that would result would lift people out of poverty better than any government program could.

This experiment has now had 28 years to work. The one Democratic President we've had during this time, Bill Clinton, did not retreat far from this philosophy. In fact, one of his notable achievements was welfare reform that Reagan would have approved of. And despite some tweaking along the way, the Reagan tax cuts that drastically reduced marginal rates are still essentially in place.

But in the 2008 election, the fundamentals of the conservative philosophy are being called into question for the first time. Three are many reasons for that, many of which can be attributed to the abuses of power and utter incompetence of the current administration. But I would argue that certain events over the last several years have made the flaws in the "less government" philosophy starkly apparent.

The first nail in the coffin may have been the savings and loan debacle of the 1980's. The financial sector was deregulated, took off flying, and fell flat. Huge sums were needed to bail it out. The conservative movement was wounded a bit, but pressed forward.

Then a huge blow to the US came on 9/11/01. Our federal government was caught asleep at the wheel. But the conservatives were able to argue that when it came to security and defense, they had always argued for expanding, not shrinking, government, and massive new federal programs were put in place to make us more secure. Still, the events of 9/11 made heroes out of police and firefighters, government employees after all, and took some of the wind out of the "less government" sails.

Then came hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The feeling that government should have been there for those victims and wasn't ran very strong. This was a major turning point. Notice how the Bushies are scrambling to do things better during this year's storms.

Now as the election winds down, we have two more blows to conservatism. The first, high gas prices, may seem to be unavoidable, but it's worth noting that the conservative areas of the country, where there has been little investment in mass transit, are suffering the most, because people have no alternatives to driving.

The second blow is the current meltdown on Wall Street. Once again, deregulated financial institutions are going belly up, and the only way out seems to be massive government intervention. Conservative economists are rushing to save (and reregulate) the very folks they said would help us all prosper if government just stayed out of the way.

If you don't think the conservative revolution is in trouble, just listen to John McCain's stump speeches over the last few days. He's bashing the Wall Street bigshots in ways that not even most liberals would dare. He's no longer stealing from Obama's playbook, it's more like Ralph Nader's. He wants to "put an end to greed." Can you believe that? Amazing that the mainstream media haven't made more of an issue out of that.

McCain came to Washington as part of the conservative revolution and has been there through it all. He's the last best hope to carry it on, but he would have to beat a young man who was barely out of high school when Reagan was elected, and who seems intent on charting a new course. If Obama wins, the conservative revolution as we know it will indeed be dead.

Identity Politics and the Religious Right

2008-09-16T15:30:00.000-07:00

The prevailing wisdom is that conservatives don't like "identity politics." They reject the idea of voting for someone based on what sex or race they are. It's the liberals who are obsessed with affirmative action, minority quotas, and all that "divisive" stuff.

Yet the religious right's first question of any candidate is, "Are you one of us?"

If you say the right things and get the stamp of approval of the evangelical leadership, it almost doesn't matter what else you do and stand for. George W Bush didn't say much about his faith when he was running. He didn't have to. He had already established his creds with the RR folks. It didn't matter that he had been a drinker and a partier in earlier years. He had been branded as "our guy" and short of a major fall from grace, he was gold.

The same is happening with Sarah Palin. A liberal woman with her baggage would be ripped to shreds by the right wingers, but Palin wears the "one of us" halo, which turns all her flaws into some form of, "She's only human... just like the rest of us."

I think this is identity politics at its worst. As the Bush years have shown, it leads directly to staffing the government with true believers, loyalists and cronies. Religious zealots were put in charge of hiring at the Justice Department, and they were applying the "one of us" litmus test to the nation's top attorneys. What a mess.

I'm not willing to rule out the idea that an evangelical Christian could govern the whole country, could see beyond the walls of his or her beliefs and try to do what is best for the nation. Jimmy Carter is not a bad role model for this, although the RR turned against him for it. Mike Huckabee also has this kind of potential. But I am very cautious of anyone who exemplifies the "us and them" mentality of rightwing identity politics.

Questions I Would Ask Sarah Palin

2008-09-09T11:15:00.000-07:00

John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was absolutely crazy, and so far appears to be working. Whether America's fascination with her lasts long enough to get him elected is anything but certain, however. There are a few questions I would like to ask her, some of them quite personal. But first a couple of comments:

Eight years ago, the conservatives picked as their candidate an affable, one-term governor of a geographically large state with an oil-dependent economy, who was short on experience but long on conservative Christian ideology, and found that enough people liked the guy to get him elected. What resulted was the 8-year disaster known as the GW Bush presidency. Now McCain has given us a female version of GWB, and America is falling in love all over again. Are we really that blind? I am willing to grant that a McCain presidency would be something of an improvement over GWB, but a Palin presidency? God forbid.

The R's are suggesting that we ought to give Palin motherhood credit. A major chunk of her acceptance speech was about her family. Yet when the press asks questions about her family, they are criticized as "out of bounds" or sexist. They can't have it both ways. They remind me of a girl in the schoolyard who beats up on boys, then says, "You wouldn't hit a girl would you?"

That being said, here are my questions:

#1: In what possible way does being Governor of Alaska prepare you to be President?
Alaska remains a pretty isolated place, and not at all similar to the other states. It has a small population and huge natural resources. They don't even have taxes. Everyone lives off the oil money. Balancing the budget is a non-issue. I don't see how the domestic issues, let alone the foreign policy issues, resemble those of other states, let alone the mess we have in Washington.

#2: What burning issue caused you to decide to run for Governor?
Anyone who agrees to run for a public office chooses to sacrifice family time. There's no way around that. Comparing what an elected official does to the average person's "juggling family and career" issues is ludicrous. Running for Governor is not something you do to put food on the table. If the state were facing a crisis that you were in a unique position to lead it out of, that would be a rationale for making that sacrifice. If not, then weren't you just pursuing political ambition at the expense of your family?

#3: Who is taking care of your children?
It's true, I would not likely ask this question of a man. But you come out of the conservative family values tradition that has for years criticized women who put their children in daycare so they can work. That has fought any attempts to improve the lives of working women by raising minimum wages and making daycare more available and affordable. I have no doubt that if the Democrats nominated someone with your family situation, the conservative talk shows would be buzzing with discussion of her messed up priorities. So how do you reconcile all that? It would help to know how you have managed: nanny? stay-at-home spouse? extended family? daycare?

#4: Do you remain an advocate of abstinence-only sex education in light of its obvious failure in your own family?
Normally, I would say your teenage daughter's situation should be a private matter. But you have made a point of saying she made the right choice to carry the baby, even while favoring laws that would take away that choice. And you by are all accounts opposed to providing teens with information about how to prevent pregnancy. How can you support this "no-information no-options" position regarding teen pregnancy when it obviously didn't work in your own family?

I remain hopeful that once Palin (and McCain) have been forced to answer some tough questions about how they will actually cleanse Washington of the Bush legacy while still appealing to Bush's supporters, this election will come out OK.

Good Ideas on Rescuing Jesus from the Right

2008-08-08T14:46:00.000-07:00

I just finished an excellent new book: When did Jesus Become Republican: Rescuing Our Country and Our Values from the Right by Mark Ellingsen. The author is a speaker and writer on religion and politics and teaches at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta.

Ellingsen takes on the pressing question of how to promote liberal values in a way that appeals to Christians, yet includes other faiths and those who are not religious. But unlike other authors who have discussed this, he doesn't go straight to politics and policies. His approach is historical, philosophical and theological. Here's a sample:

The main roadblock to getting Jesus, His Gospel, and other religious traditions out of the "conservative box" has to do with the fact that the Religious Right has capitalized on the suppositions of America's Puritan Paradigm. That is to say, most Americans at least subconsciously read the Bible in light of the suppositions of the "individualized" Puritanism, tempered by Revivalism, which has effectively functioned as America's "civil religion" at least since the nineteenth century.... By getting the public to hear their version of Jesus as the fulfillment of this American version of Puritanism, the Right has most people convinced that its version of religion and the politics associated with it must be true.

This is not an easy read, but anyone who has taken a history, philosophy or theology course since high school should be able to follow his thinking.

Ellingsen covers a lot of territory, but I think the key is to realize that the thinking of the founders, like their Puritan forebears, was very Calvinistic in its appreciation for human sinfulness. We need government to protect society from the excesses and abuses to which humans are prone. And we need checks and balances within our system of government for the same reason. The conservatives have us all convinced that a true reading of the Constitution leads to very limited government and totally free markets, but that is far from the truth. Conservative thinking relies on an optimistic view of human nature and a pessimistic view on the role of government that the founders did not share.

There are many ways that liberals can promote the values of economic justice, alleviation of poverty, and human rights that are consistent with historical American values and also resonate with religious Christians, Jews and Muslims, without alienating the non-religious. Ellingsen is encouraging Democrats to set aside the relativism they tend to rely on and appeal to America's theologically conservative core. We don't have to cede the Bible or the Constitution to the other side. We can take them back.

What I'd Like to Hear from Obama

2008-08-06T12:33:00.000-07:00

There are so many things wrong with this country right now, it's understandable if the "change" candidate doesn't hit on every one of them in the course of this campaign. I believe Obama's ideas are mostly headed in the right direction, but I would love it if he could go further in certain directions.

