Moving from Bullshit to Honest Political Discussion

In the interest of protecting the loved-one referred to above, I will simply summarize his first email. It started by comparing Gov. Sarah Palin to Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden. It went on to expound on Gov. Palin's qualifications to lead and ended with a charge that Senator Obama refused to salute the flag, hated the national anthem, opposed offering medical assistance to babies born alive during an abortion, and was a close associate of known terrorists. This was a forwarded email from a member of our armed services. Here is my response:

I didn't intend to respond to the arguments below, because I didn't think you would read it anyway. On second thought, perhaps that is unfair. I could go point by point on the trash below and give you multiple sources and logical reasoning as to the absurdity of this email, but I'm going to choose one issue. If you read it and want to hear more, I'll be happy to oblige. Otherwise, please at least consider this. . . There are some good reasons to vote for McCain – find them! Love your country enough to do your homework and separate truth from fiction . . . and then vote accordingly.

As for "Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense.", here is an short excerpt from http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/palin-national-guard.htm. "The foreign deployments of units and the operation of missile interceptors are not the responsibility of state governors. That comes down from the regular U.S. military chain of command." Of course, you know this already. If you want more on this issue, the link has the whole article and this is from a nonpartisan source. If you don't like this source, let me know and I'll help you find the government documents that this is based on. Finally, if you want to engage in intelligent discussion about this campaign, I'd be happy to oblige.

I was pleased when he responded, saying that he knew that much of the email was "bullshit," but that is to be expected in political campaigns. Ultimately, we are left voting for the lesser of two evils, he said, and he questioned Obama's patriotism and leadership because he opposed the war in Iraq and dislikes the national anthem. I'm really proud of this young man for engaging in this conversation with me and this is my response to the second email.

I appreciate hearing your thoughts, and I can really identify with your feelings about the bullshit! On the surface, you’re talking about things like the national anthem, and I've got to tell you that’s just more political bullshit. The stuff about Obama not liking the national anthem came from a political commentary by John Semmens. He was writing a satirical piece and in the piece he had Obama saying some stuff about the national anthem. Obama never said it. Here’s a link from Snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp and here’s the link to the original article http://azconservative.org/Semmens118.htm. Just be sure you note the title of the article.

So, let’s put the bullshit behind us and have a serious talk about the issue that you are really concerned about. I think you are really concerned about Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq. You question his patriotism, because he opposed it, and you think that the reason he opposed it was because it was unpopular with the people. You’re afraid that he won’t be able to make the hard decisions if called upon in his role as commander-in-chief. Am I right about that? If so, we’re starting to get somewhere. That is a discussion worth having.

Let’s start with the willingness to make unpopular decisions, because that’s a quick one. Obama announced his opposition to the war before it began, while he was engaged in a fierce campaign for the Senate. When he said this, Bush’s approval rating and support for the war were at their highest. Politically, most people thought this was suicide, but he did it anyway. I think that is about as strong a proof as you can get that he is willing to stand against popular opinion, saying and doing what he believes is right.

So, what about patriotism? Shouldn’t patriots support their leaders during time of war? Thomas Jefferson didn’t think so. He said, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.” Or, consider Abraham Lincoln’s advice, “Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.” Abraham Lincoln was speaking directly to the Bush Doctrine…. 150 years before Bush was born! Albert Einstein, escaping from Hitler’s Nazi Germany said, “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”As Americans, it is our JOB to question our government about everything, but especially about decisions to go to war. Did you realize that the heart of our forefather’s complaints against the British was directly tied to the king’s constant war-making, which deprived the people of life and liberty as they worked to finance his wars?

So, the last question is, should we have gone to war in Iraq and what do we do about it now. Like Obama, I opposed this war from the beginning. I, however, was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, hoping that he had intelligence information that justified this war but that could not be revealed in advance. However, as the war progressed and it became obvious that the intelligence he had actually contradicted his justifications, it made me sick. I will be happy to explain why I opposed it. I believe that Obama’s reasons were close enough to my own for that to work in our discussion, but I don’t want to launch into it unless you want to read it. Instead, I’ll leave you with a few important quotes. If you want to respond to what I’ve already said, I’ll explain my position further, but this is enough for now.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive.

~C. S. Lewis

The dangerous patriot...is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory.

~Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

~Thomas Jefferson

Country First?

Rather than writing my own entry today, I want to point readers to an article by Jim Wallis. I think he makes an important point regarding faith and politics. I hope you'll read it. http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/09/fact-checking-and-faith-first.html

The Role of Government in Addressing Poverty

As I mentioned in my response to Jorob's comment on the first entry, I think that an examination of the role of government in scripture could be used to justify either a conservative or liberal approach. Since scripture covers many years and many different circumstances, that is not particularly surprising. Therefore, the task becomes determining how to apply the underlying Biblical principles to my country and my generation. I don't think this can be done without looking at individual issues.

Take poverty, for example. If addressing poverty means providing financial assistance, the church is certainly better equipped to do that, as experience has shown. On the other hand, I don't think the church has a lot of ability to create jobs.

