Clinton (Not That One!) & Trump

I haven't read much history this year. One of my goals at the beginning of the year was to read more philosophy and theology and while I've certainly accomplished this goal it seems like the Peter I robbed to pay the Paul of philosophy was history. Towards the end of this year in a belated attempt to rectify my neglect I started reading Shelby Foote's three-volume classic on the Civil War. I'll pick up Volume II at some point in 2017 but I took a break to read the biography of Alexander Hamilton that inspired the hit Broadway musical Hamilton. It is named, fittingly, Alexander Hamilton.

Seven hundred page biographies are an interesting genre. I've waded through a few in my life and while I've always ultimately felt it was worth it, I've also had times where I've woken up with drool coating the page I was reading before falling into a doze. Which is only to say that I commiserate with my students when they complain about reading being boring. It certainly can be at times, particularly when slogging through financial data from the eighteenth century. Which I never make them do, so on second thought, shut up, students. Reading is great!

One of the most enjoyable parts of reading this biography is all the resonances between Ron Chernow's book and Lin-Manuel Miranda's play. Miranda is an avid student of the work and even when he deviates from the source material, as all creative work must to do to one extent or another, the changes feel recognizable within the broader span of Hamilton's actual life and work.

Another enjoyable and commonplace aspect of historical reading is tracking the resonances between the era described and our own. And here there are many: the size and role of government, the role of immigrants in national prosperity, true democracy versus republicanism, states' rights versus federal prerogative, etc. 

And then there is the figure of George Clinton, the seven-term governor of New York state, two time Vice President, and thorn in Hamilton's side (how's that for a resume?). See if this sounds familiar: 

"If uncouth in appearance, he was a wily politician who clung tenaciously to power. . . Clinton represented what would become a staple of American political folklore: the local populist boss, not overly punctilious or savory yet embraced warmly by the masses as one of their own. As his biographer John Kaminski put it, 'George Clinton's friends considered him a man of the people; his enemies saw him as a demagogue.'" 

Miranda is insistent in interviews that Hamilton's story is relevant for audiences today. I've not heard him mention this particular, but it is worth remembering that the figure cut by Trump is nothing new to the American political stage. George Clinton is but one example of a Trumpian precursor. And it is worth remembering, too, that Trump certainly will not be the last bombastic ass masquerading as a populist hero.

I don't stand much stead behind the old saw about those not knowing history being doomed to repeat it--if pressed to logical conclusions the only validity such a saying can have is in very abstract applications, i.e. people still go to war! crazy!!!--but it is worth reading and reminding ourselves that what we're seeing here is nothing new. Call it the Solomonic wisdom rather thanGeorge Clinton had his day but is now an historical footnote. Trump, prayerfully, will be the same.

On Achieving the Desired Amount of Propaganda Believability

I am slogging right now through Shelby Foote's three volume Civil War masterpiece, about halfway through Volume I: Fort Sumter to Perryville. It is fascinating historical reading. It is weird to say that a series of books weighing in at close to 10 pounds and including nearly 3,000 pages of densely-packed and meticulously-researched work could ever feel like it's leaving stuff out but Foote is such a good writer that he makes me wish he had written more (editorial note: I reserve the right to reverse this opinion at any time during Volume III).  

An interesting thing that cropped up early in the first volume is the absolute Southern confidence in quick victory. They were so assured of the Southern man's dominance that they thought a single Confederate soldier was equal to ten Federals. But here's the thing: they were so good at selling this narrative that not only were the Union soldiers scared of the fighting ferocity of the Southerner, everyday residents of the South believed it too. This made the early successes in the war, especially in the western theater, particularly hard for the South to understand. If one Confederate was equal to ten Union, then why in the world were the Union soldiers riding roughshod over their Confederate opponents? In other words, the propaganda convinced both the enemy and the friends. When the enemy punctured the propaganda it was shattered for both sides.

This is all notable to me now in the wake of our recent election. The propaganda machine of the left (i.e. nearly every major media outlet) was so efficient in ensuring the easy victory of Hillary Clinton--even imagining a congressional shift because of the public distrust in Trump--that they forgot it was actually just propaganda. That elections are nutty. That they didn't actually have a clue what was going to happen.

And just as the reaction in the South to the first defeats of the war was open and confounded disbelief, so the reaction amongst the left to this election has been the same. Combined, in both cases, with lots of anger and recrimination. 

I don't know what the lesson is here, exactly. Reach some golden mean of propaganda saturation and believability? Avoid propaganda altogether? Maybe. But at the very least it ought to inject a bit of humility into people. There is so much that we cannot know; so much that we assume based on half facts and half truths.