He has a strong message about changing how politics is working in Washington. That's a great start. If we could just get back to the level of bipartisanship of the 1970's, that would be an accomplishment. But the recent revelations about how politicized things became at the Justice Department remind us of how thoroughly the Bushies have corrupted our entire Federal Government. They started with the "government is bad" philosophy and decided to prove they were right by messing with the civil service system, putting cronies in high-level positions, and generally making the federal government a place no self-respecting person would want to work.

I would love to see Obama capitalize on the Justice case and make the case for restoring respect in our government. Yes, go and stand in front of our soldiers and tell them they will be taken care of. But also go and meet with Justice Department employees and Forest Service employees and IRS employees and tell them you are proud of what they are doing, and thus convey to the American public that government service can be a noble thing, that government plays an important role in our lives, and that you intend to get the government working again - working hard, working smart, working efficiently. Go to NewOrleans and tell us that the federal response to their disaster was itself a disaster, and tell us we can do better. Remind us that this country built the Interstate highway system, put men on the moon, and defeated tyrants in multiple wars.

We need a smart and efficient federal government. One that puts competence above partisanship. One that can respond to people in need. One that collects taxes fairly and spends them wisely. Tell us that, Mr. Obama. I think it's something we want to hear.

More Dangers of Conservative Judges

2008-07-11T12:15:00.000-07:00

A huge problem with trying to interpret our Constitution according to its original meaning is that our basic definition of liberty has changed.

The concept of liberty emerged in a feudal world, where there were 3 "classes" of people; the king/emperor at the top, the landed gentry in the middle, and everyone else at the bottom. The landed folk, the lords and barons, got tired of kings who thought they could do whatever they wanted. If you did something to displease the king, he might take your land away and give it to someone he liked better. The lords got together and demanded that the king agree not to take their stuff, not to come barging into their homes, not to punish them for what they said, and so forth.

So the original guarantees of rights were between the king and the lords, and had nothing to do with the peasant class. By the time our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, the concept of liberty had broadened some. But property owners still had more rights than the landless; men had more rights than women; and slaves had no rights at all. Over the years, through a combination of constitutional amendments, legislation and Supreme Court decisions, our liberties have been expanded to where we now understand them to apply equally to all people, regardless of class, sex or race.

When conservative judges claim that they can interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning, they are saying that they oppose broadening the concept of liberty. That is bad news for women, the underpriveleged, and others. And it gives them a lot of leeway to pick and choose which rights they like and which they don't.

The poster child for what conservative judges say they would not do is Roe v Wade. In that case, the court found, as it had many times before, that there was a general right to privacy implied in the Constitution. Given that, it found that most laws forbidding abortion violated a woman's right to privacy. Critics accused it of finding a broad new set of rights that the founders had not intended.

But consider the recent case where the court struck down DC's handgun law. In this case, the court found, for the first time, a broad right to individual ownership of firearms. The very judges who despise Roe for inventing new rights and legislating from the bench did the same thing when the right in question was one near and dear to conservatives.

All of which points out the hypocrisy of claiming that you are swayed only by the original meaning and not from current public opinion. But it poses an interesting dilemma for liberal civil libertarians, which I would describe myself as. While I hate to see a blanket ban on reasonable gun control as a crime-fighting tool, I can't disagree completely with a decision that errs on the side of increasing personal liberty.

The expansion of liberty to all people has been an important thread running through American history. Conservatives who advocate a strong military to "protect our freedom" need to appreciate how much more freedom we have now than when the Revolution was fought. And we need to be leary of conservative judges whose stated philosophy is to roll back rights they don't approve of.

Beware of Constitutional Fundamentalism

2008-07-11T11:27:00.000-07:00

I've never considered myself a legal scholar, nor have I paid a great deal of attention to Supreme Court decisions. But given some of the recent findings of this conservative court, we'd better all start paying more attention.

There are various terms used to describe conservative judicial philosophy: strict contructionism, textualism, originalism, etc. I won't split hairs over these terms. Suffice to say that conservative judges often claim to be looking for what the founding fathers intended and eschew "legislating from the bench." Anyone who disagrees is termed a "judicial activist."

It is interesting to look at conservative judicial thinking in parallel to fundamentalist Christian thinking. A judge who claims to be looking for the original meaning of the constitution is the equivalent of a Christian who claims to be taking the Bible literally. The downsides to both philosphies also have some things in common.

The biggest problem with taking the Bible literally is that it is impossible to do, since the Bible often contradicts itself. It was written by myriad authors over many hundreds of years under a variety of cultural conditions. This is less of a problem with the Constitution, since it was written with an eye towrd consistency.

The main problem that the Bible and the Constitution have in common is that neither is up to date. If you're looking for moral principles to guide, say, stem cell research, you're not going to find them in a literal reading of the Bible. Similarly, applying the Constitution to the legal issues of wiretapping, or to stem cell research for that matter, requires a new interpretation no matter how you look at it.

In one recent case, the Supremes ruled that a tape recording of a woman saying that her husband was going to kill her should not have been used against him at his murder trial, because it violated his right to face his accuser. Obviously, this was a situation the framers could not have predicted which requires some re-interpretation. Obvious to you and me, that is, not the conservatives on the bench, who did their best to rule on this using 200 year old cases.

Clearly, the world is not the same as it was 230 years ago. Interpreting the Constitution, or the Bible, requires some adaptation to modern reality. Anyone who claims otherwise should not be making such important decisions.

America's Civic Religion Has Changed

2008-06-30T11:55:00.000-07:00

As a parent of one first-time and one second-time voter, I've been thinking about how younger voters/citizens see the world and their place in it. Which led me to wonder: Do we still have a "civic religion" in the US - a set of core beliefs and values that guide us as a country, even if we don't all subscribe?

When I was a kid in school, a set of Christian assumptions was still in place: we sang about Jesus at Christmas, school-related activities were never scheduled on Sunday, and it was generally understood that almost everyone belonged to a church, even if it was only for Easter, weddings, baptisms and funerals. Just one generation later, that all seems a bit quaint. But while it's clear that my kids grew up in a post-Christian society, it's not correct t0 say that we no longer have a civic religion. Any culture needs core beliefs to rally around. When one set of beliefs get pushed out, others fill the void. In my kids' public schools, I've noticed two values are promoted with near-religious enthusiasm.

#1: Saving the Planet
When teachers go looking for good causes for kids to write essays about, or class projects to do together, a natural choice is something environmental. Almost no one objects to kids picking up trash, restoring streams, learning to recycle and conserve, or planting a garden. As a result, an environmental ethic now guides the new generation of Americans, many of them with a true missionary fervor.

#2: Honoring Diversity
This may be more true in some schools than in others, but the very sensitivity to our differences that pushed civic Christianity aside has in many ways taken its place. Many of our young people are taught a level of tolerance for others that goes far beyond what they learn at home. I can't quantify how many schools emphasize respect for diversity, but it's clear from multiple studies that on issues such as gay rights, the younger generation is much more tolerant than their elders.

In addition to growing up with these values, my kids' generation is more educated and more traveled than mine was: They are going to college in record numbers, and they are much more likely to graduate from college already having spent time in another country. These experiences contribute to a world view of a fairly small planet that needs a lot of help.

It's no surprise, then, that this generation finds the current administration less than desirable. We have a president who went to college on the old crony system, who never had to pay a student loan, who has not only been opposed to environmental legislation but hostile to using a scientific approach to problem-solving, and who has done nothing to promote diversity. Bush is pretty much the opposite of what these young people would wish for in a president.

One more very important aspect of these young people: They are anxious to vote. The trend in recent decades has been for younger people to vote in much smaller numbers than their parents and grandparents. That will not happen this time.

There is certainly a reverse side to this picture of my kids' generation. While Christianity was being pushed out of the public square, Christian schools were opening in record numbers. These schools have done their best to continue the old traditions and promote certain Christian values. The graduates of these schools are certainly more favorable to Bush and less likely to go for a change agent such as Obama.

But the post-Christian young people clearly outnumber the conservative Christian ones. They are going to vote, and they are going to vote for candidates who show real respect for the earth and all its diverse inhabitants over those who do not.

The Election's Not As Close as it Looks

2008-06-16T14:45:00.000-07:00

Some people have been scratching their heads lately over how close the polls show the race between McCain and Obama. The thinking is, with people so unhappy with Bush and the Republicans, Obama should be starting with a big lead. And because of the close polls, election junkies are looking at electoral maps and seeing scenarios where just a few states change color and we have another nail-biter in November.

I think Obama does have a big lead, it's just hiding a bit right now.

First, the polls showing things very close came out right around the time Hillary Clinton was finally conceding. There were clearly some people who thought she was the better candidate and that if everything had been done fairly, she would have been the nominee. It will take some time for those wounds to heel. As they do, Obama's numbers will go up. Not many will be willing to hold that grudge all they way through November.

Second, you have the new voter factor. Elections are not decided just on who people prefer, but on who shows up to vote. In 2004, anti-Bush sentiment was high enough that 10 million people turned out to vote for John Kerry who had not voted in 2000. The problem was that Karl Rove and company beat the bushes to find 10 million conservatives who hadn't voted either. The result was another virtual tie. All but 4 states ended up the same color as in 2000.

This time, there are clearly a lot of new voters who are excited about Obama. Democratic primaries and caucuses have seen record turnouts. There were plenty of primaries where both Obama and Clinton got more votes than McCain. And polls tend to undercount new voters, especially the younger ones. The more mobile you are, the less tied to a land line you are, the less time you hang out at home, the less likely you are to be included in a poll.

