The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Speech Therapy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

I loved Jon Stewart's summary of the SOTU. Maybe it was insulting or a bit of a downer for the President to focus so much on the negatives, but personally I'm glad the he used the opportunity to give a big F-U to everyone who has stood in the way of actually substantially addressing the problems we face as a nation (including both Republicans and Democrats, the media, big business, and even himself), because frankly that's how a lot of us are feeling about it all too. The issues are too serious to keep up all this partisan/media crap. Enough with tea parties and false accusations and empty rhetoric and obstructionism - we've got problems to solve. Let's get on with it.

We got spanked the other night, and we needed it.

Labels: Obama, politics

Of course no piece of legislation is perfect, and quite frankly I personally wanted something far more radical and yes, "socialistic", than this current bill (which, despite what you'll hear from the Right, bears almost no resemblance to anything that could justifiably be labeled "socialism"). Nonetheless, I am very excited that the House finally passed an honest to goodness health care reform bill that seems to actually have some decent features that will directly make life better for me and my family. I haven't looked closely at every aspect of this bill yet, so I can't speak to all of its shortcomings (of which it's sure to have many), but here are a few of the things I like about it:

1) A public option, which, besides creating real competition that will force insurance companies to actually serve their clients better, will also give folks to chance to opt-out of the crappy private system if they want to, and stop sending 30% or more of our premiums to line the pockets of insurance company shareholders.

2) Creates a health insurance exchange that will enable individuals like me who don't get insurance through an employer to get the same benefits that group buyers do.

3) Caps out-of-pocket expenses, which for me and my family can currently be more than $20,000 annually.

4) Prevents insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, which is the major reason Julie and I currently have absolutely no choice in which health insurance we use and therefore no recourse whenever Humana decides to screw us over. If other insurers would cover us, we could shop around for a better plan and actually let the market work the way it's supposed to.

5) Subsidies to help poor Americans get coverage - another measure that might benefit my family directly, since, as a graduate student, I currently have very little actual income. I also think that, whatever other nice features the bill offers, the most important thing is making sure that the millions of people who can't currently afford health care are in fact covered. No one should have whether they live or die or can live healthily be determined by how much money they (or their parents) make.

6) An amendment to keep federal funds from covering abortions (though individuals still have the right to pay for their own abortion coverage). While I know most liberals won't like this one, I for one am glad that this issue will be taken off the table and therefore cannot be used as a red-herring by the Right to block the entire bill. I also think its fair that those of us who disagree with the practice of abortion shouldn't have to have our tax dollars used to pay for them.

Anyhow, here's to hoping these features survive in the Senate's version of it. It's exciting to think that something might actually happen with all of this. That substantial change for the better is in fact possible.

Labels: politics

I'm likely overgeneralizing here, but why does it seem like whenever I point out what I see as the bad behavior of conservatives (whether theological or political) one of the first responses I get is usually "Well, your side does it too!" I can't recall how many times I've said something here about the close-mindedness of evangelicals for instance (which after all, is my own tribe), only to have someone respond, "Yeah, well, mainline liberals aren't any better." Or the number of times I've posted something about the dirty politics of the Republicans on Facebook, only to have someone reply, "Well, the Democrats do the same thing."

There are a number of things that bother me about this response:

1) It doesn't actually deal with the issue at hand. It's an evasion tactic that shifts the focus of debate from whether or not said behavior is actually acceptable, to "who started it". As such, it seems like basically a way of avoiding responsibility for one's own actions. So what if the other side does it? Does that thereby excuse your side from doing it too? Do two wrongs make a right? It's especially ironic when conservatives do this. I mean, aren't they supposed to be all about "personal responsibility", not just passing the buck?

2) The "your side does it too" response falsely assumes that I am actually on the "other side". This is not a safe assumption, whether theologically or politically. For instance, while I may be "post-evangelical", evangelicalism is still my heritage and the tribe I most easily identify with, so when I point the finger at the short-comings of evangelicals, it's not pointed at "them" so much as "us". And to be sure, I'm definitely not standing on the side of the mainline "liberals" either. Just because I've moved somewhat beyond evangelicalism doesn't mean I've therefore become a mainliner. That has become abundantly clear to me the more time I spend at my mainline Presbyterian seminary. I respect, love, and am intrigued by my mainline brothers and sisters here, but in many ways I still feel like an outsider looking in. So when folks tell me that "the mainliners do it too", my first thought is "Great, so what? I'm not a mainliner so what does that have to do with me?"

