It struck me that John McCain did not once look at Barack Obama during last week's debate. What's behind this approach to dealing with one's opponent or enemy?
I found this approach symbolic of the Republican Foreign Policy strategy. Their criticism of Democrats neive attitude toward dangerous leaders of Iran, Pakistan, North Korea may have some validity--but Republicans have been equally neive about the culture, values and worldview that shape our "enemies". In refusing to deal with them, they are out of touch about how to deal with them. Republican Foreign Policy has been quick to label "them" as the "bad guys" who don't deserve any priviledges--and they ought to know it!! (I believe Sarah Palin actually used the terms "good guys" and "bad guys" in her recent Couric interview.)
There seems to be an assumption that understanding our "enemies" is not as important as beating them --the problem being that we often beat down opportunities for cooperation because we're to focused on maintain our tough-guy stance. Perhaps one of the most flagrantly foolish examples of our resistance to understanding the other side was the insultantingly few number of people sent to Iraq (sheltered by the Green Zone, of course) who actually spoke the language of the people we were trying to reach. There will never be "victory" in Iraq unless it is a victory of both sides. Until we understand our enemies, we will have force, but no victory.
We've had enough years of being the bullies on the playground. Let's become true mediators.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
What's the problem with helping the working poor?
It's extraordinary to me that the United States can find $700 billion to save Wall Street and the entire G8 can't find $25 billion dollars to saved 25,000 children who die every day from preventable diseases.
- Bono, rock star and anti-poverty activist.
As someone who wrestles with greed myself, I recognize the temptation --but is there some reason superior to greed that explains why the wealthy in this country shouldn't help out the working poor in this country and well as the starving and dying abroad? As the richest country on earth --with a government that helps big corporations thrive--why shouldn't their excess also help the working poor survive?
I was stunned by these anti-middle-class words posted recently on the welcome page of BlogforJohnMcCain.com:
Chalk this up as being one of those Biden "Big Mouth" moments. Here we have Joe admitting that he's for socialism and the redistribution of wealth. Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. The Republican campaign for president calls the tax increases their Democratic opponents propose "painful" instead of patriotic. Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut. "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America. "Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." I agree with Biden that it is time for folks to "jump in." Yes, they need to jump in to the voting process and help us give a swift kick in the ass to socialists like Joe Biden and Barack Obama who are trying to takeover this country. Folks like them usually try to avoid letting the voters know what they actually want to do. Usually they are smart enough not to. Thankfully, Joe Biden is not.
When we come to terms with the Republicans' Trickle-Down Ecominics the above attitude is prominant. I wonder how many registered Republicans are actually recognize and admit that to themselves.
Should our Christian Faith be part of our Economics? how much should we temper the amount of control greed has over our economics? Is it wrong for us to create financial policies that help support the majority of country—especially those families struggling to provide food, healthcare and education for their children, as well as have the financial freedom to spend time with the children God’s entrusted to their care. That, in my opinion, should be considered as we weigh "family values".
- Bono, rock star and anti-poverty activist.
As someone who wrestles with greed myself, I recognize the temptation --but is there some reason superior to greed that explains why the wealthy in this country shouldn't help out the working poor in this country and well as the starving and dying abroad? As the richest country on earth --with a government that helps big corporations thrive--why shouldn't their excess also help the working poor survive?
I was stunned by these anti-middle-class words posted recently on the welcome page of BlogforJohnMcCain.com:
Chalk this up as being one of those Biden "Big Mouth" moments. Here we have Joe admitting that he's for socialism and the redistribution of wealth. Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. The Republican campaign for president calls the tax increases their Democratic opponents propose "painful" instead of patriotic. Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut. "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America. "Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." I agree with Biden that it is time for folks to "jump in." Yes, they need to jump in to the voting process and help us give a swift kick in the ass to socialists like Joe Biden and Barack Obama who are trying to takeover this country. Folks like them usually try to avoid letting the voters know what they actually want to do. Usually they are smart enough not to. Thankfully, Joe Biden is not.
When we come to terms with the Republicans' Trickle-Down Ecominics the above attitude is prominant. I wonder how many registered Republicans are actually recognize and admit that to themselves.