Trust Not in Princes

I could never have imagined a few days ago that Donald John Trump would be president-elect of our country. I understand the arguments in favor of him, and I think that while it may be cathartic for liberals to believe that any Trump supporter is perforce a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, crypto-Fascist, there are real fissures in this country and deeply-felt estrangement in middle America and the Rust Belt that Trump both exposed (and, let's be honest, exploited). Indeed, part of the problem with last night is just the type of fracturing displayed on my Facebook wall in the past 24 hours. We no longer merely disagree with each other; the other is evil and motivated by nefarious intentions. We alone are pure. I hope that cools off over time and this morning I began my day by praying for Trump. That God would break him and drive him to repentance. That he would surround himself with and heed the word of wise counselors. That the gravity of his office would humble him.

But I want to offer a word that applies no matter what happens in the next four years. It is, fittingly, from Scripture. Here, without abridgment, is Psalm 146:

Praise the LORD!
Praise the LORD, O my soul!
I will praise the LORD as long as I live;
I will sing praises to God while I have my being.

Put not your trust in princes,
in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
When his breath departs he returns to the earth;
on that very day his plans perish.

Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the LORD his God,
who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them,
who keeps faith forever; 
who executes justice for the oppressed,
who gives food to the hungry.

The LORD sets the prisoners free;
the LORD opens the eyes of the blind.
The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down;
the LORD loves the righteous;
The LORD watches over the sojourners;
he upholds the widow and the fatherless,
but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.

The LORD will reign forever,
your God, O Zion, to all generations.
Praise the LORD!

I bolded the verse I find the most pertinent now. And, as I said, this is true whether your guy or the other guy is in office. We, as followers of the one true God, are not to place our trust in the worldly powers. Every president, governor, congressman, senator, mayor, and city councilor will be a footnote in the history of the new earth governed by King Jesus. Every worldly ruler will fail. There is much wisdom in acknowledging that. It helps us to avoid a spurious utopianism in the church. 

But the rest of the psalm is important, too. For in God's work in the world we see the church's mission in the world. If God executes justice for the oppressed, so should we. If God gives food to the hungry, so should we. If God sets prisoners free, so should we. If God opens the eyes of the blind, so should we. If God lifts up those who are bowed down, so should we. If God loves the righteous, so should we. If God watches over the sojourners, so should we. If God upholds the widow and the fatherless, so should we. If God will bring the way of the wicked to ruin, we should long for that day. As we long for his forever rule.

When the church unites itself to political rule and puts our hope in princes to do our bidding we lose sight of this mission. We become more concerned with minimum wage laws than with feeding the hungry. We become more concerned with "protecting" ourselves from people unlike us, rather than caring for the sojourners among us. When we unite ourselves to someone who preaches fear of other races and religions, we forget that it is God who reigns forever and over all and will one day bring all wickedness to justice. 

One of the perennial temptations of Christianity is to want the kingdom without the King. On the wall of my classroom I have a poster of Gustave Dore's illustration of Christ being tempted by Satan with the kingdoms of the world. The careful reader will remember that he spurns this temptation. He says, in words it bears committing to memory, "You shall worship the LORD your God, and him only shall you serve." It saddens me that his church seems eager to claim that throne he rejected. May we learn to await our true King and trust only in Him.

Refugees

One of the things I enjoy most about reading John Calvin (or even reading about him) is how surprising it tends to be. For a man history has labeled The Tyrant of Geneva, he has always struck me as remarkably prudent, grounded, and humane for his tumultuous time. Indeed, after a few minutes of vigorous googling (does that sound slightly dirty to anyone else?. . . no, okay.), I have determined that since there is no book out there titled Surprised by Calvin the door is open for someone to write that book.

Here is what got me today: his attitude toward immigrants and refugees. 

It is hard to broach this topic without getting political, so I'll get political. One of the key factors that will prevent me from pushing the button for Donald Trump here in a few weeks is his attitude towards immigrants and refugees and asylum seekers. I find it horrendous. We have dear friends who are Afghan refugees, their lives disrupted by a war we started, and are trying to make a go of it here in Denver. I know anecdotes make bad policy--a truth which must surely hold both ways: if one positive immigrant experience doesn't mean we should reinstate the call to give me your tired, your poor, and your huddled masses, then one bad immigrant experience certainly should not mean that we slam the door in their Muslim faces. That was a long digression, let me restart: I know anecdotes make bad policy, but there is no justifiable policy reason for tightening immigration in the completely arbitrary way a potential President Trump has suggested.*

Calvin's feelings for the immigrant and refugee emanate from a concern for the virtue of hospitality. Calvin lamented what he saw as the deplorable state of hospitality in his Europe. He complains that the "ancient hospitality celebrated in histories, is unknown to us." Any casual reader of Greek literature can attest that hospitality--xenia, in the original language--is a huge freaking deal to the ancients. A number of the main transgressions in the epics of Homer are breaches of hospitality. This issue of hospitality was so important to Calvin that one of the offices of the church--that of deacon--was almost exclusively responsible for meeting the needs of people within and outside of the church.