Likewise with politics, just because I no longer identify with the Republicans (though at one point in my life I was, literally, a card-carrying member) doesn't mean I therefore am a Democrat. I'm just as happy to criticize their antics as well (as I did, for instance, just the other day when I posted a Facebook complaint about how the Dems need to just let this Joe Wilson thing just drop.) Thus, when folks respond "The Dems do it too!" again my response is "Yeah? So what? They suck too. But shouldn't you be worried about your own side?"

Of course, I'm sure some might wonder why, if I don't consider myself either conservative or liberal in either of these spheres, why my critiques are usually directed primarily at the conservative side (which, I'll freely admit, they typically are). The answer is because, as I said above, the conservative side of things is where I come from and what I know. I can critique evangelicals because in some ways I still am one. And I can criticize Republicans because not too long ago I was one. However, not having ever been a mainliner, nor a devoted Democrat, I have a harder time pointing out their faults simply because I'm not as familiar with them. Indeed, it feels somewhat unfair and inappropriate for me to criticize them without fully understanding them. It's the whole "nobody better criticize my momma except me" thing. When you're part of (or have been part of) the family, you have a right to point out its faults. But when you're an outsider (and always have been), one has an obligation to understand before critiquing. (Which is one of the reasons I'm here at a mainline Seminary - in order to understand what makes mainliners tick so that I can better understand the critiques of my mainline Emergent friends.)

Anyhow, I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post, though of course it would be extremely ironic if the response to it was "well, liberals use this same evasion tactic too!" So let me be the first to say it, yes of course they do it too, and more than that, I'm sure I've done it too at times - I'm certainly not perfect. So why don't we all commit to dealing with the actual issues from now on, and not try to avoid seeing them in our own side (whichever side that is) by only ever pointing them out in the other. Let's all agree that "well, your side does it too", is never a valid counter-argument, especially when you haven't yet dealt with the fact that your own side is also doing it.

Labels: politics, theology

I found this video to be rather inspiring:



Basically the video is about being the change we want to see in the world by pledging to do simple, practical things to make the world a better place - things like helping at a food pantry, smiling more, giving to Unicef, buying a hybrid, or conserving water. This is what I found to be inspiring - it's an important reminder that each of us can do something to help others, no matter how big or small.

The video also has a slight political overtone as well, since it begins with a quote from President Obama, and has a couple of pledges about "being of service to Barack Obama". It was these aspects of the message that led parents in the Salt Lake City area to protest it being shown at an elementary school assembly (the article about this is how I encountered the video in the first place). Personally, I agree that it probably shouldn't have been shown in a public school context. And I have to admit that I too was a little uncomfortable with the pledges to be of service to Obama. While I generally like our President and (mostly, though not entirely) agree with his agenda, I'm not simply going to blindly follow wherever he leads without question. Besides which, I also agree with the critic in the article who pointed out that Obama is here to serve we the people, not vice versa. If they had pledged (as JFK exhorted us) to be of service to our country, that would be less problematic. But of service just to one man? I'm not down with that.

However, that's not all the protesting parents took issue with. They also went on to decry some of the other pledges as "leftist propaganda". For instance, as the article notes:

Gayle Ruzicka, president of conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said the video was blatantly political. She said other offensive pledges [besides ones not to give the finger while driving, and to replace one's obnoxious care with a hybrid] included... pledges to not use plastic grocery bags and not flush the toilet after urinating.

"It's very inappropriate to show a radical, leftist propaganda piece that political to children," Ruzicka said. "If parents want their children to learn about those things and do them in the home, wonderful, fine, but it's not the place of the school to show a one-sided propaganda piece to children without parents knowing about it."

Cieslewicz said such values should be decided in the home, not at school.

"They shouldn't be troubling our youth with the woes of the world and making them feel like we're in slavery or they have to worry about how many times they flush the toilet or if they have a plastic water bottle," Cieslewicz said, referring to pledges in the video to "end slavery."

These complaints I have much less sympathy for. Issues like energy and water conservation, and especially something like ending modern day slavery should not be seen as partisan political causes. These are things that should concern any responsible citizen and moral human being. Is it "leftist propaganda" to say that we should take care of God's creation? Is it "leftist propaganda" to declare that slavery is a moral evil and should be eradicated? Are these people so deeply entrenched in the culture wars that they can't bring themselves to support any cause that they perceive to be in any way associated with "the left", no matter how self-evidently righteous it is? Is it really more important for your side to "win", than for you to help millions of slaves go free?

