If I were a Republican congressman today….

[Warning... severe political cynicism follows...]

If I were a Republican congressman today…. I would do just what House Republicans did, and vote against the economic stimulus plan.  I would do so because of a cold political calculation that bets on one thing:  no matter what happens, or doesn’t happen, this economy is going down the tubes, so the only thing left to do is to engineer who gets the blame.  Let’s see how this works logically, with those givens.

The best thing that could happen from the point of view of the minority party is for the package as a whole to pass, with the loyal opposition in lock-step against it, so that when the economy fails, the blame can fall squarely on the Democrats.  However:

The worst thing that could happen from the same point of view is for their own opposition to succeed and the package to fail, because then the blame would fall just as surely on the obstructionists who got in the way of the only attempt on the table to do something big, dramatic, and immediately to try to forestall the now even-more-inevitable collapse.

So, there you have it.  A policy based on an expectation of failure.  Somebody tell me why I’m wrong here.

Playing the Victim Card

You’ve got to hand it to the GOP. After ridiculing Obama with the label of “celebrity” because of his ability to draw large crowds wherever he goes, they decided that they couldn’t beat him on that score so they joined him, creating their own instant celebrity with the Vice Presidential nominee. The decision had been made, apparently, that this election needs to turn on style, not substance, and even McCain’s top advisor has been quoted as affirming this by saying this election will not be about issues. So, what to make it about? The answer is now apparent: Victims and bullies.

The American public loves underdogs, has great sympathy for victims, and doesn’t ever want to see anyone treated unfairly. Political operatives know this. Ever since the Republican convention, there has been a consistent attempt by the political talking heads from that side of the street to complain, early and often, about how their side is being attacked by the other side: sometimes not even bothering to wait until any such attacks have actually been made. It’s a bully’s tactic: to complain about how much you are being bullied.

Yesterday, echoing remarks made back during the primary when John McCain was talking about Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan “if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig, ” Obama used the same common image, among others, to talk about how inapplicable is the new GOP mantra of “change” as a label to apply to the consistent support of the McCain camp for Bush policies on war, healthcare, education, energy, taxes and so on.

Ignoring their own candidate’s use of the same words in remarks that specifically had named Hillary Clinton, the McCain surrogates swarmed to the microphones to decry the “attack” that Obama, who mentioned no names, just policies, had made — so they insisted — on their vice-presidential candidate.

This kind of victim talk is the functional equivalent of the schoolyard bully whining that the other kid has hit him in the fist with his face. Meanwhile Governor Palin is scheduled to go back to Alaska, giving her maybe another week of time to not be available for actual interviews or any kind of unscripted interaction with the press. Watch with me and see how long it takes before legitimate reporters wanting to get such unscripted comments on actual issues become dismissed as “paparazzi.”

A political observation

I confess that the following political observation may be colored by the fact that I made a decision back in 2003 that I would never support a candidate who voted in favor of sending our young people into a contrived war. That means that, whatever I may or may not think of Barack Obama, if the contest this November were to be between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I would be morally obliged to stay home. That said:

It seems to me that it has become increasingly clear in this primary season that Senator Clinton, for all of her favorable qualities (and there are many) appears to share with George W. Bush one deadly character flaw, a flaw that tends to be trumpeted by its possessors as a virtue: the inability or stubborn unwillingness to allow such an inconvenient thing as facts to interfere with her own oversized sense of willpower. Such stubbornness on GWB’s part has led us into an untenable situation in the Middle East; on HRC’s part, it looks likely to bring her party into an untenable situation in November.

It is to the everlasting credit of Al Gore, by the way, that he proved himself not to share that same character flaw when the Supreme Court made its ruling in 2000.  Maybe HRC will prove me wrong by some classy action in the next few days.  I’m holding my breath.

I will go hide now.

Under the Radar

A fascinating tidbit that deserves a bit more airtime.