Another aspect of poverty relates to generational poverty. Generational poverty refers to multiple generations living in poverty. There was a time in Brett's and my life when our earnings were below the poverty level, but neither of us grew up in poor homes. While we can certainly relate to the challenges of surviving with scarce resources, our experience can't compare to someone who has only experienced poverty.

First, there is the psychological impact. It is difficult to know how to get ahead in a free market society, if you've never had role models to demonstrate the skills needed. There is also a despair that is difficult to overcome when there is no clear path out of the situation. Brett and I never had to deal with that; we always knew that our situation was temporary and that if disaster struck, our family would be there to rescue us. Those whose families are unable to provide that safety net have a hard time taking necessary risks.

Secondly, there is the problem of access to the assets necessary to get ahead. Families pass on acquired assets with each generation benefiting from the assets of the previous generation. This provides a "leg up," that is not available to families locked in generational poverty. Racial considerations come to play in this issue. White Americans benefited for multiple generations from the labor of slaves, who themselves received no economic compensation. Each generation of white Americans was able to climb the economic ladder a little higher, yet at emancipation, efforts to provide released slaves with a small plot of land were defeated. This failure, combined with years of Jim Crow laws, significantly disadvantaged African Americans and is largely responsible for the current racial disparity in income in America.

The church certainly has an important role in addressing the psychological and spiritual components of poverty, and its role in meeting urgent needs is critical. However, I question whether the church has the resources to address problems as complex as generational poverty. While the church may not have the resources to adequately address poverty, we still have to figure out if government is able to do any better. I want to address that next time, but for now I've concluded that poverty has to be addressed by both the church and government.

Proverbs 29 on Leadership

I was reading Proverbs 29 this morning and in light of the ending of the Democratic National Convention and the beginning of the Republican National Convention, I found the following verses interesting. I'm going to try to create a list of similar verses from other passages of the Bible. They will become my prayer for the next president and other elected officials and will help me decide who to vote for in November. They are in The Message version.

2 When good people run things, everyone is glad,
but when the ruler is bad, everyone groans.
. . . .
4 A leader of good judgment gives stability;
an exploiting leader leaves a trail of waste.
. . . .
12 When a leader listens to malicious gossip,
all the workers get infected with evil.
. . . .
14 Leadership gains authority and respect
when the voiceless poor are treated fairly.
. . . .
16 When degenerates take charge, crime runs wild,
but the righteous will eventually observe their collapse.

Each of these verses specifically mentioned leadership or being in charge. If you find similar verses, please add them. And join me in praying that God will send a leader who fulfills the wisdom of these verses.

The REAL Question

I’ve been striving years to reconcile my understanding of the Bible and Christian faith with my understanding of democracy, policy, and the political process. While there are many pieces to be discussed, I believe that it is critically important to think about the question that comes before all the other questions, the one that usually occurs at the end of an argument about faith and politics, but that is generally ignored until one feels hemmed in by the opponent’s use of scripture or moral reasoning. Interestingly, it is a question asked, and then turned into a contention, by both Democrats and Republicans, and it tends to move the discussion away from questions of morality. Yet, it is a foundational principle and important to any discussion of public policy. The question I’m referring to is, “What is the proper role of government?” or when discussing a particular policy, “What is the role of government in solving x?

Conservatives ask the question when the topic moves to economic morality. When the issue being discussed is poverty, health care, or discrimination, conservative Christians typically agree that Biblical imperatives exist that obligate one to care for “the least of these,” but they argue that this is the responsibility of the church or the individual, and they stress the responsibility of the poor and disenfranchised to care for themselves.

Liberals, or progressives as they are becoming known, ask the question when it comes to individual and behavioral morality. Politically liberal Christians, when confronted with issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion, tend to stress the role of the church in addressing moral behavior, and they emphasize the responsibility of the individual to choose virtuous ways of living. Of course, conservatives assert the active role of government in behavioral morality, while progressives assert the active role of government in economic morality.

Only Libertarians and Communists are consistent in their answers to the question of the proper role of government. For Libertarians the answer is an unwavering “as little as possible” and for Communists it is always “as much as possible.” Yet, with the glaring failures of Communism and the untested notions of Libertarianism, few are willing to embrace the consistency they offer. And, in fact, the complexities of life give most people an ample supply of exceptions to the simplistic suggestions of the two extremes.

Therefore, the question remains, “What is the proper role of government?” As a Christian, I really wish that the writers of the Bible had been citizens of a democracy! As it is, the Bible gives very little direct instruction. Gleaning any help from scripture in answering that question requires a great deal of responsible scholarship. However, even with the most studious interpretations, the question requires that we look outside of scripture.

Charles Wesley taught that Christians could not look to scripture alone (sola scriptura) for an understanding of God’s will, but must also consider reason, tradition, and experience. These things must also enlighten the answer that we seek to the proper role of government.

I have some ideas about this myself, though not fully formed. However, I’m now called to focus on the responsible interpretation of Introduction to Quantitative Analysis, so my ideas will have to wait. In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts. What is the proper role of government?