At any rate, check this video out. It has a great message, even if it takes a couple of missteps. On a personal note, Emma was looking over my shoulder as I was posting it to my Facebook profile, and she insisted on watching it. Afterwards (and after I explained to her what a "pledge" was), she decided that she wanted her pledge for making the world a better place to be that she would say "I love you more". That, to me, was even more inspiring than the video. :)

Labels: Obama, politics

I've been reading Mark Noll's The Old Religion in a New World recently, and he cites the following quotation by a 19th century American Catholic, Orestes Brownson, which I found interesting:

"Catholicity is theoretically compatible with democracy..., but practically, there is, in my judgment, no compatibility between them. According to Catholicity all power comes from above and descends from high to low; according to democracy all power is infernal, is from below, and ascends from low to high."

I can certainly see how this issue would be a problem for Catholic Christians, most of whom would agree with Brownson's assertion that power descends from high to low, even if they don't necessarily make the connection that this thereby validates a hierarchical political order (from God to Pope to King to the People) as much as a hierarchical spiritual one. However, I think there are probably many other Christians besides just Catholics that would likewise agree with the basic premise that power and authority descends from high to low, from God to human authorities, and thus might recognize a conflict between their faith and the basic premise of democracy. On the surface it seems a persuasive argument. After all, most Christians, I think, would affirm that all power ultimately comes from God.

However, it occurs to me that affirming God as the source of power and authority does not necessarily imply anything about its direction, whether ascending or descending. Indeed, if what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1 about God choosing the lowly, the foolish, and the weak things of this world, and what he says in Philippians 2 about Christ giving up his power and condescending to the weakness of humanity is true, then one could argue that God-given power does not filter down from high to low among human beings, but rather that it begins with the lowest, the least, and the common. In that sense, God's power is very compatible with the essence of democracy: the idea that legitimate power derives from the will of the governed - those on the bottom of the social pyramid - not from the will-to-power of those on top. God empowers the weak, not the strong - those on the bottom, not on top. Power, in God's kingdom, descends all the way down, so that only then can it begin to filter back up.

Not being Catholic, I can't say whether this conception of power is compatible with "Catholicity", though I would think that it would have much in common with the kenotic theology of Saint Francis for instance. However, I do think it is a legitimate and profoundly Christian conception.

Labels: politics, theology

I've gotten into a number of debates on Facebook recently, usually revolving around either healthcare reform, Obama's economic recovery policies, or some combination of the two. (BTW, Facebook debates are exceedingly annoying since they tend to take place in the comments of someone's status update, are limited in the number of characters you can type, and have no text editing capabilities... but I digress.) Anyhow, I don't intend to rehash the finer points of either of these issues here, but I did want to comment on an insight I had in the course of these debates - I think I finally figured out what being a "progressive" means to me.

(As a caveat - I should clarify that in this post I will be giving my own personal definition of "progressive, along with my personal definitions of "conservative" and "liberal". These may or may not line up with 1) historic, technical, or "official" definitions of any of these terms, or 2) your own personal definitions of them. I really don't care. I'm not talking about your definitions or the official definitions, so please don't overwhelm my blog with comments like: "That's not real conservativism" or "That's not how I define progressive" or whatever. This post is only about how I tend to understand the terms.)

I've been calling myself a "progressive" (politically speaking) for a while, but up till now I mainly meant it as a sort of vague contrast with "liberal", since 1) I don't necessarily line up perfectly with what is usually thought of as "liberal", and since 2) these days it's more often used as an epithet or an insult than as a meaningful description. Progressive seemed like a better alternative, both because it has less baggage, and because it connotes something forward looking, action-oriented, and optimistic.

It's that forward looking spirit that I realized really gives progressive politics their defining character. It is a reformist approach, one that sees the brokeness in the way things are now, both in the public (e.g. government) and private (e.g. corporate) sector, but is optimistic and proactive about fixing them and working towards a better world. Progressives don't see either one of these, public or private, as the sole cause of our problems, nor as the whole of the solution, but are interested in reforming both and using both as tools towards the goal of a more harmonious and just society.

This, according to my definitions, is the difference between progressives and both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives, to greatly oversimplify (and to focus primarily on the economically "libertarian" type conservatives who seem to have taken over the movement in the past couple of decades), are those who generally see the government as the "problem" and favor laissez-faire, "free market" solutions. Liberals, on the other hand, generally see the government as the solution to most of the problems created by the "free market" and corporate rapaciousness. Progressives, by contrast, see both the government and corporations as part of the problem, but also see them both as part of the solution. Progressives don't just want to scrap one in favor of the other, we want to overhaul the whole system, in all of its parts, from top to bottom. We don't just want more government or less government, we want better government (and better industry).