For Calvin, all the grounds required for extreme hospitality to others is that we are sharers both in the image of God: "whatever man you meet who needs your aid, you have no reason to refuse to help him. . . Say that he does not deserve even the least effort for his sake; but the image of God, which recommends him to you, is worthy of your giving yourself and all your possessions." In another place he draws on the same theme in much stronger language: 

God has impressed his image in us and has given us a common nature, which should incite us to providing one for the other. The man who wishes to exempt himself from providing for his neighbors should deface himself and declare that he no longer wishes to be a man, for as long as we are human creatures we must contemplate as in a mirror our face in those who are poor, despised, exhausted, who groan under their burdens.

And, should we be tempted to assume that Calvin is merely talking about our "neighbor" as other Genevan Christians, he finishes this line of thinking with the following shocking statement: "If there come some Moor or barbarian, since he is a man, he brings a mirror in which we are able to contemplate that he is our neighbor." Moor, for those wondering, would be sixteenth century speak for Muslim.

This is a fascinating, and as I mentioned earlier, surprising, language to me. It is not just that we are to be hospitable to those in our sphere, but we have here the Tyrant of Geneva saying that we should welcome Muslims into our homes since we share the imago Dei with them. What is surprising, in one sense, is that this is surprising. Calvin took Scripture seriously, including the parable of the Good Samaritan which enjoins just this sort of love and hospitality. 

But here is where it starts to hit home for me. Because people can say, with some rationality, that we ought to be super careful who we admit into our country, that the threat of terrorism demands that we take a tight stance on this issue. I agree, to a degree. But I trust the checks we have in place now and don't feel that a blanket refusal to admit members of a despised religious faith is being wise but being governed by fear, a far less Christian response to the world. And, what do you know, Calvin warns about this as well. After counseling wisdom in this matter, he writes, "let us beware that we seek not cover for our stinginess under the shadow of prudence." I have felt this temptation Calvin warns against so often in my life. Any impulse to means-test the aid we give can fall into this category. Calvin's antidote for this temptation is to not be "too exacting" and give forth our aid (and hospitality) with a "humane heart, inclined to pity and compassion."

*I didn't want to get political here for another reason: there are a lot of young evangelical types who sound off about immigration and refugees and make Trump out to be a monster who would never consider doing a damn thing to ameliorate the conditions of a refugee themselves. They like immigrants in the abstract, but don't have many particulars to lean on in their all-white enclaves. These people are annoying and must shut up.

On the Holding of Views

I made the horrible decision the other day after finishing the novel I was reading at the time to start Tolstoy's Anna Karenina as my next piece of fiction. An 815 page tome is a bad choice for the middle of an already busy semester, but it has been a decade now since I first read the book and I have looked at it wistfully on my shelf for the past year or so and finally gave in last night.

Six pages in, I was so glad to be back:

Stepan Arkadyich subscribed to and read a liberal newspaper, not an extreme one, but one with the tendency to which the majority held. And though neither science, nor art, nor politics itself interested him, he firmly held the same views on all these subjects as the majority and his newspaper did, and changed them only when the majority did, or, rather, he did not change them, but they themselves changed imperceptibly in him. 

Stepan Arkadyich chose neither his tendency nor his views, but these tendencies and views came to him themselves, just as he did not choose the shape of a hat or a frock coat, but bought those that were in fashion. And for him, who lived in a certain circle, and who required some mental activity such as usually develops with maturity, having views was as necessary as having a hat. If there was a reason why he preferred the liberal tendency to the conservative one (also held to by many in his circle), it was not because he found the liberal tendency more sensible, but because it more closely suited his manner of life.

Is this not the great majority of our voters? Holding opinions because opinions must be held; holding only those that comport well with our previously held biases; changing our affinities imperceptibly as public opinion moves on. 

I have no problem, in most cases, with people changing their political convictions. Sometimes upon reflection this is warranted. I have certainly changed my mind on things. But what Tolstoy is fairly explicitly critiquing here is not a genuine and reasoned shift but one made simply to accommodate current fashions. And then, of course, we applaud ourselves for believing the right thing.

A Brief and Accurate Critique of Contemporary Politics

This is another post riffing off Matthew Crawford's excellent newish book, The World Beyond Your Head. I heartily recommend it for those dissatisfied with contemporary culture and the cult of individualism.

While the focus of Crawford's book is moral philosophy, by nature any assessment of current mores requires analysis of the political environment that gave birth and fostered those mores. One thing that I have sensed in the past several years, and part of the reason my interest in politics has waned in the way that it has, is that there is very little that actually separates the political left and right in our country. When you think of it, how different really were the presidencies of Bush and Obama? Both parties are completely and entirely in bed with and in the pocket of (pick your metaphor) big business. Both are unwilling to make any broad changes to our current climate. Both parties seem content to tinker around the edges of the political institutions and economic theories of 50 to 100 years ago. Crawford writes about this synthesis of right and left: 

Few institutions or sites of moral authority were left untouched by the left's critiques. Parents, teachers, priests, elected officials--there was little that seemed defensible. Looking around in stunned silence, left and right eventually discovered common ground: a neoliberal consensus in which we have all agreed to let the market quietly work its solvent action on all impediments to the natural chooser within. 