Finally, there are the candidates themselves. Obama travels around, drawing rockstar crowds, and most are excited when they leave. McCain is doing a good job of playing Nixon to Obama's Kennedy, looking wooden and uninspired on TV. McCain does not seem to be appealing to either the conservative Christian base or to Bush-hating independents at this point.

I predict that by the time the D's gather in Denver, Obama's lead in the polls will be in the double digits, and the convention boost will put him up to about 15%. Once the General campaign starts and the mud really gets flying, things get harder to predict. But without some major surprise, Obama should win comfortably, turning enough states blue to become the first president since Reagan to actually have a mandate for change.

The Runners Stumble

2008-05-28T10:22:00.000-07:00

There were two interesting stumbles by candidates last week. The events had little in common, but they both provide some insights into the campaigns.

First, John McCain had to jettison some conservative preachers whose support he had previously sought. The more prominent, Rev. Hagee, is a leader in the Christian Zionist movement. Christian Zionism is the belief that the Jews must occupy Israel in order for the final events in Revelations to take place. The movement has been around at least 100 years and was prominent in the push for the founding of Israel after WWII. It has reemerged in recent years in conjunction with the growth in "end times" theology and the political rise of conservative Christians. While the Christian right's involvement in social issues is well known, its foreign policy side is less visible, but perhaps even more influential. Christian Zionists have allied themselves with Jewish groups to advocate for a strongly pro-Israel foreign policy.

The problem for McCain is this: George W. Bush actively sought the support of folks like Hagee, and no one raised much of a stink. After all, Hagee speaks for a large chunk of people that a Republican needs to win. But for most Americans, Bush's presidency is now viewed as a disaster, and people want to know why. And once you look closely at what people like Hagee believe and preach, it's not hard to see that letting people with Christian Zionist beliefs play a big role in setting American policy in the Middle East has not been a positive thing. Which puts McCain between a rock and a hard place (or between Iraq and a hard place, if you will), as noted in my previous post. By disavowing Hagee, he made himself more acceptable to the folks who don't like Bush's foreign policy, but he made a whole lot of folks in the Christian Right unhappy.

Stumble #2 was Hillary Clinton's reference to the Robert Kennedy assassination. She was trying to explain that historically, it's taken until June or later to decide on a nominee, so people shouldn't be so anxious for her to quit. But it was not hard to hear it as, "Who knows, my opponent could get shot?"

I don't believe Hillary was wishing any harm to Obama. But whenever a candidate says something a little crazy when speaking off the cuff, I believe we are hearing a backroom conversation slip out. Think about it. A candidate spends a few hours a day in front of the public telling us what they believe. They spend the rest of their time talking to advisors about what they should and shouldn't say, working on the best way to present the issues, and analyzing voting trends, history, demographics - anything that can be analyzed. When the candidate is in an interview they have to speak extemporaneously, but I can't believe anything they say is made up out of thin air.

I can picture the conversations that must go on constantly in the Clinton camp about how to justify staying in the race, and I can imagine something like the RFK assassination getting brought up casually in those conversations. If the candidate doesn't have the moral compass to at least say, "Let's not let that kind of talk out of this room," then one of those advisers, or in the worst case the candidate herself, will repeat the comment in a different context, with drastic consequences.

The same thing happened with Obama's "bitter" comment in Pennsylvania. He was trying to explain why people vote the way they do, something that is discussed constantly inside a campaign, and he repeated some common theories in a way that came across as rather insensitive.

All candidates, if they are smart, would avoid the analysis questions, and learn to say, "It's not my job to tell you why people vote as they do or to analyze history, it's my job to tell you why people should vote for me today." But it's hard to resist the urge to show what you know. Unfortunately for the candidate, they usually regret it. But it gives us a sense of what goes on behind closed doors, what kind of people the candidate is surrounding herself with, and what those people are thinking and talking about.

McCain's Impossible Task

2008-05-12T14:10:00.000-07:00

While we continue the mopup from the last few primaries, I'm looking forward to the general election contest between Obama and McCain. Right now the polls put McCain in pretty good shape. But he has one huge liability that has yet to take its toll on him. Its name is George W. Bush.

There is some danger that people are so fed up with Bush that if the Dems bring him up too much, people will say, "Enough already, we're ready to move on." But I think that if McCain gets into a nationally televised debate and is asked the right questions, he will find himself between a rock and a hard place.

Here are the numbers that should be giving the McCain people fits: Bush has an approval rating of about 28%. That's not a record, but his disapproval rating is - 71%. No one is neutral about W. In order to win, McCain has to keep the 28% loyalists happy, and get another 23% or so of the electorate on top of that. In other words, he has to convince almost one-third of the people who disapprove of Bush to vote for him. How can he possibly walk that line once the heat is on?

Imagine McCain being forced in a debate to either affirm or disown the Bush legacy:

1. Do you believe attacking Iraq preemptively was justified, and under what circumstances should we expect your administration to propose going to war in the absence of a direct attack on the US?
2. Do you believe the current administration has violated the Geneva Conventions and other international law by its use of torture, assassination, and extraordinary rendition? What would you do to modify or end these practices?
3. Do you believe that international laws and treaties that the US has signed are binding on the US President?
4. What would you do about the Guantanamo facility?
5. Do you approve of warrantless spying on American citizens? If not, what steps would you take to end this practice?
6. Do you approve of the use of signing statements as a means of keeping Congress from curbing your powers as Commander in Chief?
7. What would you do to restore the integrity of our intelligence gathering agencies and make sure that intelligence is not altered to meet political ends?

I could go on and on, but I've made my point. While Obama is free to take the high road and say, "I would never sacrifice the core liberties and values of the USA in the name of fighting terrorism or redrawing the map in the Middle East," McCain has to try to simultaneously please Bush-lovers and Bush-haters while defending his own voting record on these issues.

That's a task even the "straight talking" McCain may find impossible.

Has the Primary Gone on Too Long?

2008-05-02T10:44:00.000-07:00

Lately the pundits on CNN and elsewhere have been wailing and gnashing their teeth over how the Democratic primary has gone on way too long. It's sounding pretty ridiculous. The same folks who want to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote general election are now saying the Dems should have winner-take-all primaries. Then they complain about how the voters in Florida and Michigan are getting a raw deal, but they insist the race should be called when several states haven't voted yet. Go figure.

The problem with these people is they spend all day, every day, thinking about nothing else but politics, waiting for some development, no matter how inconsequential, to report on. After a few months of following one story, they are understandably bored and ready to move on. But that doesn't mean the rest of the country is.

Certainly, some of the personal attacks lately have been petty and tacky. And the candidates have to realize that that kind of politics doesn't help either candidate in the general election. And the extended race does allow McCain to sit back, smile, and look rested and ready. But just as a World Series game #7 attracts a bigger audience than does a 4-game sweep, the Democratic Primary is attracting much more attention than the Republican one did. People are registering to vote as D's in record numbers, and that has to help the Dems in the fall.

Once the convention is over, it's a whole new ball game. McCain has the almost impossible task of following a president from his party with historically low approval ratings. It would take a miracle for McCain to run away from Bush enough to attract a substantial number of voters who disapprove of him without alienating those who still like him. By October, the petty squabbles of Pennsylvania will be old news.

But then I suppose the pundits will get bored with that contest by the 7th inning and want it called early too.

Part 3 - Abortion, Gay Rights, and the Founding of Christian America

2008-04-15T13:05:00.000-07:00

We all know that abortion and gay rights, along with a few lesser issues, are important to "values voters," most of whom are conservative Christians. But many people, including me, have been puzzled about why these two have such importance. There does appear to be some movement among Evangelicals to embrace poverty, hunger and health care as also being relevant to Christian values. But that's a shift that's been 30 years in the making.

Unger's book includes a detailed history of how conservative Christians became a political force in the 1970's. Reading it has given me a much better understanding of the roles certain issues play and what CC's are looking for when they vote.

There is no doubt that the Roe v Wade decision and the burgeoning gay rights movement were catalysts that inspired some religious leaders to want to get more involved in the public arena. But the founding philosophy for the movement came from the rather odd character Francis Schaeffer. He espoused the belief that there was a war going on for the heart of America. That it wasn't simply that Americans, and their values, were drifting away from their Christian roots, but that "secular humanism" was a movement that was actually competing with Christianity for dominance. Schaeffer cited an obscure tract, the Humanist Manifesto, claiming that it was the Bible of this evil force. The evidence that the humanists were winning included banning of school prayer by the Supreme Court, Roe v Wade, the gay rights movement, and other signs.

In this worldview, abortion, say, is not simply a policy issue to be debated, it is a symptom of a disease, and a key indicator of which side you are on in the great culture war. If I am a Christian Right voter and you're a candidate, I'm not interested in hearing the nuances of your positions on the legal and constitutional issues related to the right to privacy. I want to hear that you understand that we are at war, and that any movement toward banning abortion means the good guys are winning, and any movement the other way means the bad guys are winning.

It's interesting to note that abortion and gay rights became the two most prominent battlegrounds in the Christian/Humanist war, when it was actually school prayer that was at the top of the list originally. I think that's because those two issues found some traction among the wider population. There are plenty of folks who oppose abortion and/or gay rights for non-religious reasons, while school prayer is only a hot button with the true believers.