So, for instance, a liberal looks at our health care industry and says "Private industry really made a mess of things, the government should fix it," and a conservative looks at the same mess and says "The government can't fix anything, it'll just make things worse. Let's just do nothing and trust private industry to fix itself." A progressive, however, says, "you're both right, the industry is a mess, and so is government, so let's fix both!" In other words, a progressive approach owns the mess, and the responsibility for cleaning it up, instead of trying to pass the buck onto whichever side they like least. A progressive tries to change the system instead of just complaining about the parts we don't like, since we realize that "the government" and "those capitalists" aren't some evil opponents out there somewhere. They are "us" (see, for instance, the first line of the Constituion, "We the people..."). We are all part of the system, and thus we all have a responsibility to try and change it for the better.

And it's an optimistic approach: it believes that we actually can change the system and make things better over the long term - that "progress" is possible - and thus encourages us to actually get involved both in the public/political sphere, as well as in our individual lives to produce change. It doesn't fall into the kind of fatalism I see all around me these days - the kind that says "nothing will ever really change, and you're too insignificant to make a difference, so don't even bother." Progressives were chanting Obama's slogan "Yes We Can!" before he ever came up with it, and we were quoting Gandhi's exhortation to "be the change you wish to see in the world", long before it became ubiquitous.

This optimism is not based on some blind faith or wishful thinking, nor even (for us progressive Christians) on some retrograde, post-millenial theology that says human effort is capable of ushering in the Kingdom of God all on its own. Instead it is based on the very simple and rather obvious fact that sweeping social change has happened many, many, many times before, and there's absolutely no reason we shouldn't expect it to happen again, and therefore no reason we shouldn't seek to play a part in shaping and directing that change. After all, just look how much has changed since the Revolutionary War, for instance, or since the original "Progressive Era" in America, or since the Civil Rights era, or since the Fall of the Soviet Union, etc... None of these changes happened magically. Real people fought and struggled and worked towards their visions of a better world, and they achieved some, if not all, of their dreams. There's no reason why we shouldn't do the same.

That's why I call myself a "progressive".

Labels: politics

Sad to see Rick Warren playing the same political games of back-tracking and denial that most elected officials do these days. If he said it, he should own it, not try to explain it away. We expect this kind of evasion and equivocation from politicians, but it's sad to see a pastor do it.

Labels: politics, Rick Warren

I watched Obama's speech last night and the Republican response by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, and have to say that I'm just getting more and more fed up with the constant hypocrisy and seeming collective amnesia that comes through in all the Republican rhetoric. These past few weeks they've been continually criticizing Obama for things that they did themselves when their guy was in office. For instance:

1. They stonewalled Obama's stimulus package as profligate government spending, forgetting that they themselves approved similar bills (both the TARP bailout and the stimulus checks that were mailed out earlier last year) under Bush's leadership.

2. More generally, they criticize Obama for "big government" policies, ignoring that it was Republican controlled congress and Presidency that led to a massive expansion of the federal government and turned the surplus of the Clinton years into a trillion dollar deficit during the first six years of the Bush presidency.

3. And even on little things they seem to have amnesia about who is to blame. For instance, McCain tried to criticize Obama for the upgrade of the Presidential helicopter, which he claims cost more than Air Force One, conveniently forgetting that it was Bush who requisitioned this upgrade after 9/11. (Of course, given McCain's age, it may have very well been real amnesia.)

Republicans can go on trying to paint themselves as the party of "limited government" and "fiscal responsibility", but as it turns out, they only believe in those principles when they're not the ones in power. Until their actions match their words, I don't want to hear it anymore.

Labels: Obama, politics

I was thrilled to read this comment from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her confirmation hearings:

As Secretary of State I view these issues (human trafficking) as central to our foreign policy, not as adjunct or auxiliary or in any way lesser from all of the other issues that we have to confront. I too have followed the stories: this is not culture, this is not custom, this is criminal … I’ve also read closely Nick Kristof’s articles over the last many months on the young women he’s both rescued from prostitution and met who have been enslaved, tortured in every way: physically, emotionally, morally and I take very seriously the function of the State Department to lead the U.S. Government through the Office on Human Trafficking to do all that we can to end this modern form of slavery. We have sex slavery. We have wage slavery and it is primarily a slavery of girls and women.