Another way to put this is that the left's project of liberation led us to dismantle inherited cultural jigs that once imposed a certain coherence (for better and worse) on individual lives. This created a vacuum of cultural authority that has been filled, opportunistically, with attentional landscapes that get installed by whatever 'choice architect' brings the most energy to the task--usually because it sees the profit potential. 

The combined effect of these liberating and deregulating efforts of the right and left has been to ratchet up the burden of self-regulation. Some indication of how well we are bearing this burden can be found in the fact that we are now very fat, very much in debt, and very prone to divorce.

In other words, the political project of the right was deregulation and preventing the government from meddling in the affairs of business. The left's political project was thwarting the previously beloved sources of moral authority. With no regulations in the broad economy and no mitigating moral institutions in the public trust, people are now left to their own devices in terms of navigating our political and moral landscapes. And, we're failing. By all accounts. Across any demographic. 

This reminds me of something I read in Alastair McIntyre's hugely influential work of moral philosophy, After Virtue. Writing in the early 80s and sensing the broader trends we see coming to fruition now, MacIntyre writes, "But the outcome has been that modern conservatives are for the most part engaged in conserving only older rather than later versions of liberal individualism. Their own core doctrine is as liberal and individualist as that of self-avowed liberals." In other words, it is not just that the left has capitulated to the right on big business and economic deregulation, but the right has got on board with the left's project of individual self-determination. Conservatism is supposed to be about community and the wisdom of tradition. Now it's about being able to buy whatever you want. We have hollowed ourselves out intellectually and spiritually and we are left with 1500 calorie cheeseburgers. Nice tradeoff, that one.

Getting to Know GW (12): Parties, and Not the Fun Kind

Most everyone knows that Washington was elected unanimously to the office of the president for the first, last, and certainly only time in our nation's history. He did not campaign, deliver rousing speeches, kiss babies, or try to reach out to Joe Sixpack. He was just like, "Look, who else would it be?" and people were like, "Yeah, you right." There were no challengers and there were no parties.

Washington saw himself as above the idea of a party politician and actively hoped that the partisan spirit would not take root in the United States. Ha! Politicians love arguing and politicians also love being able to blame some other people if stuff goes bad. Parties were bound to happen. None of us can conceive of politics without parties for a reason. The alternative is hard to imagine. Also, you need people to disagree about stuff. You need people to say, "Government is bad! Businesses never do anything shadily or excessively." And you need other people to say, "Government is good. Government can solve all of our problems. You like roads, dontcha?" Both people are idiots but they provide a nice balance to each other.

Anyway, Washington's high-mindedness aside, parties were always going to happen, but Washington was probably pretty p-o'd that the first real division was within his own cabinet. On the federalist team we have Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, who was like, "Remember how we needed a national army to win the war? Maybe we need a strong federal government." On the republican side we have Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, who was like, "We must be debt free as a nation, but taxes levied to pay those debts are evil. Oh, and the states pretty much have things covered, you snooty northerners." These guys hated each other. They each funded newspapers to sling mud at the other side. The dude Jefferson hired even castigated Washington for owning slaves. Thomas Jefferson, plantation owner of Monticello, baby daddy to Sally Hemings, berating another man for owning slaves. Pot, kettle, etc. It was weird stuff.

Washington's own affections were more of a Federalist nature. The war had impressed upon him the need for a strong federal government, without which the unity and cohesion needed to win another war would be severely lacking. Washington was not a big government Democrat, by today's standards, just convinced that the nation needed an identity as a nation and not merely a conglomerate of states geographically related.

Given this bent, much of Washington's implicit and explicit support was directed toward Hamilton. This, of course, earned him the ire of Jefferson and Madison and some of the other republicans. Which Washington hated. People could badmouth him in that purple prose eighteenth century style and he just had to take it. It frustrated him to no end, but he held the dignity of his office as of more value than scoring political points. Though he vented his exasperation in private, he never let it spill over to the public. He was a good man.

Getting to Know GW (11): What in the World Does the President Do?

By now in our country's history we are all familiar with the role of the president: you promise a bunch of stuff on the campaign trail (maybe you mean it, maybe you don't, frankly it is hard to tell), get elected and realize how hard it is to get stuff done and change things, become a punching bag for whichever side is now out of power, get really gray hair, get one or two things accomplished that because of the weight of partisan opposition suck anyway, have people in your own party disown you for this or that (usually because you don't realize how totally great they are and how much you should be listening to them), convince yourself to run for a second term, usually win it, and then do mostly nothing while contenders in your own party and across the aisle ready themselves for the next election. Then you write a book, smile for some photographs, and pretend like you still give a tinker's damn about this country (sometimes you might even paint pictures of yourself in the bathtub).

But when Washington took office no one had really figured any of this out yet. He was a trailblazer in the role, there was hardly even a historic precedent to look to within the previous 1500 years. Cromwell's Commonwealth? Not a great example.