Why a Spiritual Advisor to President Bush Supports Obama

— Beliefnet.com

The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell is pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church, the largest United Methodist congregation in the nation. Often described as a ‘spiritual advisor’ to President George W. Bush, Caldwell introduced Bush at the 2000 Republican National Convention and delivered the benedictions at the 2001 and 2005 presidential inaugurations. He endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president in January.

Readers of the whole article will find some surprising things in here, including this minister’s take on the Rev. Wright:

Can you give an example of something Wright said that was “blown up” by the news media?

This whole G.D. America piece, that’s a great example. First of all, right after he says that, the next sentence, which they never play, says, “And that’s in the Bible.” Now, it’s not written that way in English, but the Hebraic expression basically says this: if America makes itself and views itself as God, and not Yahweh, or the Lord God Almighty as God, then America basically is committing adultery*, and then America is darning itself.

He never said “I would D. America.” He was saying that when the government begins to worship itself, then there is a price to be paid, and you basically fall into that category whether you want to or not.

*[blogger's note: Transcription error?  "idolatry" makes more sense here than "adultery"]

It sounds like you agree with the point he was making.

It’s not my role to agree or disagree with him, but I think it is my role to contextualize what, in fact, he was actually saying. No Christian that I know would agree that idolatry is acceptable to God, and clearly that’s a breach of the Ten Commandments, among other things. So, as I understand it, the point that Pastor Wright was making is that when America places itself–its own self in an idolatrous position, then you are basically positioning yourself for bad news….

And yes, this is the same minister that officiated last weekend at Jenna Bush’s wedding in Crawford, Texas.

Good for nothing « Tinsel Wing

Almost missed this tidbit from a neighboring blog.

Good for nothing « Tinsel Wing
Never put a conservative in office. It ought to be one of those no-brainer bromides that everyone learns at her mother’s knee. Right up there with “Never eat anything bigger than your head” or “Never start a land war in Asia.”

Before you all start shouting, go read the rest of the piece. It’s short. And I’ll even give away the punch line:

It’s not that conservatives are more evil than liberals, or more naturally corrupt. It’s that their philosophy creates a vacuum of motive the moment they begin to govern. And evil and corruption, dwelling nascently as they do in every human being, stand ever ready to rush into that vacuum.

Let’s put that into a form suitable for lessons at mother’s knee. Those who believe that government is good for nothing will use government for nothing good.

Of course, some of our most prominent conservatives of recent days don’t believe  that evil and corruption dwell nascently in every human being. They are insulted and offended at any suggestion that they or their associates can be identified with anything evil, and equally offended at any suggestion that those whom they call evil could have any teeny potential for what could be called good. In other words, our political world has been largely run in recent years by people who, seemingly, learned their sense of morality from comic books.

“Elitist”

So, is it now a code word for “uppity”?

Just asking…..
More here.

Taking the Wright approach

Yesterday, Barack Obama arrived late to a Philadelphia podium to give a speech that, if he failed to exceed expectations, could have effectively ended his political career. The issue of the day was being spun as: “Will he or won’t he put a sufficient amount of distance between himself and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor for twenty years, his spiritual mentor, who has been shown on videotape saying outrageous, offensive and in some cases just plain untrue things? Will he both reject and denounce the man who led him to Christ, officiated at his wedding, and baptized his children?” The political class loves a good pile-on, and it was hard to see how this was not going to balloon into a ruination of a colossal order.

I watched that speech with considerable interest, tinged with skepticism

An extremely modest proposal

I’ve got a suggestion for the Democratic Party as to how to solve the problem of Michigan and Florida. The situation is that the two states broke the rules of the party in scheduling their primaries early, and all the candidates agreed not to campaign in either state. Most of them even had their names taken off of the ballot in Michigan. When Hillary Clinton didn’t bother to go that far, she made it out to be not such a big deal.

Now, of course, that the race is so close

Is anyone Listening?

An important speech today by Nobel Prize winner Al Gore. An excerpt:

 

The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures – a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: “Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”

We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency – a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst – though not all – of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.

However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world’s leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler’s threat: “They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.

We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.