I hope she follows through on this pledge. I also hope she realizes the impact that our immigration policies and prostitution laws have on the inability of trafficked women to seek help. As Jim Wallis suggests, we need to criminalize buying sex while decriminalizing selling sex, so as to dry up the demand without punishing the victims. We also need to stop prosecuting women who have been trafficked into this country for being "illegal immigrants". (Actually, I think we need to get rid of the whole concept of "illegal" immigration altogether by opening our borders, but I've already written about that.)

Labels: politics, social justice

This should be fun. PolitiFact.com has an Obameter, where they will keep track of how many of Obama's over 500 campaign promises he has kept, which he hasn't, and which are still in the works. Of course, this is politics, which requires that compromises be made, so naturally I don't expect that he will be able to keep all of them. And I'm sure that his political foes will use a site like this to attack him for the ones that he's failed to fulfill. However, I think it will be a good way to simply keep track of what he is accomplishing, to see that real change is actually happening. (For instance, after being President for less than a week, Obama has already made good on 5 of his promises and is currently working on 14 more.)

I heard about this on CNN, and they pointed out that Obama actually has a lot more promises to fulfill than Bush or Clinton before him ever did. In fact, Obama made more than twice as many campaign promises than either of his two predecessors, which I think goes to show that those who claimed he was all style and no substance weren't really paying attention. Nonetheless, that's a lot to live up to. Of course, I've already heard conservatives remarking that they hope (for the good of the country) that he doesn't actually fulfill his promises (since they obviously don't like his positions). Of course, since, generally speaking, I no longer share their particular political bent, I do hope that Obama fulfills many of his promises (though of course there are those that I dislike as well.) At any rate, I'm glad there's a website out there that will help all of us keep track of what our elected officials are in fact doing on our behalf.

Labels: Obama, politics

I don't want to be naive about Obama and think that just because he's President suddenly everything will get better. Nor am I a political partisan to be overjoyed simply that we have a Democrat in the White House now. Not to mention that though there is far more that I agree with Obama on than I did Bush, I still don't agree with all of his positions or think he goes far enough in many areas (health care reform for instance). And of course my own Christian faith reminds me not to put too much hope in human leaders lest the State itself become an idol and object of devotion.

Nonetheless, I can't help but feel somewhat hopeful today. It's not just the inauguration of the first black President, though that alone is enough to make one hopeful about the progress made in race relations since Dr. King spoke of his great prophetic dream over 45 years ago. I am also hopeful because I honestly think Barack Obama will be a very good President. Nearly everything I've seen and read from him, I've been impressed by (and as a former Chicagoan, I've been following him quite a bit longer than most people from other parts of the country). Let me list just a few of the things that make me hopeful about him:

1) He's intelligent. By all accounts, he's the kind of guy who pays attention to details and really knows his stuff. In fact, he's a bit of a policy wonk from what I hear, which is a great thing in my book, since I want a President who goes beyond the speeches and rhetoric to pay attention to the specifics of what he is enacting.

2) So far he really has been a uniter, not a divider. That was his track record as a State legislator in Springfield, IL, and he has shown that same tendency in recent weeks as he's assembled his "team of rivals" for his cabinet, choosing people who don't always agree with him, but will give him more honest and diverse viewpoints to consider. He's also, on several recent occasions, expressed his openness to good ideas (especially in regards to fixing our economic crisis) no matter which side of the aisle they come from. I hope he keeps that up. And, besides his own actions, current polls show that he has an incoming approval rating of around 75%. Obviously the nation as a whole has largely come together behind this new president as well.

3) He really can, almost single-handedly, repair America's standing in the global community. It's no secret that Obama is practically a rockstar in many foreign countries. His name, his race, his personal story, not to mention his policies and positions, all speak to what is possible in this nation, and is inspirational to millions around the world. I hope this personal charisma will be combined with the new policies of openness and respect toward the rest of the world (no more of this unilateralism crap) to bring a new era of international cooperation.

4) Speaking of his personal story, I personally am given hope by the complexity of his background. Son of Kenyan and a white American, African-American in complexion (and therefore in the eyes of society as well) and yet raised by white relatives (and therefore more able than most to understand both perspectives), raised for a time in a foreign culture (and thus, once again, able to see the world through multiple different lenses), having given up a lucrative legal career to be a community organizer and use his skills to help those less fortunate... all of these experiences and more indicate to me that he is amply prepared to be exactly the kind of leader we need right now - someone able to weigh multiple viewpoints and competing truths, and choose a course based on what is good for all, not just for his own party, or even just his own nation. (BTW, for a great, and closer look at Obama's story, check out the new book by my friends Bob and Ariele, Barack Obama: An American Story.)