From my readings of these chapters, and from the perspective of a biographer who is very compassionate towards the challenges Washington faced, it seems like he was competent. When he was a general he didn't win many battles but he won the war by holding things together. The same thing sort of played out in his presidency. He had a number of strategic victories and perhaps amplified the constitutional intent for the role of President, but for the most part he left personally frustrated and with a deeply divided nation.

As to the adjective competent, though, I don't want this to seem as if I am damning with faint praise. Competent is fantastic for a president. It has been awhile since we have gone there as a nation. Maybe it is from going to business school when the book Good to Great was all the rage, but the transformative, charismatic leader usually sets up his successor to fail. Washington refused to become a demigod. Though his ultimate goal was to rise above the fray he was forced to get his hands dirty.

Perhaps his ultimate accomplishment was serving as an emotional ballast in a heady time for revolutions. The French revolution bathed Paris in blood, but there was no similar bloodletting for the United States in the wake of victory. Washington's calm demeanor, however carefully crafted, saved what could have been the almost universal tendency to replace one sort of tyranny with another. Washington restrained the worst impulse of revolutionaries, both in his role as general and as president, and I don't think we can underestimate what an amazing accomplishment that is in light of what could have been.

Some additional thoughts on his presidency to come. Until then, have a wonderful holiday weekend.

Liberal Satanists and Right-Wing Women Haters

Have you seen this charming video taken outside a counter-demonstration by pro-life supporters in the wake of the anti-abortion bill being filibustered by that wonderfully heroic pink shoe wearing Congresswoman? It quite clearly records members of the pro-choice side chanting "Hail Satan" in response to those right wing nut jobs singing "Amazing Grace." How dare they sing such a judgment laden song! 

Now, I will be charitable and allow that the erstwhile Satanists probably were not literally asking people to praise the name of Lucifer and holding him up as an object for worship, but were instead being douchey protesters who thought it would be totes funny to rile up those conservative, war-on-women opium snuffers by jokingly worshiping the Prince of Darkness. Ha, got you! This tactic also had the salutary effect of making the pro-choicers seem like the mature and learned party to this debate as well. Witness the heroic girl at the end of the video, absolutely exuding maturity and moral nuance. Combined with this not at all inappropriate sign being held by a seven year old girl at the same event inferring something about copulating with a Senator and this was not a bright and shining moment for the Defenders of Women Everywhere (or at least half of women some places).

Cue the left wing spin, please, Atlantic Monthly. You see, writes Elspeth Reeve, we can't even be sure what the protesters were actually shouting. It may sound like Satan, but it could really be anything. Like all of those other words that sound like Satan. CNN's Mark Rubin who was there and can confirm that it was in fact Lucifer, Son of Morning, who was being hailed at the rally, reassured people that it was only about five people actually shouting this imprecation so there is no sense blowing what a small group of nutjobs like to shout as part of a protest out of proportion. Rubin went on to announce that not all supporters of Christianity or traditional marriage will be compared to Westboro Baptist Church members in the future so as to keep things fair. 

Then when Reeve goes on to address the sexual sign being held by a seven year old girl she states that it was either faked or not from the event even though the woman next to the girl is wearing a shirt that was made especially by the pro-choice crowd for this demonstration. She concludes, having thoroughly eviscerated this meme, "The anti-abortion crowd will have to stick with its five satanists." Ha! Is that all you got anti-abortionists? Five piddly Satanists. But wait, we find out in an update that the picture really is real. Some mom did let her daughter wear that, as well as her other daughters wear signs that say "Every Child a Wanted Child." "Oh, honey, of course I love you. After all, I did want you enough to let you be born!" This draws the furious ire of Reeve who writes "gross." Boom! She knows how to throw down the gauntlet both ways!

I guess my point in this post, other than this really rankled me, is to show two things: one, when left wing crazies do something it doesn't reflect back on the movement as a whole, whereas right wing folks do not have this option. Every conservative had to answer for Todd Akin in the last election. Two, liberals are just as into indoctrinating kids as they accuse conservatives of being. For a thought experiment, consider what Ms. Reeve's reaction might be in the pages of the Atlantic if a pro-life supporter had their daughter holding a sign that read "Jesus wants me to be a mommy who stays at home and supports my husband."  Something tells me a) she would not questions its veracity and need to retract her statement of doubt, and b) she might have a stronger dismissal than the one word "gross." Personally, I would rather my kid be "indoctrinated" with Bible verses about grace than a doctrine that says some kids are not wanted and sexualizes their prepubescent bodies, but, hey, that's just me.

Race and the Election

This election is far closer than I ever imagined it would be. It really is incredible what that first debate did for the Romney campaign. The cynic in me says that we vote for the candidate we perceive to be more presidential, regardless of experience or other more accurate qualifiers. This is surely how Obama was elected. I like the guy, but no one who voted for him could honestly make the claim that he won because of his vast experience in government or the private sector. People voted for him for a variety of reasons, but surely two big ones loom: we enjoyed the narrative power of electing the first black president in a nation whose first politicians owned black people, and he just seemed more presidential than John McCain (and certainly more so than Sarah Palin). And, Mitt Romney, in that first debate, seemed more presidential. And it did wonders for his campaign.