Indeed, abortion and gay rights make a rather strange pair to be poster children for Christian values. There is no clear Biblical basis for opposing abortion, while anti-gay arguments from Christians always include chapters and verses. Neither issue has been prominent historically in the Christian Church. I would suggest that the vast majority of Christians over the last 2000 years have lived their whole lives without hearing either subject discussed at church.

That's why it is helpful to understand the historic importance of these two issues. If you look at them as issues to be debated, you've missed the point. You have to see them as flags being flown by one army in a great war. The confusing part is that the war was invented by that one army, and the other side has never really showed up to fight. So maybe they should pack up their flags and go home.

Part 2 - The Neocon "Echo Chamber"

2008-04-01T13:44:00.000-07:00

When the second President Bush came to power, he allowed a group of folks who had been fringe players for decades (and were pretty thoroughly distrusted by his father) to take the reins of his foreign policy. This group included some now fairly well known names: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Zalmay Khalilzad, to name a few. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had not been in the inner circles of this group, but shared their hardline attitudes about foreign policy. (It was Cheney and Rumsfeld who had engineered the "Halloween Massacre" in 1975 that pushed Henry Kissinger and other pragmatists out of the Ford administration.)

The history Unger presents of the neocons is fascinating. They are largely folks who came of age around WWII and emerged from that experience with a very hardline attitude toward dangerous foreign powers. Most early neocons came from one or both of two ideological groups:
1. Trotskyists - folks who liked the socialist ideals of the Bolshevik revolution but believed Stalin had corrupted them.
2. Jews who believed that if Hitler had been dealt with more forcefully in the early years of Nazi expansion, the Holocaust would never have happened.
From these threads grew a community of folks who believed any threat to the US (or Israel) should be met with a show of military strength. Any attempt at resolving differences diplomatically was seen as appeasement.

The Reagan administration was the first to give this group a place at the table. When the Soviet Union fell apart, the neocons were quick to take credit, although they had in fact greatly overestimated the strength and aggressiveness of the Soviets. It was during the Reagan years that they first demonstrated what happens when you inject ideology into the science of intelligence gathering - the practice of starting with the conclusion you want to prove and then finding the facts to support it.

We now know how good the neocons became at this type of intelligence manipulation, since the current President has allowed them free reign. And Unger painstakingly details how they used thoroughly unreliable reports of uranium purchases, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, and much more to concoct a rationale for war in Iraq. But what really fascinated me was his comments about the "echo chamber" effect.

The neocons are in general a highly educated, well connected group. They founded or came to control multiple publications and think tanks (National Review, American Enterprise Institute, etc.). Some have held prestigious teaching positions. Over the years, they have written extensively about their positions. And those articles tend to sound very scholarly, since they quote multiple scholars and experts on international affairs. But if you look closely, you see it was the same group of people quoting each other.

This same echo chamber effect was used to great effect in the propaganda buildup to the war. Information that had been discredited by real intelligence experts was nevertheless repeated and repeated until people started to believe. By the time the war began, 90% of Americans believed Saddam had WMD's, and a substantial majority believed Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.

The most spectacular moment for the drums-of-war echo chamber was Sunday, 9/8/2002, when Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice all appeared on Sunday morning news/chat shows. In the course of the discussion, all four cited an article that appeared in the NY Times that morning. The article, of course, had been spoon fed to the Times reporters by folks close to the administration. But quoting the nation's most prestigious newspaper gave considerable credibility to the officials who cited it.

If we are to avoid ever having an administration do to us what this one has done, we will have to do a number of things different as a country. As individuals, we will have to watch out for people who repeat over and over what they want us to believe is true, even when they have no real proof. But I also have to wonder: What has happened to the free press that was supposed to help us sort out what the truth really is?

The Fall of the House of Bush - Part 1

2008-03-17T15:27:00.000-07:00

I am just finishing up Craig Unger's recent book, The Fall of the House of Bush, and I still don't know how to react. I'm sad that our country has lost so much of its standing in the world. I'm dumbfounded that the Cheney/Bush administration has been able to pull off the biggest scam in American history without being held accountable. I'm angry at how the checks and balances that are supposed to keep the executive branch in check (both Congress and the press) have failed to function. Yet I have to admire, at least a little, the audacity and tenacity of these people.

Unger does a masterful job of going back and picking up the threads of history that explain how we got where we are, primarily where it concerns Iraq. He explains the Bush 43 presidency in terms of the convergence of several forces, chiefly:

The rise of the Christian Right, particularly as it embodies the notion of Christian Zionism.
The influence of the neoconservatives, a group of foreign policy hard-liners who were kept on the fringes for most of the past 30 years, but were allowed to run the show in this administration.
The unique role of Dick Cheney, who revealed a great thirst for power that no one knew he had, and has done his best to rule the world from the VP's office.
And the family situation of GWB himself, who had lived his whole life in the shadows of his much more capable father and was determined to make a name for himself, whether he knew what he was doing or not.

I'll write more about these forces in future posts. For now, let's just say that if we hang on for another 10 months, and we manage to transition these cowboys out without them staging some kind of a coup, maybe we can start to set things right.

After eight years of trying to spread democracy in the Middle East, we need to start spreading some in Washington, DC. We got rid of a brutal dictatorship in Iraq. Now we need to do the same here.

Comments are Welcome

2008-03-17T08:13:00.000-07:00

In case anyone actually reads this blog:
It was pointed out to me that "allow comments" was inadvertanly turned off. Damn computers!
The problem is fixed, and your comments are more than welcome.

Alas, Poor Eliot

2008-03-14T16:00:00.000-07:00

The fall from grace of Eliot Spitzer is truly sad. But should it surprise us? I've seen quote after quote the past few days to the tune of, "He was the last guy I would have expected something like this from; he was such a vigorous prosecutor of law breakers."

Hey folks, go back and reread your college psychology texts. We all have dark sides. And a person who seems driven to crusade for some cause is driven by something, which may very well be his own inner demons. We know that many of the most anti-gay public officials have turned out to be in the closet - acting out their internalized fears and hatreds. And we know that police departments have to be constantly aware of the temptation for officers to partake in the very evils they are sworn to fight. We have this silly expectation that people in prominent positions are better than the rest of us, when in fact they are just human beings like the rest of us.

If you didn't take Psych 101, try going back and rereading the Bible. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." This is basic Christian theology that most Christians don't get. When we look at another person, and also when we look in the mirror, we see a human being that is both good and bad. That means we look at the worst people and try to see the good in them. It also means we look at good people and realize the public persona we see masks a flawed human being. Imagine how different our world would be if everyone actually lived by this principle.

The only way to live a life of integrity is to recognize our shadow side and nourish it in non-destructive ways. We all need outlets, pasttimes, pleasures and escapes that balance out the stress of being who we are expected to be. But culture, and especially religion, push us to be "good" 24/7. And that pushing, that expecting too much of people, leads to the tragic loss to the world of some very capable people. Eliot Spitzer is the latest, but he won't be the last.

What Happened to My Generation?

2008-03-05T13:03:00.000-08:00

Many people have pointed out that the three remaining candidates - McCain, Clinton, Obama - represent three different generations (born in 1936, 1947, and 1961, respectively). The only true baby boomer is Clinton, who appears least likely of the three to become President. If she does not, then when the history of the baby boom generation is written, it will be noted that it only produced two presidents: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both born in 1946.

The generation that was born in the 15 years following WWII was responsible for major changes in American culture. We have left our stamp on every aspect of American life. So why didn't more truly great leaders emerge from our ranks?

I've been thinking about this question for a while, and after reading the first few chapters of Craig Unger's fascinating book, The Fall of the House of Bush, I have a possible explanation. In short: The baby boomers split in two.

Those who were around will recall that back in the 1970's, the major complaint with the two-party system was that there wasn't enough difference between D's and R's. The country was governed with a sense of concensus that today seems quite remarkable. But over the last 30 years, the country has become very polarized, and the main force behind that polarization has been the politicization of conservative Christians.

This change is not merely political, however. It is cultural as well. A large Christian subculture has formed, centered in suburban America, with its own institutions: megachurches, stores, theme parks, films, music, schools, (even sex toys, as Unger describes in great detail). Who's been immigrating to Christian America? Middle-aged Middle America - the baby boomers.

Astoundingly, postwar baby boomers, the generation ... which was dominated by the sixties counterculture, were more likely than any other demographic goup to be born-again Christians. - Craig Unger, The Fall of the House of Bush

Instead of our generation uniting behind a vision for a better world, we've lined up behind two visions: one based on the revolution of the 60's and 70's, the other based on the religious reaction against it. We've become dividers, not uniters. In fact, of the two boomer presidents, one (Bush) comes from Christian America, and the other (Clinton) does not.

So now we have the spectacle of Barack Obama rallying the post-boomers around the hope for a better America. They remind me of young people who, having sat in the back seat listening to their parents for one too many road trips, are saying, "Enough of your bickering. I'll drive."

To which I say, "Go for it. You can't do any worse."

Quotes Worth Repeating

2008-03-03T11:45:00.000-08:00

Sunday's bulletin had an insert describing the struggles of mentally disabled people to convince the powers that be that they can live outside of institution. The last paragraph included this wonderful insight:

Most disabled individuals have wrestled with the fact that all children of God depend on each other. Many of the rest of us carry an invisible disability with us every day: the destructive illusion that we must be self-sufficient.