A Christian nation’s foreign policy

Another rant on church & state, or at least Christianity and government.

The presumption on the part of those who advocate the notion that America is a Christian nation seems to be that living up to this foundational ideal will make of us a nation of moral people, blessed by God and respected in the world. I want to talk again about what it would take for this nation, or any nation, to be Christian; and what that would imply for foreign policy first of all.

Let’s by-pass for the moment the legalistic theocratic ideal of the far right wing – the ones who would like to reinstitute certain select portions of Deuteronomy and Leviticus as the foundation for our national life (minus, no doubt, the prohibition against shutting the poor and foreigners out of your property and a few other such inconveniences) ¬– and go to the one espoused by the 43rd president of the United States, who talked in a debate about the value of the commandment that we should “love our neighbors like we would like to be loved ourselves.” Never mind that he mangled the quote (“Love Your Neighbor As Yourself” or perhaps its corollary, “whatever you want others to do for you, do that for them”). We know what he was referring to.

Both of these— the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, taken from Leviticus 19:18, and what is called the Golden Rule, cited by Jesus, are said by him to summarize “the Law and the Prophets.” He certainly cites them approvingly, as succinct summaries of all the ethical teaching that precedes him. But it should be noted that these are, in fact, not specifically Christian ethical rules. They belong first to Hebrew religion, and in various forms of words have been identified as springing up in many different places. I have called this the highest pre-Christian, or if you will, non-Christian ethic.

We could get into quite a discussion about how and whether this ethic can and should be applied to nations. What would happen if a nation valued the welfare of all other nations equally with that of itself? What if it extended treaties, trade agreements, etc., on the basis of how it would want such agreements made with itself, by other powers? Surely this would be a fruitful area of study for major think tanks, or a future Department of Peace. And since neither Love Your Neighbor nor Do Unto Others specifically invokes or even mentions God or any religious faith or practice, such a basis for international relations would not violate any principle involving separation of church and state.

But we have not yet got to a Christian nation. A Christian nation would be one which follows Jesus, and especially one which pays attention to anything that is specified as directed by him to those who are his followers. Anything that is introduced with “But I say to you” would cause the leaders of such a nation to sit up and take notice. And Jesus does introduce a specifically Christian ethical principle. “Love Your Enemies.”

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you. If someone hits you, give them a chance to hit you again. Do good, and lend, not expecting to be repaid. Give to everyone who asks. If someone wants what is yours, give them even more than they tried to take. Deny yourself.

How would all that look as foreign policy?

Let me be extremely clear. A Christian nation would do as Jesus did, and as he instructed his disciples to do, and as those disciples, in their writings, instructed other followers of his to do. Namely: It would be manifestly willing to give up its life — its national life— for the life of the world. It would do so, no doubt, trusting in a God who can raise the dead; but it would clearly and intentionally do good and not harm to those who sought its harm. It would, in fact, be a nation which would prefer to suffer rather than to inflict suffering on others. It would be a forgiving nation, forgiving seventy times seven the wrongs done to it by other nations. It would pay its debts.

In short, a Christian nation such as I have outlined has scarcely ever been envisioned, let alone attempted. So let me say one more thing:

Anyone who claims to want a nation to be Christian, without desiring that it follow Jesus in ways such as briefly outlined above, commits blasphemy against Christ, and preaches a fantasy, not the Christ of the Bible.

A nation that seeks to preserve its national life (by, for example, fixating on “security” and on seeking to destroy, rather than love, its enemies) is being like all the nations of the world have ever been, and as such will one day lose its life. It is most decidedly no more “Christian” than was the Roman Empire in the days of Vespasian.

I am almost at the point where I will be convinced that in order to follow Jesus truly, I’m going to have to give up the label “Christian” altogether, so corrupt has it become by association with so much that is contrary to Christ himself.

Still unanswered is how a follower of Jesus should behave in a secular democracy. I like the idea of promoting the public policy implications of the pre-or non-Christian ethic of love for neighbor, and the Golden Rule; though the principles of Machiavelli get a lot more respect, in these days.