But alas, that narrative is too unsatisfying to many on the left who in this zero hour of the campaign are thinking of ways to spin a potential Obama defeat. The current answer: race. Now, don't misunderstand me, it is 100%, incontrovertible fact that there are people in our nation who will not vote for Barack Obama because he is black. Working in a blue collar industry in Tulsa this past summer I received direct confirmation of this truth. My boss there, a staunch Republican, lamented that honest, hardworking Republicans like him, unmotivated by prejudice (there were, after all, Republicans before 2008) are made to look like racist idiots by some of the things we heard people say in our store. There are racist Republicans, as, surely, there are racist Democrats. But you know what? They all voted against Obama four years ago. In other words, it is not like they were egalitarian left-leaning vegans before the 2008 election and then became the frothing at the mouth racist Republicans who are trying to unseat the Nefarious Kenyan this year. So it is not like Obama has lost the racist support this year; he couldn't, because he never had it. He is losing support among other voters dissatisfied with what they see as four more years of stagnation in the economy.

Andrew Sullivan, one of my favorite voices in politics who has become increasingly unhinged over the last few years (you should read his posts about his recent move to New York City; he makes it sound like a third world country because his internet speed is slightly slower than he is used to, not to mention the way he went absolutely apoplectic over Sarah Palin, even to this day refusing to acknowledge the excess she drove him to), is one of the principal figures spinning thisnarrative. (Here is a great takedown of Sullivan in the Dartmouth Review, exposing his utterly uncomprehending grasp of U.S. history). And it is surely a comforting narrative for those on the left to try and sell. We were not defeated because our ideas were bad or our policies failed, but because this country is still filled with a  bunch of backwards rednecks. 

These folks cite a recent AP Survey on race to justify their claims. I have perused this survey and I didn't find this dramatic uptick in racial prejudice. The favorability numbers for whites and blacks are largely the same as they were two years ago and consistent between the two races as well. And the survey also features frustrating questions like the following: "It’s really a matter of some people just not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder, they could just be as well off as whites." You are then asked whether or not you agree with this statement.

Now, how do you answer that question? Think carefully. Say that you respond, "no." You say this because you are aware of the crippling effects of generations of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow on the psyche of a people. But you know what that sounds like to me, the cynic? You don't think black people can work hard enough to succeed. So say that you answer, "yes", because you believe in the ideals of the American Dream, that through hard work and perseverance we can all become successful.  Now, the cynic in me sees you as a blatant racist who believes the age old trope that blacks just don't work as hard as whites. How can you answer that question without your response being spun as racist? You do what slightly over a third of the respondents did: you say neither agree nor disagree. Really, what else can you do?

Again, I am not saying America is healed of its racist past. Show me a place that is. The Enlightened Europe we like to look to as an example for everything right is either entirely homogenous in its composition or filled with racists (or both), as was readily evident in the Euro Cup soccer tournament last summer, the great French resentment of the growing Muslim population, and on and on. My point is simply that it is too easy, yet all too predictable, that any Obama loss will be sold to the believers on the left as ample evidence of the rise of racism in this country. The AP poll is providing the fodder for that narrative. But it is not true. Obama won four years ago on the backs of independents who liked his hopey changey message. If he loses this year, which I seriously doubt he will, it will not be because those same people all of a sudden became racists, but because they do not like the direction he has taken this country in his term of office. 

On a side note, I am well aware that if Romney loses the narrative on the right will be that this is all due to the refusal of the lamestream media to hold Obama to account for his mistakes in office. If Bush would have tried to spin Benghazi like Obama has the media would have crucified him (which is probably true), if growth was this slow under a Republican there would be widespread calls by the media for something to change in Washington, etc. And it will surely be comforting for them to hear.

Gary Johnson, 2012.

Politics, My Lost Love

I used to be really into politics. Really, really into politics. I spent a good portion of every day reading blogs from every side of the political spectrum and got pretty incensed at what I viewed as political offenses. Now, to be frank, I just don’t give a shit anymore. I don’t know when exactly I stopped caring. Sometime around the nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice President, of, like, our entire freaking country. A country about which she knew very little. Now that her family has descended into white trash spectacle, I can’t help but be thankful that the McCain ticket failed. You can say what you want about Joe Biden, but it is hard to imagine him posing for a national magazine in short shorts.

I watched a good chunk of the Republican convention last week and have been tuning in dutifully to the Democrats in North Carolina this week, not because of a resurgent interest in politics, but to watch our country’s further march to late Roman pomp and excess. It was all bread and circuses. Mitt Romney is for America. Marco Rubio is for Marco Rubio. Paul Ryan loves Ayn Rand, but insists that we must protect the weak in our society, begging one to ask if he has read Ayn Rand. Clint Eastwood had a ten minute conversation with a chair. It was crazy.