Thank you to an unnamed church bureaucrat for that.
It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Thornton Wilder:

But there comes a moment in everybody's life when he must decide whether he'll live among the human beings or not - a fool among fools or a fool alone.

We're all in this together. How much better the world would be if all our leaders truly grasped that simple idea.

Which Bible Do They Mean?

2008-02-28T10:07:00.000-08:00

Is there anything more ridiculous than someone using his/her knowledge of the Bible to justify a stupid opinion? How about when someone uses their ignorance of the Bible to sell you something?

I'm looking at an ad for an item - it's hard to describe just what it is, a little knickknack statuette - sold by collectiblestoday.com that says

A quotation from the Bible appears beneath the lid in gleaming golden script:
"When God Closes One Door He Opens Another"

Can anyone tell me what chapter and verse that is?

Is Obama Black?

2008-02-26T14:36:00.000-08:00

Many silly things are said during the course of a political campaign. One of the silliest I've heard lately:

Why is everyone making such a big deal about Barack Obama being African-American? After all, he's only half Black...

Now I'm not really big on "white guilt." I don't feel personally responsible for the racism practiced by my forebears. But this much should be obvious: This country has a long history of treating African-Americans as second-class citizens, ranging in form from outright slavery to subtle discrimination. If Obama was part of an earlier generation, he would not have been able to imagine running for president; in fact, he would have been shut out of many respectable jobs, he would not have been able to live in certain neighborhoods, and he would have been subject to many other types of abuse and discrimination, for which he would have had little or no legally remedy from a mostly racist judicial system.

That is what makes his candidacy historic - that he can achieve what a similar person in a previous time could not. Duh.

The Audacity of Hope

2008-02-20T13:53:00.000-08:00

Last evening, I watched most of Obama's and Clinton's speeches to their respective campaign rallies, still trying to put a finger on some basic questions: What is drawing people to each, and why is Obama winning more converts?

Clearly the most inspirational part of Obama's speech was about hope. He was very clear that he was not asking people to have blind faith that he could single-handedly make their lives better. But he was saying that if Americans will get up off their couches and do something, we can all make the country better. In other words, he called on America to be the best it can be, by calling on some great American values: hard work, ingenuity, compassion and personal responsibility. He is not about what he can do, but about what we can all do if we work together.

Clinton's speech, on the other hand, was mostly about her. She talked about what a fighter she was and promised to go to Washington and fight for people. To the extent that she talked about voters, it was about which groups of voters should support her because she was on their side. She also talked about how she was battle-tested; she's fought the evil Republicans and won, and she can do it again. The implication is that Obama will be chewed up and spit out in the general election.

But the R's will have trouble attacking Obama, for the same reason the Clinton folks haven't really laid a glove on him - because he has made his campaign about something larger than himself. The other campaigns are trying to win the game; he's trying to rise above the game. He has the "Teflon" of Reagan, for a lot of the same reasons: When a campaign is about important values, attacks on the candidate are perceived by people who share those values as being attacks on their values, and the attacker ends up more wounded than the target.

Early indications are that in the general election this year, the R's will lead with 2 issues: immigration and the war on terror. Both are fear issues. They'll be telling us how afraid we should be of illegal immigrants and Islamic extremists. So it will be a contest of hope vs. fear. I think hope will prevail. At least I hope so.

Democrats: We're Smart But We Don't Get It

2008-02-18T15:52:00.000-08:00

I like both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as candidates. I hope, assuming both continue as they have been (which is to say no major screwups or self-destruction), Obama will be the nominee. Here's why.

For the last two elections, we have nominated people with distinguished Senate careers (Gore was also VP), who were and are smart, personable people with a good grasp of the issues. They gave us well thought out policy statements, pointed to their records, and assured us the country would be in good hands if they were elected. Both of them lost to a smiling frat boy from Texas. This year, we have our best shot in a while to retake the White House. Why? Because we've learned from our mistakes? Heck no. Because the frat boy has done such an awful job that lots of independents are loathe to vote for another Republican.

There are at least 2 things the D's have yet to figure out.

First, it's not enough to not be the other guy. Both Gore and Kerry, and the political insiders running their campaigns, had a hard time taking Bush seriously as an opponent. They never figured out what it was about him that appealed to half the USA.

Second, it's not enough to have the best policies. Leadership involves head, heart and hands. Democratic candidates tend to focus on the head (we're smart people with the right policies) and hands (we can deliver and get the job done), while ignoring the heart. But Americans want leaders with hearts. We want to hear about the values that drive them and the stories that made them who they are. We want them to tell us what they believe our national values should be and discuss our problems in both moral and practical terms.

If you thought Gore and Kerry were good candidates, you probably think Hillary Clinton is as good or better. I agree. But after decades of playing inside politics, often hardball politics, she's having trouble convincing us she has a heart, a set of core values that will drive her. She comes across as someone who is willing to stand up and tell us what she believes, but only after running it past some polls and focus groups.

But to win this year, Democrats still have to persuade some people who did NOT vote for Gore or Kerry to vote for this year's candidate. I'm not sure Clinton can do that. Obama is less well known, so he's something of a gamble, but he speaks from the heart. Clinton's people will tell us that words are not as important as actions, that she is smart, has the right policies, can get the job done, and can fix all the things that Bush messed up. But Obama will continue to win converts.

It's easier for Obama, whose heart is in the right place, to convince people his head and hands are right as well, than it is for Clinton to convince people she has a heart.

The Real Results from Virginia

2008-02-13T09:55:00.000-08:00

I watched CNN's commentators (a smart bunch whom I generally enjoy) talk for quite some time about the Virginia primary last evening, but I think they missed the key point. They told how Obama won the Democratic race and how the Republican race was neck and neck, then they mentioned briefly that this was an open primary, then immediately went back to talking about the two separate contests.

At no time did they show the results this way:

Obama: 623,141 43%
Clinton: 347,252 24%
McCain: 244,135 17%
Huckabee: 198,247 14%
Paul: 22,056 2%
Romney: 17,532 1%

This was an open primary. That means when people went to vote, they first asked for one ballot or the other, then marked their choice. Everyone could vote for whomever they wanted.

When you look at the numbers this way, the results are remarkable. Two thirds of the voters requested Democratic ballots, in a state that has voted Republican in the last several Presidential elections. Clinton, the "loser" on the D side, actually got 103,000 more votes than McCain, the "winner" of the R race. McCain takes all 60 R delegates with only 17% of the vote.

What all this means is not entirely clear. To be sure, people were not electing a president, they were electing delegates to party conventions, so you would expect the close race on the D side to draw more interest than the supposedly done deal on the R side. And McCain didn't do much active campaigning in the state. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that independent-minded Virginians swarmed to Obama and pretty much ignored McCain. Both candidates are believed to have the broad appeal to independents that will help their party win the general election, but after this primary, it is hard to imagine McCain winning a general election against Obama.

Wolf, Lou, are you listening?

It's Time to Stop Abusing the Tax Code

2008-02-11T13:38:00.000-08:00

One reason the debate over who gets a stimulus check and for how much looks so silly is that both parties are playing a game that started in the 1980's and doesn't make sense any more, assuming it ever did.

Ronald Reagan was elected with the philosophy that, to put it simply:

Cutting taxes is good; government spending is bad.

That philosophy has proved so popular that leaders of both parties have stuck with it ever since. Major policy initiatives are achieved not by appropriating money on the spending side, but by adding targeted tax breaks. Never mind that the difference between the two approaches is mere accounting. One is politically popular, the other is not.

Later in the Reagan years, in 1986, we actually got a serious attempt at making the tax code simpler and fairer. Since then, however, the tax code has been loaded back up with all sorts of goodies that have nothing to do with good tax policy, but are in fact government spending in disguise. I can't list them all here, but I'll site the example of the one that currently affects me the most - tax credits for higher education. Our household had what would be considered a middle-middle to upper-middle class income last year, but we are paying no federal income tax, thanks to changes made during the Clinton administration to help make college more affordable. With two students in their first year of college, the federal government is essentially handing us a check for $3300 to help pay the bill. Along with the $1000 that they pay us to help with the child left at home, that's enough to take us off the tax rolls. Remarkably, if we make less money next year, or if we make more, the government subsidy will go down. Confused yet?

Actually it gets even more confusing, because the government also gives and loans money for college in other ways, and it also sets the rules for how much private financial aid we are eligible for, and if you try to figure out all the moving parts your head will explode. But my point is that this is social spending hidden in the tax code, and that's bad for several reasons:

1. Tax spending escapes the annual scrutiny of the budget and appropriation process.

2. Tax deductions and credits tend to become more of an entrenched entitlement than other spending programs. It is almost impossible to get rid of one once it's in place.

3. They are intended as incentives, but rarely work that way. I can't imagine that many people decide to go to college who otherwise wouldn't because they will get a tax credit to help. I would venture a guess that the vast majority of people don't even know how much their taxes will go down before they write that tuition check.

4. They don't help the people that need them the most. Consider the most sacred of tax cows, the mortgage interest deduction. Its ostensible purpose is to encourage home ownership, which is, I'll admit, something that should be encouraged. But for a family earning $50K that is struggling to afford its first home, the tax benefit is worth next to nothing. However, it's worth a great deal to a higher income family with a huge mortgage on a "mcmansion."