Should our Christian Faith be part of our Economics? how much should we temper the amount of control greed has over our economics? Is it wrong for us to create financial policies that help support the majority of country—especially those families struggling to provide food, healthcare and education for their children, as well as have the financial freedom to spend time with the children God’s entrusted to their care. That, in my opinion, should be considered as we weigh "family values".
Friday, September 26, 2008
Letter from Minneapolis
Christian issues aside (for the moment), there is a simple common sense aspect to this year’s election: Republicans have held complete power for 6 of the last 8 years (both Houses of Congress, The Presidency and most of The Supreme Court), and the Presidency for all 8. Considering how they’ve governed, there’s no question the country needs a change of direction. In fact, this year’s election may serve as a referendum on certain bankrupt ideological views on how to govern, and decide the future direction of our country for many years to come.
Specifically for Christians, the American political system splits the issues that are impor-tant to us, forcing us to choose between a slate of what I’d call “pseudo- or neo-Christian” issues (because Jesus himself did not name them), and pretty much the remainder of Christ’s teaching.
Since the economy’s on everyone’s mind, let’s look at that first. The Republicans, under Mr Bush and with the support of Mr McCain, engineered the largest redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the rich since The Great Depression. Thus it’s no surprise they also attempted to privatize one of the cornerstones of post-Depression relief: Social Security. Privatizing Social Security would have led to massive fees for the financial industry—fees excused with the explanation that private industry is so much more efficient than the govern-ment, and so deserves the windfall. The financial industry has demonstrated this “efficiency” in the last few weeks by basically collapsing in a mountain of its own recklessness and greed, and will, in fact, have to be bailed out by the “inefficient” government, using your tax money.
Mr McCain supported (and supports) this idea of “personal accounts”—most of which would now be wiped out. He also called the very concept of Social Security—young tax-payers helping older Americans—“a disgrace”. Despite this, he has no trouble cashing his own monthly check, which he has been doing for almost 20 years—even though the system allows you to refuse (and he’s married to a multi-millionaire).
The Republican hostility toward Social Security—or any kind of Socialism—doesn’t extend to the rich and powerful (“socialism”, when stripped of hysterics, simply means we, as a nation, choose to devote resources to those incapable of caring for themselves). We can’t pay for Social Security and we can’t afford Health Care for Children, but we can spend close to a trillion dol-lars to insure that Wall Street doesn’t have to suffer for its own mistakes. The old lady down the street or the poor family the next block over are “cheating” us when they use our tax money to buy milk and pay the electric bill—their irresponsibility is inexcusable—why don’t they just get a job! But irresponsibility on a grand scale—whether it be the war of choice in Iraq or the coming trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street—is downright patriotic.
Does this sound like a Christian perspective? The rich and the violent protected and lionized while the poor are despised, mocked and left to suffer?
It is a plain fact that Americans are now working harder for less money. What should be understood is that they are still generating the same amount of money—more even—but it’s flowing upward. While the Socialist Countries in Europe we are taught to mock enjoy shorter workweeks, more vacation time and free health care, we are taking a second, sometimes even a third job, with no appreciable change in circumstances. This might, in turn, cause a family to be so desperate they would allow themselves to invest in a mortgage that seemed too good to be true. Who do we, as Christians, hold more accountable: the con man on the street, or the sucker that played the game and lost all her money?
I would submit that the Republicans have taken great pains over the last 20 years to teach us to side instinctively with the con man and have contempt for his victims—that is, to subvert, rather than encourage, a Christian perspective.
Surely it’s hypocritical to insist social issues like abortion and gay marriage adhere to Christian doctrine while core issues of day-to-day living—economic issues—plainly do not. How can the Republicans, who maintain their support for war abroad and tax cuts for the rich at home, ever be considered the Party of Christian Values?
Specifically for Christians, the American political system splits the issues that are impor-tant to us, forcing us to choose between a slate of what I’d call “pseudo- or neo-Christian” issues (because Jesus himself did not name them), and pretty much the remainder of Christ’s teaching.