But the craziest thing about it is how little of the blame for America’s current dismal milieu has, for the Republicans, anything to do with anything systemic in America and is all directly attributable to the nefarious (probably Muslim!) brown-skinned fellow occupying the White House. I get not liking some of Obama’s policies. That is a fair political position to hold. But the problem is that for many conservatives he cannot simply be a genuine and decent man with whom they have policy disagreements, he must be the ANTICHRIST. I don’t get that. He seems like a great man to me—good husband, good father, OK basketball player. But that can’t be the narrative for the extremists; he must be the fount of all evil. And I think that is sad. The Democrats are doing their own part in pushing a similar message this week: if we lose this election, they seem to think, the poor will die in a fog of exhaust from the tailpipe of a rich man’s environmentally unfriendly truck as he chortles and drives off to shoot at some innocent animal. (In the Democrats' America it seems as if all the rich and powerful are Republicans and the weary, huddled masses Democrats, but nothing could be further from the truth, you know, in that annoying real world.) 

No one wants to be told that they are part of the problem and the solution might be to change something. They want to hear that is all the other guy’s fault. It reminds me of what the Apostle Paul wrote to his young protégé, Timothy: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” (2 Timothy 4:3). Both parties seem to have done precisely this. It is not you, it is them. You are great, you are what makes America great. You just keep on being you, and we’ll try and fix the mess that those other guys created.

That mutual antagonism and resentment, in a nutshell, is why I no longer care much about politics. And why I'll vote this year, but don't think it really matters much (not only due to the solid redness of my state, but due to the fact that nothing much has really changed these past four years), and will do so while holding my nose plugged.

Zero Sum Politics and Silly Comparisons

My wife and I canceled our cable subscription a few years ago and it has allowed me to miss so much of what qualifies as political reporting in our news-obsessed, culture war era. Now, living in a long-term hotel with free cable it is all coming back to me how disgusting our political discourse really is.

The other morning I was at the gym running on the treadmill before work and Fox News, that paragon of journalistic integrity, was broadcasting their morning show. The topic of debate concerned the new law in New York City, put forth with all the earnestness of a wealthy and out of touch billionaire, concerning the size of soda to be sold in the five boroughs. Most of you are probably familiar with the ban and have an opinion on the subject, but the ace team at Fox News had this question to ask: “Why is Mayor Bloomberg so concerned with what people drink while the economy is such a mess?” To me, this is a bit like asking, “Why would I want a new pair of pants when I already have plenty of books?” In other words, what in the hell do these things have to do with each other and why are they treated as a zero sum decision? Is it not possible for the mayor of New York, the grandest city in the world, to be concerned with multiple things all at the same time? Don’t we want this out of our leaders? Sure, we want our political figures to be greatly concerned with the state of the economy in times of recession, but we can’t possibly imagine that is the only thing that ought to occupy their time.

Coming from the other side of the aisle, I have seen this very same move in debates about forcing religious organizations to provide birth control or restricting access to abortion. People say, “If these lawmakers who are so concerned with restricting women’s reproductive rights (a marvelous Orwellian phrase) were half as concerned with the economy we would be trying to figure out ways to spend all of the money we would have.” (I saw almost this exact poster on facebook the other day.) Even if you think lawmakers have no business deciding things like whether or not or when or at what age women should be allowed to have an abortion, can you really believe that if the culture war issue of abortion were dropped tomorrow that our country’s lawmakers, unburdened by the unconscionable amount of time they spent trying to force women into chastity belts, would with their free time fix the broken economy, stop global warming in its tracks, and unite the world in a Hallelujah chorus?

My point here is simply that politics is not a zero sum game in every situation. Also, there are things that are just as valuable as the economy. The idea that human flourishing—something I hope both sides could agree is roughly the goal of government—is purely a matter of economics is stupid. To restrict the goal of government to balancing books or redistributing wealth or getting out of the way and letting the omniscient Invisible Hand of the Free Market run things is not something either side even wants out of government. They only want it when the other side does something that pisses them off. Conservatives would be fine with the government ignoring the economy for a spell while they passed sweeping reforms on abortion. Likewise, I heard few liberals complain about the Obama administration ignoring the plight of the economy to force through health care legislation.

And, really, that’s fine. Conservatives should be allowed to be OK with thinking about stuff other than the economy; liberals should have the right to press for liberal reforms when they are in power. There was a time when this was referred to as democracy. If you don’t like what the other side is doing make a better argument. Don’t make specious comparisons. After all, you can have your new pants and your books. 

Theological Anachronism

Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed.  Jesus, Luke 11:47

There is a tendency everywhere to treat the dead with reverence we would never have accorded them had they been alive at our own time. Time heals all wounds, it seems, and also deadens the impact of thought or actions that would damn someone were we watching the outcome of such actions on the evening news or reading the damnable words on a book fresh off the press. We see this perhaps most often in politics. Already, George W. Bush’s lamentable political career is being reconsidered; certain Republicans are pining for the Clinton years; and Reagan’s beatification into the Church of Capitalism is steaming along nicely. The former two gentleman are still alive; angst over them could not even last until the good-spirit engendered by death.