I could go on, but let's get back to the current silliness surrounding stimulus checks. The goal of the Bush administration was NOT to help those hurt by recession and the mortgage mess. Bush's goal was to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes. In other words, it had to look like a tax cut, not a spending increase. That's why he was reluctant to add people who didn't make enough to pay taxes and adamantly opposed to extending unemployment benefits, increasing heating oil subsidies, or otherwise helping those who actually need help. Unfortunately, Congress went along, rather than pointing out the absurdity of the "tax cut good, spending bad" orthodoxy.

Of course, at my house the stimulus check will be small, because we got the tuition tax credits. I suppose there's some justice in that, but none if it smells like sensible tax policy.

We're From the Government...

2008-02-07T12:35:00.000-08:00

Today I saw a remarkable quote from President Bush, addressing the folks devastated by the recent storms in Tennessee:

Prayers can help and so can the government.

A key part of the Reagan revolution was the belief that government was not part of the solution, it was part of the problem. Reagan famously joked that one of the biggest lies ever told was, "We're from the government and we're here to help." Government had to shrink, get out of the way, leave people alone so they could solve their own problems.

The problem with this philosophy has been that no one, including Reagan, has been able to identify on any large scale what actual functions government is performing that it doesn't need to. The philosophy evolved into one of just continually cutting taxes, in hopes that starving government of revenue would somehow make it more efficient.

Bush's administration has taken the cutting without economizing philosophy to extremes. Reagan at least made one serious attempt - suggesting that we eliminate the Department of Education and get the federal government out of the education business - but Bush has actually expanded the federal role with No Child Left Behind.

The chickens came home to roost with Hurricane Katrina. In a disaster, all the lofty talk about cutting the role of government goes out the window. People want the government to help, and Reagan's joke is no longer funny. So now it appears Bush has at least realized how foolish the administration can look when it doesn't respond. Government CAN help, at least as much as prayer can.

You might say the President has got religion.

Experience or Fresh Blood?

2008-02-01T11:03:00.000-08:00

A key part of deciding who to vote for for President is weighing their experience against their ability to bring fresh ideas. We want someone we believe will manage the government competently, yet who isn't tainted by having been in Washington for a long time.

Since the 1970's the preferred solution has been to elect governors. Someone who has proven their ability as an executive, but not in Washington. Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. were all governors. Many candidates with sterling Senate careers (Kerry, Mondale, Dole, Gore) lost.

The disastrous GWB presidency is causing people to rethink the governor strategy. We now know that you can serve a term or two as governor and still not be a competent executive. In fact, Bush made an impressively quick transition from fresh-faced outsider to Washington insider kowtowing to cronies and lobbyists. With Bush doing so many things badly, it's almost impossible to define what the perfect anti-Bush would look like.

It's clear that the old strategy of choosing Governors over Senators is moot. Three of the four serious contenders remaining are Senators. The one that best fits the old model, Mitt Romney, is probably not long for this race. His opponent, John McCain, has been in Washington a long time, but has enjoyed a reputation as a maverick the whole time. That seems to give him the right aura of both experience and independence to appeal to a lot of people. (I remember thinking about a year ago that the only way the R's stood a chance in 2008 was to nominate someone like McCain who was not seen as being in bed with the religious right. That appears to be what's happening.)

On the D side, we have two Senators who haven't been there long, but are well respected as competent Senators. Prior to that, Obama was in state government and community organizing. Clinton was the wife of a Governor and the wife of a President. For hiring a President, those are both respectable resumes. But the perception is that when balancing the scales between experience and freshness, Hillary is the more experienced insider and Barack is the outsider who can shake things up. They are campaigning with those themes, and opinion polls show that this dynamic, more than any differences on the issues, is what is causing people to choose one over the other.

This may be one of those rare years when the Oregon primary (in May) actually means something, at least on the D side. It will be interesting to see if the perceptions remain the same by the time I get to vote. What's clear is that we want our next president to be everything Bush isn't, and it may be hard to find all that in one package.

Legislating Economic Morality

2008-01-28T09:05:00.000-08:00

As our fearless leaders in Washington fall all over themselves to hand us some Monopoly money to play with, it's a good time to ponder the moral aspects of this and other economic decisions. We seldom talk about taxing and spending decisions in moral terms, but this is "legislating morality" just as much as when the subject is abortion or gay rights.

In fact, if we are to seek guidance from the Bible when making important decisions, we'll find much more help there on economic matters than we will on those other issues. Jesus never talked about abortion or gay rights, so far as we know, but money was practically his favorite subject. I can't begin to cover everything the Bible says about economic justice, but here are some thoughts on the morality of borrowing and lending.

Is Debt Immoral?
In Old and New Testament times, and throughout most of our history, being a borrower - or a lender - was not looked at as an honorable thing. Consider the role of debt in an agricultural society. If my family farm suffers a bad season, I may not be able to afford the seed and feed to get me through the next season. So suppose I go to my neighbor, who had much better luck last year, and borrow what I need to survive. If my problems are temporary, I pay him back after harvest, and all is well. But if my problems continue, eventually my neighbor owns my farm. So taking advantage of the poor by lending to them and foreclosing on them becomes a lucrative, though dishonorable, activity. This is why early Israel had a "Year of Jubilee" every 50 years to restore all land to its original owners.

In our day, society encourages us to borrow as much as we can. But that's a big change from just a couple of generations ago. My grandparents' generation built themselves houses with very little borrowing. My parents always had a mortgage, but it was for 20 years and eventually got paid off. The trend toward bigger and longer mortgages, and buying everything on credit, seems to have gone about as far as it can. We are starting to see financial advisors urge people to cut back on spending and get their debt under control. There are sound financial and moral reasons for doing so, including:

When we owe, a lender controls our destiny. Living a moral life requires that we be free to make decisions about how we will live. We can not do that if we have a lender who has to be paid first.
Borrowing encourages us to buy too much. We are not being faithful stewards of creation if we are using credit to buy stuff we don't need.
Our debts can place a burden on the next generation. I don't believe we have an obligation to leave the next generation a lot of unearned wealth, but if we approach old age with a lot of debt, that is fundamentally unfair to our children and grandchildren.

Notice something interesting here. These same three moral principles are just as relevant to federal policy making as they are to our personal finances.

As a country, we have borrowed heavily around the world. That debt affects how we conduct ourselves as a nation. For example, our ability to influence human rights in China is hampered by the fact that we rely on China to lend us money.
When the government believes it can just borrow money to do whatever it wants, it gets involved in wasteful and unwise activities, such as the war in Iraq.
Our national debt is an unwanted legacy to future generations, just as our personal debts are.

Our national economy has been running on borrowing and spending for too long. Now as it runs out of steam, the answer from Washington is, "Here's some more borrowed money to spend." Does that seem right to you?

The Clintons Better Wise Up

2008-01-24T15:28:00.000-08:00

At their best, the Clintons are both personable, politically adept individuals who are capable of leading the country in very positive ways. At their worst, they display a paranoia that is unbecoming and a bit scary. Recall Hillary's response when reports of Bill and Monica first emerged that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" was out to discredit Bill. Lately the dark side of the Clintons has been quite evident in their comments about Obama and anyone else who would dare criticize one or the other of them.

BC's former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said it eloquently in his blog (http://robertreich.blogspot.com/):

I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party.

I laughed out loud when I read Clinton campaign staffer Phil Singer's response:

Robert Reich has a long history of false and negative attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton. This is nothing new.

Though not uttered by a Clinton, it shows the Clinton attitude perfectly. It's us against the world. If you criticize us at all, you become our enemy.

But we need better. We need Bill to act like an elder statesman, not his wife's pit bull. We need an injection of class and dignity into our presidential politics. The Clintons need to put their better faces forward - for the country's sake and their own.

Why the Buzz About Ron Paul?

2008-01-21T11:13:00.000-08:00

I'd heard that Republican candidate Ron Paul had a fanatical following that was raising lots of money online. But I'd never gotten a clear picture of what he stood for. He's been described as conservative, pro-life, libertarian, a true fiscal conservative, and a few other things.

So I went to his web site and started reading. I thought I might find some interesting ideas - the kind that always seem to be floating around out there that make a lot of sense but have been dismissed as politically impossible. At best I hoped to find a person with a consistent and interesting political philosophy. Or at least a clue as to why he inspires such devotion.

I didn't find any of that. So someone will have to explain the Ron Paul phenomenon to me.

Is he a libertarian?
He describes himself as "the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital." And the words "freedom," "liberty," and "rights" appear many times. But what do these words mean? The idea of liberty is a noble foundation stone of democracy. It is the notion that no one has absolute rule - that there are certain things that even government can not do. It arose back in the days of kings and emperors who ruled with absolute authority. The nobility (landowners) got together and forced the king to accept certain limits to his power, particularly the right to take away their property. In a democracy, the concept of liberty is to limit what the elected government can do, so as to keep the majority from trampling on the minority and to preserve the democratic process.

When Paul talks against the Patriot Act he sounds quite libertarian. And I suppose wanting to get rid of the minimal gun control laws we have is classically libertarian, though one could argue that wanting laws that keep guns out of the hands of people who want to take away my property would also be a libertarian position. But when he advocates banning all abortions, he does it with a philosophical position that the "right to life" in the Constitution begins at conception. This ignores the practical effect of banning abortion, which is to INCREASE government involvement in health care matters. And that directly contradicts his criticism of the FDA and other government agencies for having too much control over health care.