5) Obama's election campaign was one of the best I've ever seen. He raised his money (mountains of it) not from the usual cabal of special interest groups and lobbyists, but from millions and millions of ordinary Americans. He avoided the dirty politics and smear tactics that have become almost standard these days, even when his opponent was sinking to that level. By all accounts he listened to his campaign staff with respect, and yet was not controlled by them, sometimes sticking by his own convictions despite what might have seen most politically expedient (for example, his choice to respond to the Rev. Wright controversey by giving a substantive speech on race relations - written by himself, not a speechwriter - rather than just sweeping it under the rug as many pundits and advisors thought he should do). And through it all, he responded to every attack and every crisis with his usual implacable calm, cool-headedness. Let's hope he carries all these traits with him into running the country as well.

6) Not to mention that his wife is just really cool. Just as smart as he is and a lot funnier, though also as down-to-earth as you'd expect from a Midwestern mom from a working-class background, Michelle Obama will make a great First Lady.

And all this has mainly to do with who he is or what he's done in past. I won't even get into the things I'm hopeful about regarding his policies and campaign promises. All I want to say is that I think he is definitely the right person for this job right now. He is what America and the world needs at this moment, and while I know he will never be able to live up to all of our hopes, I don't think it is illegitimate to still be hopeful.

I also know that if Obama is going to fulfill any of these hopes it will have to be because we help him. As Jim Wallis often says (and as Obama has ripped off from him) "we are the ones we have been waiting for". Now that Obama is in office, it's time for all of us to get to work to fix the problems confronting us, and to make this world a better place, not just for Americans, but for the "least of these" all over the world. And that's one more thing I like about Obama - he's constantly reminding us of that fact. Over and over again in his campaign he referenced the fact that none of this was about him alone - it's about all of us pulling together and working together to realize our hopes. And I do have hope that that is possible.

Labels: Obama, politics

So Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), got resigned from the NAE for telling NPR that he suppors civil unions (but not gay marriage). Specifically he said:

In a short portion of the program, [host Terry] Gross asked him, “A couple of years ago when you were on our show, I asked you if you were changing your mind on that. And two years ago, you said you were still opposed to gay marriage. But now as you identify more with younger voters, would you say you have changed on gay marriage?”

Cizik responded, “I’m shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don’t think.”

Frankly Cizik's ouster over this doesn't surprise me at all. As someone who has gotten resigned from an evangelical institution myself, at least in part over my “liberal” (though I prefer to call them "biblical") political views (mine were even further left than Cizik; I was unreserved in my support for gay marriage), I know that many evangelicals can sometimes be even more dogmatic about their politics than their theology. Not to mention that there’s a growing trend towards neo-fundamentalism among many conservative evangelicals (I just wrote a 35-page research paper on the trend actually), defined by an exclusionary attitude towards those evangelicals who don't toe the narrowly defined party line. It seems that attitude is starting to infect even “big tent” groups like the NAE now.

However, there are still plenty of evangelicals out there who do agree with Cizik and appreciate his concern for the environment and the global poor, and his personal "shifting" towards increased compassion for GLBT folks. Frankly I wouldn’t be surprised to see him get a job offer from Sojourners soon. Or maybe even go start his own new organization for progressive evangelicals.

Labels: evangelicals, gay marriage, politics, Richard Cizik

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6424985&page=1

And the sad thing is we all knew this was going to happen even before we elected him. I remember one Democratic friend tell me "Just vote for Rod because we all know he's going to jail, and Pat Quinn (the Lt. Gov.) would make a good governor."

Anyway, after reading that story, I really hope Obama had something to do with the FBI investigation that caught Blagojevich. I like the idea of Barack playing hardball with the political scumbags that think they can squeeze him for special favors.

Labels: politics

Former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had an interesting comment in an article for CNN recently. He said:

My teaching on the Princeton campus last year revealed to me an explosion of energizing interest in "the system" and how to make it better from within -- very different from when I was there 38 years ago and the same activism was channeled toward tearing it down.

Generational theorists confirm this statement. Strauss and Howe in particular posit four basic generation types, Idealists, Reactives, Civics, and Adaptives, with each generation being born within about a 20-year window. Thus, for example, the so-called "Greatest Generation" that came of age during World War II and fought in that great struggle were Civics, builders and influencers that were committed to building up the institutions of their society for the better. In contrast, the Baby-Boomers were of the Idealist type, spiritual innovators and prophetic types who had a deep suspicion of the institutions created by their WWII-generation parents, and thus tended to resist "the system", just as Senator Frist noted.