For the most part, I am perfectly fine with this. Bush was not the monster the caricaturists of the left made him out to be during his presidential tenure; the same follows for Clinton from the opposite side of the aisle. Both were men who had a position of authority the scope of which few of us can even imagine who were forced by their various times to make difficult choices. That most of us now regret the eight year engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, does not mean that Bush was the nefarious and greedy tool of corporate interests that 9/11 conspiracy theorists and MSNBC talking heads made him out to be. Likewise, while few would exalt Clinton as a standard of morality, few can deny that he managed our country quite well during his tenure. It is part of the particular virulence of politics that prevents people from conceding that the opposing party has ever in their entire history made one decision that was not completely terrible. However, charity and nuance when evaluating another human being is not a sign of weakness but of grace.

This strikes me too as I consider the theological landscape of America today. We are becoming quite the partisans in this field as well. We have New Calvinists, and emergent postmoderns, and the old guard evangelical right. The New Calvinists (amongst whom I would have to place myself) abhor the paucity of scriptural reliance of the emergent postmoderns and the overdependence on politics as means of kingdom building of the religious right. The emergent feel the Bible to be a worthy document but unsuitable for answering the host of complications latent in contemporary society which the Bible could never have foreseen and therefore find the New Calvinists altogether too bleak and naïve, and they make no attempt to disguise their contempt for the religious right (many of whom are their parents). The religious right is for the most part Arminian and therefore denies the bleaker picture of human society/capability promoted by the New Calvinists in favor of an overtly political aim, and are wondering, as it concerns the emergents, how they could ever have strayed so far from the fold.

While I think one must hold theological convictions and protect them vigorously at times, I also feel that too often we can become so focused on condemning someone else that we forget to stand for something ourselves. Moreover, I believe that some of the people we contend against today will be seen in a much kinder light by our children and grandchildren.

One of the primary reasons I believe such a thing is because of the example of one of my favorite authors, C.S. Lewis. If Lewis were alive today he would be lambasted from certain corners of the internet and pulpit by people detesting his theological vision. Indeed, there is much I disagree with concerning Lewis’s theology. One prime example is at the conclusion of the final book of the Narnia series, The Last Battle, wherein a servant of the false god, Tash, is let into heaven by Aslan because Aslan understands that in all of this man’s striving after Tash he was actually striving after Aslan. Because he had never heard of Aslan, his religious conviction toward Tash gets him in through the backdoor to Aslan’s kingdom. Lewis is basically saying that all roads, followed diligently enough and with the proper amount of ignorance, will in the end lead the faithful of all stripes to Christ. Belief, to borrow a phrase from contemporary spiritual discourse, is all that matters. The actual substance of belief is less important. To me this is absolutely flabby theology and nowhere backed up by scripture. Furthermore, it is dangerous theology. The only way the Bible says that people will be set right before God is through professing Jesus as their Lord. To suggest that there is another way undercuts this fundamental mission of the church to bring all people to Christ. I do not like that.

Yet I love C.S. Lewis. Reading him is a delight to my soul. Right now I am working through the concluding book of the Space Trilogy, That Hideous Strength. I love it. I laugh out loud at times and it turns my mind over at others. Many of the same people who get red in the face today about the newest controversial book being released or rant and rave about this pastor or that philosopher, likewise read Lewis with delight and learn much from him.

Perhaps we cannot extend that charity to our contemporaries. Perhaps we are not supposed to. If I lived during Lewis’s time I suppose I would more directly have to voice my concerns over his theology. Maybe that is the right thing to do when the person is living and there can be hope for correction. But always, we must give grace. And we must bear in mind that we can read people with whom we disagree not only to become confirmed in our disagreement and more clearly demarcate the battle lines, but also to learn something.

Libya 2

Here are a few links to some articles I read this week on Libya that I found interesting. The outcome of this conflict is far from decided and for now I have settled on praying for the best.

Here is a measured piece from The Economist that suggests the differences between Libya and Iraq and the hopefulness of the ability of the United States to withdraw soon from the coalition effort.

This one is a little less even-handed and certainly less optimistic about the chances for success, though worth reading and thought provoking.

Here, Newt Gingrich was for Libyan intervention until Obama decided to intervene, and then, of course, he was against it.

Also, watch the video from John Stewart's "The Daily Show" further down on that page about Republican vacillation on the issue. This has far more to due with the toxic nature of politics these days than with anything substantial regarding Libya. The Democrats hammered Bush unfairly for everything he did, thought, or said for eight years (excluding the week or two following 9/11) and now it is the Republicans' turn to act as the party of grown-ups and rise above this petty politicking. Or, to do the exact same thing.