Is he a fiscal conservative?
Paul is willing to talk in endless detail about all the taxes he would cut or eliminate (taxes on social security benefits, taxes on tips, and several more), but only in vague generalities about cutting spending:

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.

Nowhere could I find a specific suggestion about what spending should be cut to balance the current budget, let alone how to pay for all those new tax cuts. True, he would try to get us out of Iraq, which would save money, but he also talks about increasing border security and other immigration enforcement that would require new spending.

As a member of Congress, it's possible to sit back and vote no on every spending bill, then brag about what a conservative you are. But as President, you don't have that luxury.

In short, I don't find Ron Paul to be fresh and different. Nor do I find him to be philosophically consistent (e.g., touting the virtues of free markets while opposing free trade agreements). I just see another Republican who happens to differ with most of his party on how to fight the war on terror.

There's Not Always a Winner

2008-01-14T15:34:00.000-08:00

The griping over college football's bowl system and the reporting of the early primary results both showcase the same thing: the American obsession with declaring winners and losers.

In football, many fans get bent out of shape this time of year over the fact that we don't clearly establish a "national champion." A playoff between the top 2 teams isn't cutting it, there has to be 4, or maybe 8, or is it 16? There just has to be a system to determine who the best team in the country is, because if there isn't, then, .... then what? What are we missing if there is not a clear national champion?

I for one enjoyed this past season a lot. Every week, one or more teams that were thought to be among the very best got beat. At various points in the season, any of several teams might have been the best in the country. That made the season fun and interesting for me, but I guess that was just too many winners and not enough losers for some.

In the primaries, the goal is to collect delegates. In New Hampshire, Clinton got 39% of the vote and 9 delegates; Obama got 36% of the vote and 9 delegates. That's pretty close to a dead heat, but you wouldn't know it from the way it was reported. They'll tell you that Clinton "pulled off an upset" or "left Obama reeling." All the headlines are about who "won" each primary. I'm hoping for a lot more states having no clear winner, so we have a long and fruitful primary season.

In an actual election, the issues are different. There we MUST declare a winner one way or another. But it's a fact of life that you can't count 120 million votes with an accuracy rate of 100.00%. There will always be a few votes that are counted incorrectly, voters who weren't registered properly, voting machines that fail, and so forth. We must do our best to run elections fairly and accurately, but our best is probably no more than 99.5% accurate counting of the votes cast. Add to that an unknown number of people who intended to vote but got held up in traffic, had a family emergency, or whatever, and it's clear that when election results are very close, it is impossible to say with certainty that the declared winner was actually the candidate preferred by the majority of voters.

I bring this up because many Democrats still grouse about how Bush "stole" the 2000 election, and perhaps 2004 as well. I prefer to say that both elections ended in statistical ties. And since we have no provision for sharing power, the only option was to stop the counting at some point and declare a winner. The real tragedy was not that Bush was declared the winner, but that he acted like he'd won it all. A true leader would have said, "I'm lucky to be here; I only have the support of half the country right now; I'd better do what I can to win over some of the folks who didn't support me." But Bush acted like the President of the Republicans and only won reelection in 2004 by turning out even more voters from "his half" of the electorate.

In football, we don't need a national champion. In the Presidency, we do need someone who will champion the whole nation.

Has Bush Killed the Conservative Coalition?

2008-01-08T13:20:00.000-08:00

Watching this year's Presidential race has given me hope that the nightmare Presidency of GWB may have put an end to the conservative era that began in 1980. Even if you don't share my hopeful outlook, you'll have to agree that this will be a key question that this election may answer.

The modern conservative movement got going with the nomination of Goldwater in 1964. After he was trounced in the general election, several right-wing organizations put their heads together and worked on a way to build support for conservative candidates. The biggest key to that strategy was to get religious conservatives more politicized, by using abortion and gay rights as wedge issues, by creating the "secular humanism" bogey man, and by whatever other means they could.

By 1980 they had a strategy in place and a likable candidate to pull it off. Reagan used a combination of pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-guns, anti-communist, anti-taxes and anti-government positions to pull together a coalition that included religious/cultural conservatives, fiscal conservatives, seniors, hawks and a few other groups. The Republicans have been trying to keep them all in the same tent ever since.

The alliances started to fray as soon as Reagan was done. Social conservatives didn't really like Bush #1. Bush #2 has been adept at saying the right things to every groupwhen campaigning, but hasn't been able to deliver much to anyone. The religious types don't have much to show except perhaps a more socially conservative Supreme Court. Fiscal conservatives like getting tax cuts, but they'd like them accompanied by spending discipline, which GWB hasn't provided. His Medicare prescription plan, designed to keep his support among seniors, was a fiscal disaster. The poor execution of the war and hurricane relief reminded us all that talking about reducing the size of government is not the same thing as doing what it takes to make government more efficient and effective. He even managed to alienate a lot of pro-military types by over-deploying and under-arming the troops.

In the current race, the conservative coalition appears to be in tatters. The Christians are drawn to Huckabee. The fiscal conservatives would prefer Romney or Giuliani. More moderate Republicans see the maverick McCain as their best shot in November. It's not entirely clear that when the dust settles and only one remains, the rest of the party will rally around him.

And even if the eventual nominee can make peace within the party, has Bush alienated moderates and independents so much that no Republican - even Reagan himself - could win in 2008?

An Epiphany About Religious Respect

2008-01-06T12:44:00.001-08:00

This morning I had a chance to ponder the spectacle of magi paying their respects to the young Jesus. These were important people in the religions to the East of Israel, possibly coming from what we now call Iran and Iraq.

There are two ways to look at this scene. Exclusivist Christians, those who believe that Christianity is the only true religion, can easily find in this story an example of the rest of the world recognizing the supremacy of Christ and coming to bow down before him. But I was struck by a more inclusive interpretation - people from a completely different world with an alien set of beliefs who had no business being there, travelling a long way just to pay respect to someone who would be an important player in human history. Their vision of God was large enough to see that God was up to something in a faraway place.

Wouldn't the world be better off if we could emulate the wise men? To go to foreign lands and show our respect for their religions and people, rather than thinking about conquering and converting?

New Year's Resolutions for Cultural Warriors

2008-01-02T12:00:00.000-08:00

Here in Oregon, we have a domestic partnership law scheduled to go into effect with the new year, but it's been held up in the courts. So the editorials and letters about homosexuality and marriage are flowing again. It appears 2008 will have plenty of the same arguments about these issues as 2007. And we still have a presidential campaign to get through.

I am a firm believer in full equality for all. But I was not always thus. And I get frustrated hearing the same old arguments over and over that show so little understanding for where the other side is coming from. So, for 2008, some suggestions about how to talk about these issues.

New Year's Resolutions for those OPPOSED to Gay Marriage

For you folks, I have just one big request:

Resolution #1: Stop Using the Bible as Your Excuse
Come on, folks, this is a cultural issue. All cultures have norms that govern how people interact. We couldn't survive without them. Acceptance of homosexuality or same-sex marriage requires a serious alteration of some very important norms we were raised with. It's OK to resist such a change. That's normal. It's also normal to wrap our cultural beliefs in religious belief, to say, "That's how God made us and intended us to live." And it's true that there are a few verses in the Bible that seem to condemn homosexual behavior, at least in certain contexts. But please stop claiming that you believe what you believe BECAUSE of what the Bible says. If you truly believed in following the Bible's laws, you would not simply oppose gay rights, you would favor capital punishment for any (male) homosexual act. Arguing about the Bible is not going to solve this issue any more than it has helped with such issues as slavery, prohibition or women's rights.

New Year's Resolution for those FAVORING Gay Marriage

Resolution #1: Stop Calling People Homophobes
Yes, homophobia is real. It's ugly and violent. But promoting tolerance and understanding by slapping labels on people makes about as much sense as waterboarding to promote democracy.

Resolution #2: Talk About Culture, Not Civil Rights
This is not a repeat of the March on Selma. Sure, we are standing up for justice and equality, but if we get stuck in the Civil Rights model, we can't hear what the other side is saying. More than anything else, what our opponents are doing is defending the cultural norms they were raised with. We are challenging their foundational ideas about men, women, marriage and family. We are asking people to stretch their concept of family to include same-sex couples. That's a huge step for some people.

Resolution #3: Don't Diss the Bible
I said above that the Bible is not going to solve this issue, and I meant it. But our side needs to acknowledge the important role the Bible plays in many people's lives. If we just poke holes in their proof-texting and dismiss the Bible as irrelevant, we will be tuned out completely. We'll get much further if we treat the Bible with respect and use it in a positive way. After all, Jesus was all about stretching people's understandings, questioning their assumptions, and tolerating differences.

Here's hoping your 2008 brings you increased understanding of those different from you, whoever that may be.

Justice, Texas Style

2007-12-27T14:38:00.000-08:00

News Item: Benazir Bhutto killed by suicide bomber.

George W. Bush: "Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice."

Guess we just need to round us up a posse and go find where those suicide bombers are hidin' out.

I don't mean to make light of this assassination. It is in every way a tragic day for Pakistan and for all who hope for democratic progress in the world. But every time GWB goes on TV to reassure the world that he is ready to help us get through another crisis, we are reminded just how clueless he is.