Frist is also correct that the generation currently coming of age, the so-called "Millenial Generation" (born between roughly 1980-2000) is of the same type as the "Greatest Generation", that is, they are institution builders, more interested in improving and adding to "the system" than in simply tearing it down. I have seen that to be the case among young people I have worked with, who really do feel passionate about making the world a better place, and I think we're going to see even more if it over the next few decades. I also think that Obama's election is a sign of this trend. His message of "Yes We Can" and "We are the ones we have been waiting for" (a line he totally ripped off from Jim Wallis) speaks perfectly to a generation ready to move forward and get to work on the big problems of our era.

However, Frist's comment also sparked a new realization in me, which is that the conservative's anti-government message of the Reagan-era, was actually surprisingly well tailored to the psyche of the Baby-Boom generation as it too came of age. We often tend to simplistically think of the Boomers merely as "liberals", i.e. the hippie flower-children who gave us the sexual revolution and the drug culture, as well as civil rights and the anti-war movement. Thus it can be typical to see their legacy simply in the more socially radical edges of the Democratic party. However, if, through the help of generational theory, we understand that the underlying motive is not simply liberalism for its own sake, but also a deep-seated mistrust of those in power and the institutions of society, and especially government, then the backlash against "Big Government" of the '80s and '90s could be seen as just as much fruit of this generation as its more Left-ward incarnations. Conservatives are "Children of the Sixties" as much as the liberals are.

Incidentally, if this generational analysis is accurate, then conservatives really are in some deep trouble in the years to come if they can't move beyond their anti-government ideologies and start providing some positive solutions to the problems our world is facing. That message will no longer resonate with a new generation that wants to see the government used as a force for good, and not simply vilified as the source of all the problems. Unless they adapt and come up with some new ideas, their support will only continue to decline as Baby Boomers start dying off and Millenials get older and more politically involved.

My own generation, Generation X, is described as "Reactives" by Strauss and Howe and tends to be more cynical of both the spiritual idealism of the Boomers, and the institutional idealism of the WWII generation and the Millenials. Interestingly, this is the generation that most emerging church leaders fall into, which perhaps explains a lot about our tendencies towards postmodern skepticism. It probably also explains why a good number of emergents tend to lean towards the neo-anabaptist attitude of disengagement from political involvement (cf. Shane Claiborne and his neo-monastic buds, or my Hauerwasian Mafia friends). The common refrain seems to be "since government can't ultimately bring about the Kingdom of God, and is usually a corrupting influence anyway, there's no point in either resisting it (as the Boomers did) or attempting to reform/improve it (as the WWII Generation did)." Instead they tend to recommend withdrawal and focusing on small, local and communal actions rather than big efforts towards systemic change.

I've written before about how, while I appreciate the insights and cautions of Shane and his cohorts, I ultimately can't be quite that pessimistic about large-scale involvement. Or perhaps it's just that I'm too pragmatic, and will not refuse to use whatever tools (e.g. politics) are available to me in the pursuit of social justice, even if I fully recognize that these tools are not perfect and will not bring about the Kingdom in and of themselves. Or, maybe it's simply that having been born in 1978, right on the borderline between Gen X and the Millenials, I don't find myself completely at home in either an overly-cynical, nor an overly-optimistic attitude towards social/political involvment. Perhaps the motto of someone stuck between the generations like myself should be "Yes We Can (Partially)". ;)

Labels: politics

I still have too many thoughts swirling in my head to write anything coherent about the election of Barack Obama. There are just so many things that I want to say about it. The first black president. The first multi-racial president. The first postmodern/post-Boomer generation president (can we finally get past the 60's?) The first president in my lifetime that I'm actually excited about. A president that can actually restore the respect that America once had among the world community. The message that someone with his face, his name, and his background communicates to the world about what America can be.

The election itself excites me too - the record turn-out, especially among younger voters. The shift of power/momentum to a younger, more diverse, and more progressive America. A new kind of campaigning that refused to stoop to mud-slinging, that maintained integrity and a steady hand, and that relied on the people for funding, rather than on big corporate lobbyists and other wealthy special interests groups. The landslide victory for Democrats, which I believe is necessary in order to start fixing so much of the damage caused by the Bush Administration over the past 8 years.