Since the economy’s on everyone’s mind, let’s look at that first. The Republicans, under Mr Bush and with the support of Mr McCain, engineered the largest redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the rich since The Great Depression. Thus it’s no surprise they also attempted to privatize one of the cornerstones of post-Depression relief: Social Security. Privatizing Social Security would have led to massive fees for the financial industry—fees excused with the explanation that private industry is so much more efficient than the govern-ment, and so deserves the windfall. The financial industry has demonstrated this “efficiency” in the last few weeks by basically collapsing in a mountain of its own recklessness and greed, and will, in fact, have to be bailed out by the “inefficient” government, using your tax money.
Mr McCain supported (and supports) this idea of “personal accounts”—most of which would now be wiped out. He also called the very concept of Social Security—young tax-payers helping older Americans—“a disgrace”. Despite this, he has no trouble cashing his own monthly check, which he has been doing for almost 20 years—even though the system allows you to refuse (and he’s married to a multi-millionaire).
The Republican hostility toward Social Security—or any kind of Socialism—doesn’t extend to the rich and powerful (“socialism”, when stripped of hysterics, simply means we, as a nation, choose to devote resources to those incapable of caring for themselves). We can’t pay for Social Security and we can’t afford Health Care for Children, but we can spend close to a trillion dol-lars to insure that Wall Street doesn’t have to suffer for its own mistakes. The old lady down the street or the poor family the next block over are “cheating” us when they use our tax money to buy milk and pay the electric bill—their irresponsibility is inexcusable—why don’t they just get a job! But irresponsibility on a grand scale—whether it be the war of choice in Iraq or the coming trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street—is downright patriotic.
Does this sound like a Christian perspective? The rich and the violent protected and lionized while the poor are despised, mocked and left to suffer?
It is a plain fact that Americans are now working harder for less money. What should be understood is that they are still generating the same amount of money—more even—but it’s flowing upward. While the Socialist Countries in Europe we are taught to mock enjoy shorter workweeks, more vacation time and free health care, we are taking a second, sometimes even a third job, with no appreciable change in circumstances. This might, in turn, cause a family to be so desperate they would allow themselves to invest in a mortgage that seemed too good to be true. Who do we, as Christians, hold more accountable: the con man on the street, or the sucker that played the game and lost all her money?
I would submit that the Republicans have taken great pains over the last 20 years to teach us to side instinctively with the con man and have contempt for his victims—that is, to subvert, rather than encourage, a Christian perspective.
Surely it’s hypocritical to insist social issues like abortion and gay marriage adhere to Christian doctrine while core issues of day-to-day living—economic issues—plainly do not. How can the Republicans, who maintain their support for war abroad and tax cuts for the rich at home, ever be considered the Party of Christian Values?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Prominent Evangelical Leaders question whether to lean Right or Left
A couple links of great interest:
Richard Cizik, chief lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals questions McCain based on lack of "principle": Read the Article.
Pastor Harry Jackson Jr thoughtfully considers whether to vote for Obama or McCain: Watch the video.
Christians aren't a Political Party
As a Sojourners bumpersticker states;
God isn't a Republican . . . or a Democrat.
God did not give us a political party for making decisions --but hearts, minds and the words of Christ.
We, who agree on the centrality of Christ, who call ourselves "one" as members of His Body, disagree on how we reconcile the precepts of Christ with the political policies debated today. We are committed to overturning the heavy boulders of oversimplified faith-based politics. As we evaluate the issues, we aim to fulfill Jesus' call that we be "as wise as serpents, as innocent as doves." Please join the conversation. Please come with the same openness --and willingness to change your mind-- that you ask of those who disagree with you.
God isn't a Republican . . . or a Democrat.
God did not give us a political party for making decisions --but hearts, minds and the words of Christ.
We, who agree on the centrality of Christ, who call ourselves "one" as members of His Body, disagree on how we reconcile the precepts of Christ with the political policies debated today. We are committed to overturning the heavy boulders of oversimplified faith-based politics. As we evaluate the issues, we aim to fulfill Jesus' call that we be "as wise as serpents, as innocent as doves." Please join the conversation. Please come with the same openness --and willingness to change your mind-- that you ask of those who disagree with you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
