New thoughts on local politics

If you haven't guessed, I, like many in the faith circles I run in, believe that American Evangelicalism has been co-opted by political conservatism and has seriously gotten off track in its calling to follow Jesus. On the other hand, I, and many in my faith circles, are concerned that we not repeat the mistake, by simply switching parties. I believe that followers of Christ are called to a greater allegiance to Him than to any political party or even national boundary. Still, the Bible does not refrain from discourse on the responsibilities of government and I see no benefit in repeating the behaviors of previous generations of Christians that viewed politics as dirty and taught that Christians had no business being involved. As a friend said to me recently, "In politics, there are players and there are victims." If you remove yourself from the process you will become a victim of those who have not.

Coupled with these ideas, I have struggled with the issue of Christian unity. At Doxology, we take pleasure in the fact that in our gatherings both liberals and conservatives can come together and worship despite their political differences. How then do we make a unified call to action in the political arena? Yesterday, in a conversation that I was privileged to participate in between two evangelical Christian leaders and one of my professors, a possible answer began to arise in my own thinking.

This professor, whom I greatly admire, challenged my evangelical friends with the question, "When was the last time your churches announced that there would be a city council meeting on Thursday and the issue of affordable housing will be on the agenda?" LOCAL POLITICS. Certainly, I am aware of the importance of local politics. Often the decisions of local city councils have a much more immediate and significant impact on the lives of citizens than the decisions at the state or national levels, but citizen participation in local governments is appallingly low.

Further, local politics generally do not share the partisan nature of state and national politics. As Christian church leader, I know that my church can come together in unity on issues of local social justice, even as they disagree about appropriate solutions at a state or national level. Let's face it, local problems are more discrete and concrete. Do we build a electric transfer station in the Mueller development? Do we grant a permit for Foundation Communities to build an affordable housing complex across the street from the church? I'm not saying that these questions are simple and without debate, but they are certainly easier to wrap your head around than questions about immigration reform or Medicaid eligibility requirements. The answers are also less clearly defined in terms of "Democrat" or "Republican."

Am I saying that Christians should not be involved in state or national political issues? No. I am saying, though, that we might at least pay some attention to the issues of injustice in our own backyards. Whether or not everyone believes in global warming, those who believe in the Bible should agree that that the poor neighborhoods should not have to house ALL of the landfills and water treatment facilities, that mold in schools is bad no matter which side of the city they are on, and that city pools should be opened and maintained on the same schedule no matter which neighborhood they are in.

In fact, I suspect that if Christians turned their attention to cleaning up our cities and caring for the disenfranchised within them, many issues that consume so much of the national debate could be minimized or eliminated. With this in mind, if you live in Austin, plan to attend "In the City, For the City" at the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum, on November 15. The two evangelical leaders that I mentioned are part of the group hosting this event and it will be worth your time.

I just read this passage where Dietrich Bonhoeffer quotes Friedrich Nietsche and thought it worth passing on.

Nietzche, without knowing it, was speaking in the spirit of the New Testament when he attacked the legalistic and philistine misinterpretation of [the] commandment which bids us love our neighbor. He wrote: "You are assiduous in your attention to your neighbor and you find beautiful words to describe your assiduity. But I tell you that your love for your neighbor is a worthless love for yourself. You go to your neighbor to seek refuge from yourself and then you try to make a virtue of it; but I see through your [unselfishness]....Do I advise you to love your neighbor? I advise you rather to shun your neighbor and love whoever is furthest from you! If beyond his neighbor a man does not know this one who is furthest from him as his neighbor, then he does not serve his neighbor but himself; he takes refuge from free open spaces of responsibility in the comforting confinement of the fulfillment of duty.

Email from President Obama

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

I'm Back

I can't believe it has been a year since I posted here. I quit posting for a variety of reasons, but I've recently decided to orient my life toward authenticity. So, though my fears tell me that I may lose relationships if I speak openly, I'm moving past those in pursuit of something real. So, in keeping with my declaration, here is something that I recently wrote for one of my classes. It is rather tongue-in-cheek. If anyone reads it, I hope you at least have a laugh.
_______________________________________________
The Search for Missing Conservatives

In following the news lately, I’m struck by a mystery that no one seems to be discussing… Where have all the conservatives gone? Were they spirited away in the twinkling of an eye?

Of course, there are a lot of people carrying guns to town hall meetings who claim to be conservatives and there are even legislators shouting in front of television cameras like Longhorns watching the Sooners make a touchdown, but I haven’t heard anyone defending the capacity of the invisible hand of the market and the rational decisions of consumers to achieve the most efficient solution to the country’s health care crisis. If the conservatives were around, someone would be talking about the ability of Americans to make their own decisions about insurance, and they would defend the people’s right to options. With no one arguing these things, it is certain that the conservatives have left the building.

So, who are these conservative impostors that gather at rallies, spend their afternoons talking into the can at the radio station or debating healthcare proposals in Washington? I think most of them are actually neo-liberals who embrace the role of government in solving problems and meeting societal needs. Unlike traditional liberals, though, they believe that government should solve the problems of those with the greatest resources. Currently, tax subsidies are provided to employers who offer health insurance to their employees. According to a study by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, these subsidies primarily benefit the wealthiest wage-earners in the country as you can see in the graph below.

In the current situation, "private" insurance receives all kinds of "public" support from government in the form of tax exemptions and subsidies, and "public" insurance has elements of private insurance, in that people pay premiums which are supposed to finance the group plans they are in. So, it seems pretty clear to me that the conservatives disappeared a long time ago and the neo-liberals who’ve stolen their identity have experienced tremendous success in transferring society’s responsibility to care for the wealthy to the government.

With conservatives in the country, the value of competition would be on the agenda and the power of individual market choices to drive inefficient and undesirable producers out of business would surely be heard on the afternoon talk shows, or in the paper, or at least on Twitter. Heck, conservatives would turn a deaf ear to any corporation on industry that whined about being driven out of the market, because that is what the market is supposed to do – separate the wheat from the chaff. However, in a letter that I recently received from “conservative” Senator John Cornyn, I was surprised to learn of his concern for protecting insurance companies from competition. He wrote, “I believe that a new government-run health insurance plan will devastate private insurance markets by acting as a competitor, regulator, and funder.”

Government already regulates and funds private insurance, so I can only believe that he is concerned that they be protected from further competition. He is convinced that offering a public insurance option would drive insurance companies out of business, which sounds a lot more like a bleeding heart liberal trying to save the spotted owl from extinction. The absence of Darwinian economics is to conservatives like the absence of water in the pond is to fish. When the pond is dry, don’t bother looking for the fish.

Finally, conservatives know that government programs are wasteful and inefficient. A lot of conservatives even dare to publicly admit that all government programs are tyrannical and committed to the harming of its citizens. While the neo-liberals have certainly sung the conservative tune in their predictions of death panels and bureaucrats sending women with breast cancer home to die, their fear that private insurance companies would be driven out of business suggests that either they believe that people are not rational decision makers and need government to protect them, or that they believe that a government program could be run even more efficiently than a private corporation. Either argument would cause a conservative to roll in their graves. Since America hasn’t experienced any earthquakes lately, I think the dead ones must be missing, too.

This is truly the epic mystery of our time. Perhaps the disappearance of American conservatives should be the subject of Dan Brown’s next book, because this certainly smacks of a conspiracy far bigger than missing symbols and secret societies. And, maybe if we find the conservatives, we’ll figure out where the bees went, too.

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.