In Bush's world, there are good guys and bad guys, and the solution to every problem is to find all the bad guys and lock 'em up. He sent thousands of US troops to Iraq with instructions to round up all the bad Iraqis (insurgents, extremists, haters of freedom) so we can make a better world for the good Iraqis (lovers of freedom). But surprise, surprise, when you're walking the streets of Baghdad feeling like you have a target on your back, it's hard to tell the difference. Maybe they need to be required to wear black hats and white hats....

We can not hope to make a difference in our current world without asking the question of what makes a terrorist. How does a young person become so passionate in what he or she believes that he or she will sacrifice their own life in order to kill others? I'm sure the answers are different in every case, but we've got to at least ask the question.

I don't think we're in Kansas - or Texas - anymore.

Should We Be Afraid of Mike Huckabee?

2007-12-18T10:28:00.000-08:00

Of the current crop of candidates, no one has put his faith forward as much as Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor and Baptist pastor. I must confess I've been doing my best to ignore the guy up to this point, figuring he wouldn't be around after the first few primaries. But given the recent polls, that may not be the case. So, we lefties had better start figuring out who this guy is and whether we should be worried. I did some research, and I still am not sure what to think.

There's a lot to like about Mike Huckabee. He's about my age, a family man, and a musician. He and his wife have both lived through serious health problems that have left him a strong advocate of healthy living. By most accounts, he was a successful Governor - reelected twice and also elected chairman of the National Governor's Association. His policy positions include energy independence, a strong education system that includes the arts, and health care reform. He even says good things about stewardship of the environment.

Best of all, Huckabee's evangelicalism has an inclusive flavor to it. Evangelical Christians have a tendency to divide the world in us-and-them terms, to want nothing to do with those outside the circle of the "Saved." But there are those who take seriously what Jesus said about us all being sinners and not judging one another. Huckabee appears to be more in that camp:

Real faith makes us more humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. It makes us less judgmental, as we see others with the same frailties we have.

I also like this quote, also from his web site:

I have much more respect for an honest atheist than a disingenuous believer.

There is of course much to dislike in Huckabee's politics. His positions on Iraq, abortion, immigration, marriage and gun control are pretty typically Republican, which I suppose they have to be to have a shot at the nomination. And he has a tendency to overpromise: no one truly believes we can achieve energy independence in 8 years, or scrap our entire tax system for a national sales tax.

So should we be afraid of this guy? Maybe. Perhaps the better question would be, Should we be more afraid of him than the other Republicans? I'd say No, and here's why. While Huckabee is the most clear about identifying himself as a Christian Conservative, we have to remember that the Republicans need the CC's if they have any hope of winning. ANY Republican President will have to act in a way that tries to keep the CC's happy, regardless of his personal beliefs.

George W. Bush is certainly no Mike Huckabee when it comes to his Christian faith. But he has consistently pursued a conservative ideology designed to keep the CC's in line, rather than moving to the center and governing in a bipartisan way. It worked just well enough to get him reelected in 2004, but it's been disastrous for the country. My biggest fear from another Republican President would be more of the same.

So I think fear of Mike Huckabee's beliefs is misplaced. (One could even argue that as a genuine Conservative Christian he would be more free to deviate from the party line, as in Nixon going to China). I'm more afraid of another 4 years of dysfunctional, ideology-driven government.

Why We Should Care About a Candidate's Religion

2007-12-17T10:00:00.000-08:00

Before we leave Romney's speech completely, consider this short excerpt:

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

This is Romney's only mention of what we might call The Authority Question. The whole issue seems a bit archaic, even Medieval, to our modern sensibilities. Does it still matter?

I believe it does. It makes me nervous when a presidential candidate is a devoted follower of a religion that has a non-democratic power structure. Since human history began, religion has exercised power over the affairs of state in many ways. I won't list them all, but suffice to say that even in a democratic system, a church still holds a lot of power. A church can threaten an elected official with a variety of sanctions, up to and including excommunication. A couple years ago, the Vatican encouraged its churches to withhold communion from elected officials who vote for abortion rights. There's no reason to believe that sort of coercion is a thing of the past.

So, Mr. Romney, the "province of church affairs" can and does overlap with "the affairs of the nation." The real question is, "What will you do if the leaders of your church DO try to persuade you to act in a certain way? Would you resist, even if they threatened to remove you from the fellowship?"

Why am I picking on Romney? Shouldn't all candidates answer this question? Most American religious bodies have democratic power structures and stated policies of not interfering in political decisions. To the best of my knowledge, neither the Mormon or Roman Catholic churches fit this description. If either of these churches have ever made a pledge of noninterference, I would be happy to be set straight.

The Authority Question is, after all, the question that JFK was addressing in 1960. Folks wanted to know if he would be taking his orders from Rome. Then as now the question has a xenophobic feel to it that makes us liberals uncomfortable. But it's still an important question to ask.

Mitt Romney's Speech to the Christian Nationalists

2007-12-14T09:27:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the most jarring thing about Romney's speech was that before getting into his plea for religious tolerance and understanding, he said:

Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us.

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it? He returns to this theme later:

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

Those of us who understand history at least a little might wonder if he would also condemn the Crusaders, the conquistadors, the KKK, and everyone else who has killed in the name of Christianity. But that would be asking too much.

Statements like these are intended for Romney's second audience - the Christian Nationalists. This group (the CN's) is not exactly the same as the Evangelical Christians (the EC's). There is certainly a lot of overlap. Most EC's are to some extent CN's, but not all. Folks on the left should not make the mistake of lumping the two together.

The Christian Nationalists believe the USA is a Christian nation, or at least should be. That our success as a nation - financially, militarily and every other way - depends on our earning God's favor by following the Christian way. They look on America as a "chosen people" and apply the Old Testament accordingly.

The CN's are the folks that listen to Pat Robertson and don't laugh. They believe in "under God" in the Pledge, "in god we trust" on our money, crosses and manger scenes in public places, letting people pray in school, and calling Christmas Christmas. That all sounds pretty benign, but in its more extreme forms Christian Nationalism gets pretty scary. These people look on the war on terror as a battle of good Christians versus evil Muslims. Some would be happy to just nuke Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan out of existence. And the scariest part is, these people listen to Pat Robertson and don't laugh.

Let's look at what Romney said to the CN's:

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong. The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

By condemning radical Islam and standing up for religion in the public square, Romney was assuring the Christian Nationalists that he is one of them. Conventional Wisdom says you can't alienate these folks and still win the Republican nomination. But the rest of us need to keep a close eye on how far each candidate is willing to go on these issues, especially where Islam is concerned.

Mitt Romney's Speech to the Evangelicals

2007-12-13T14:29:00.000-08:00

If you didn't "get" Mitt Romney's 12/6 speech on "Faith in America" then maybe he wasn't talking to you. Romney spoke to a few different audiences, mainly conservative and Christian, and for the rest of us had only vague reassurances about respecting religious freedom and separation of church and state.

Romney's primary goal was to persuade Evangelical Christians that he was one of them. Why is that important? Because EC's see the world in us-and-them terms. In the EC worldview, there are two kinds of people: saved and unsaved (in moral terms, the good guys and the bad guys). They believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God and that the Bible is the only authoritative guide to faith and practice. To be one of the good guys, your beliefs can't stray from those two principles.

EC's devote a lot of time to trying to figure out who is in and who is out. In my Baptist Sunday School we learned about what Mormons, Catholics, and several other questionable groups believe, all presented with a distinct tone of, "This is why they are wrong." Mormonism starts with Christianity and adds a modern-day prophet and another authoritative book (the Book of Mormon) with more-or-less equal standing with the Bible. These add-ons are a big no-no for EC's.

So Romney, just before assuring us that he shouldn't need to "describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines," goes on to proclaim his allegiance to Evangelical Christianity:

What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.

If you speak EC, you know that one question answered is the point of the whole speech. It tells the EC's they don't need to worry, he's among the good guys. (But note that it only answers half their concern - no mention of that troubling Book of Mormon issue.)

To non-EC's this statement seems odd and unnecessary, or perhaps just a little troublesome, but it is what the Evangelical Christians tuned in to hear.

Welcome to "I Speak Christian"

2007-12-13T13:52:00.000-08:00

There is a movie/TV cliche scene where a person is in a frantic state, but no one can help because the person is babbling in some foreign language. Then a stranger steps out of the crowd and says, "I speak ____, maybe I can help." The anonymous translator proceeds to save the day.

As I listen to our national debate over political and cultural issues that involve religion, I am struck by how few commentators on religion actually understand what they are talking about. The world of American Christianity, particularly in its conservative and evangelical flavors, is very hard to understand if you haven't been there. Many times folks on the religious right do or say something that seems to leave those on the left just scratching their heads and looking dumbfounded.

My Baptist upbringing exposed me to a wide range of Christians, from fundamentalists to deists. While I've not gone to those extremes myself, I'd describe my high school youth group years as quite Evangelical. Today I am active in a small, progressive Presbyterian congregation where the bumberstickers read, "Proud Member of the Religious Left."

While I disagree with most of what the Christian right is doing these days, I know we can't have a national dialogue unless we understand each other. So in this blog, I will comment on current issues of church, state and culture, but I hope to do it in a way that helps my friends on the left understand what those crazy Christians are thinking. Like in the movies, I'm stepping forward to say, "I speak Christian. Maybe I can help."

(Footnote: This cliche is very well satirized in "Night at the Museum" and "Airplane," two of my favorite funny movies.)