Anyhow, I'd love to talk more about all these aspects and more, but I just don't have the time and can't seem to pull my thoughts together coherently enough anyway.

Labels: Obama, politics

I love a lot the stuff coming from Shane Claiborne and his other neo-monastic/neo-anabaptist cohorts, however one of things I've differed with them on is their aversion to voting as a legitimate tool for social justice. They rightly recognize that we can't bring utopia merely through politics, however I think they sometimes fail to see it as a useful tool for reaching pragmatic and proximate goals. I worry that sometimes we may fail to do all that we can to help those in need because we're too concerned about maintaining our purity from the structures of empire.

That's why I was glad to see that Shane recently wrote a post for the God's Politics blog admitting that there may be some good reasons for voting and that it might actually be permissible for some Christians to do. His main argument is that voting may be useful not for bringing about the kingdom but merely for preventing the worse of two evils. This is what a lot of us have been saying about voting for a while already, but it's good to hear someone as influential as Shane finally acknowledge it as a legitimate perspective.

Labels: politics, Shane Claiborne

"Anytime you build a road, anytime you build a school, anytime you try to create jobs, anytime you provide Social Security, you are redistributing wealth. And by the way, if we can redistribute wealth to greedy bankers, why can't we distribute some to needy Americans?"

Labels: politics

Since I don't really have time to blog this week, I thought I'd post another article from Newsweek that I particularly liked. Anna Quindlen, one of the columnists I find myself agreeing with most often, had a great piece about how steady and "unflappable" Obama has shown himself to be and how that is exactly what America needs right now. She writes:

This effect explains how Barack Obama has captured the attention and the approval of even those who, a year ago, would have been skeptical or hostile. The guy is steady. His campaign has now made the word its mantra, and, boy, has he earned the right. There has rarely been a moment when the United States needed an unflappable leader more, and there has rarely been a candidate who has so steadfastly refused to rattle.

For nearly two years the man has played his own methodical game, ignoring the cries of pundits or party regulars. During those times when it looked as though he were faltering or fading, most conspicuously after the Republican convention, when Sarah Palin seemed like a bright idea instead of a "Saturday Night Live" skit, the Greek chorus rose: Strike out! Fight back! Be tough! Be rough! Obama proceeded apace.

I have to say that I agree. I've been consistently impressed this past year at how calm and intelligent and civil Obama has remained, no matter what kind of crap his opponents threw at him. As Quindlen goes on to say "he's a smart and temperate person who is really comfortable in his own skin." That's definitely something to admire about the guy, regardless of whether you agree with his platform or not.

Labels: politics

Fareed Zakaria (whom I respect though don't always agree with), had one of the best articles I've seen regarding the financial meltdown in the last issue of Newsweek. His premise is that this meltdown could have a silver lining if it leads us Americans to kick all of our negative financial habits that we've grown accustomed to over the past three decades, especially our "buy now, pay later" mentality.

I also especially liked Zachary Karabell's article about the end of the "ownership society", which reminds us that homeownership alone will not create a healthier society - we also have to make sure we're protecting workers. For instance, he says:

In the United States, the shift away from corporate pensions to 401(k) Individual Retirement Accounts plunged millions more into the equity markets and loosened the traditional connection between companies and workers, which was one element of that 1950s dream that conservatives such as Bush conveniently forgot. The ownership society of the 1950s was anchored by a labor movement that made sure that workers received something resembling their share—remember Truman's Fair Deal? The deal for the past eight years has been fair to merchants of capital, and then some, but to the tens of millions on the receiving rather than originating end of those mortgages, fairness has been in short supply.

Excellent point.

Labels: politics

While some people might consider it a no-brainer that a Chicago paper would endorse their hometown boy for president, the fact is that as one of the most conservative major newspapers in the country, the Chicago Tribune has never before endorsed a Democratic Candidate. Their endorsement of Barack Obama is therefore a major event and a strong indication of his ability to unite diverse groups in this divided country.

I found one quote particularly useful in response to any of those who continue to worry about whether or not Obama is experienced enough to be president. The Tribune editors replied to this concern with the following:

Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.

We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.

Here is a conservative paper that probably knows Obama better than any other journalistic organization in the country saying that he has what it takes. That's a big deal, and I hope people listen.

I also like what they went on to say about why they were endorsing him:

The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.

Very true. Of course Obama won't be able to single-handedly return civility to our public discourse, but after all the slime and negativity I've heard from the Republicans these past few weeks, I'm pretty confident that he'll do a heck of a lot better at it than the other guy.

Labels: politics