Thoughts and Ruminations

Leave it to a sportswriter to provide one of the most insightful political comments I’ve seen in a while…

“There’s a fairly significant decision coming in this country in 2008. We in New Jersey and New Mexico and New London and New Wherever have one simple request as you mull over the candidacies of a black man, a white woman and many white men in the coming presidential debate: Treat them as candidates, not black candidates or female candidates or white candidates.”

I agree in principle with King’s comments, because it’s almost suffocating to live in this politically correct society sometimes.

I think it’s downright lazy to vote for Hillary solely because she’s a woman, and downright lazy to vote for Obama solely because he’s black. With that being said, I don’t think that flavor of downright lazy is any worse than voting for a candidate as a Christian solely because they’re “pro-life” or “anti-gay marriage,” as if those are the only moral issues on the table to figure out if a candidate is “really” Christian or not. I hate abortion (because I believe I’m called to value all life from conception to death), but I just may vote for a candidate who’s pro-choice but much more consistent with my beliefs across the board: how the gospel’s deep respect for life touches on the environment, the poor, war, marriage, etc.

As a result of that thinking, I’m a pretty big fan of Sen. Brownback from Kansas, who’s a social conservative (with significant reasons to back up his positions; most Republicans use abortion, etc as election ploys and pay no attention to the issue in their job), is committed to reformation of the twisted aspects of government, and is opposed to the war in Iraq (though this is more likely a one-time thing). I think the guy’s got his ducks in a row in a way that George W. couldn’t even sniff at. I like Obama, even though I’m not a big fan of his social liberalism; I think he’s a breath of fresh air.

p.s. Let’s not forget Michael Jesus Archangel and Rev. Edward Allen Buck…legitimate candidates in my book. *cough cough*

With the warning of single-issue laziness being said, I certainly would LIKE to see a woman in the presidential office some time in America, and I would especially like to see a black person in office…given the social struggle they’ve had to undergo for equality in America (which is supposedly the land of the free but only granted equality under the law for blacks and other full-citizen minorities in 1964). So, while their gender or ethnicity might be a contributing factor among a host of other contributing factors for why I vote for them, I won’t vote for them solely b/c they’re a woman or a minority. You could apply this thinking to suggest to me that abortion is a more important issue among a host of important issues for you, and I’d be ok with that, but I’d want a conversation on why you think so. There are philosophical reasons behind being pro-life that apply equally to the death penalty, poverty, the environment, and war, but people don’t often consider those because their churches aren’t equipping them to be more educated voters, they’re telling them how to vote. And that’s dead wrong, both on the parts of church leadership and those who sit there and do exactly what they tell them without stopping to consider why in the world a responsible Christian should only care about two issues.

So I may vote for Obama, I may vote for Brownback, I may vote for McCain, and I may vote for Al Gore (if he runs). I know I won’t vote for Hillary (well, I should qualify that; if it ended up being Hillary vs. Giuliani or Gingrich, I’ll have to reconsider a bit), because she’s just as flip-floppy as John Kerry was in ’04, though I voted for him because the alternative was George Bush (who I’m not sure has ever allowed himself to try to connect the dots between his views on social conservatism [which I like] and how that intersects with big business, the environment, and the demand placed on his life by Christ to love his enemies).

In addition to all this, I need to revisit the discomfort I felt after voting for John Kerry; precisely because I felt the choice in 2004 was between bleh and double bleh. There are very legitimate third (or fourth or fifth) party candidates out there who I think more completely reflect my beliefs than the two political machines we call Democrat and Republican that often churn out candidates that I really don’t care for (but feel compelled to choose between because any other vote is a “wasted” vote in our winner-take-all presidential elections). Is it socially irresponsible for me to vote for a candidate I know doesn’t have a chance in hell of being elected, or is it the most socially responsible thing I can do to vote for that candidate, because I’m being true to the big picture of what I believe and subverting the system that demands I choose between two “legitimate” candidates? Is that a wasted vote or a maximized vote?

If all of this sounds like gobbledy-gook to you when you’re reading it, it may be because it IS gobbledy-gook (I certainly allow for that ever-present possibility), or it may be because you haven’t had enough time to grasp the big-picture reasons that drive me to think about politics, the state, and social issues in a certain way. It really boils down to two words for me as to my central concerns: primarily, Jesus. secondarily, church…somewhere way down the priority list, society. This commitment plays out in my thoughts often, and I’ll leave it at that for now.

From Time Magazine’s Feb 5, 2007 issue.

“The 2008 presidential campaign may show that race, religion, and gender don’t matter, but money still talks, and more loudly than ever. In 2003, John Edwards surprised everyone by raking in $7 million in campaign donations in the the first three months of the year. That amount will be like Monopoly money after 2008. Strategists says the two eventual party nominees could well spend up to $500 million each before the general election.”

Nine words, folks.

What. in. the. world. is. wrong. with. this. picture?

I’ve thrown a widget a little further down the right side of my page that’s recording the total and rising cost of the conflict in Iraq.

I’ve inserted it not because I think the economics of the situation provides a compelling argument why the United States should never have invaded Iraq (though in many ways it DOES underscore a raw, quantifiable cost of war), but as one thing among a host of others that George Bush is accountable for.

I mean, you tell me…what’s better spent? 350 billion dollars to destroy a country and build it back up to be your lapdog (I guess the U.S. didn’t learn from the Iran experiment in the 1970s). Or 350 billion dollars in invest in the infrastructure of your own country, to dedicate towards alternative fuels, to dedicate towards welfare reform, to dedicate toward educational reform, or to dedicate towards health care reform within your own borders.

I pray for George Bush, I do. I’m trying to respect him by not slandering him. So I’m not going to attack his character. But it’s clear to me that his time as president will go down in history for an almost complete neglect of domestic issues for the sake of an ill-fated vengeance campaign against another sovereign nation that turns the clock back 70 years on international perception of the United States.

Domestic policy: failure (though there’s a little more to discuss here)
Foreign policy : failure (not much wiggle room here)

And even worse, I hope and pray that George Bush really wasn’t planning the attack in Iraq before he was even elected and, if so, repents publicly and comprehensively at some point in the future; as a confessing Christian, he is accountable to the church at large and centrally to God. I certainly would not want to stand before the judgment seat as GDub for his actions up to this point in history.

Let’s raise a glass to ’08 and the hope that Obama and McCain win their party nominations so I have to finally (for once!!!!!) decide between two qualified, principled, candidates of integrity who aren’t so dagblasted deaf-in-the-ears when people express alternative approaches and opinions!

Like everything else, this is clearly my subjective opinion…I’d love to talk if you wanna; in person, or here

“Christians have access to God’s law in a more clear and authoritative way in the Bible, and we should shape our political convictions and actions by what we read there.

I will mention only two ways that the scriptures shape our involvement in politics.

First, we should use the Bible to guide us in what behaviors we seek to put into law. I would say it like this: Behaviors revealed in Scripture as essential to the common good—essential to the survival of a society—should be aggressively commended by Christians for enactment as law by every means of persuasion possible—with both biblical arguments and natural arguments.

One example. This would be true, I believe, for the present controversy over the nature of marriage and whether it can be redefined as a relationship between two men or two women. Marriage between a man and a woman is so fundamental to the survival of society that Christians should work for its legal protection.

If someone says that we are legislating our morality we should respond: Laws protecting marriage are in the same category with laws protecting life and property and contracts. But no one complains that the prohibition of murder and stealing and perjury is the legislation of morality. So no one should complain that the protection of marriage is the legislation of morality. Marriage between a man and a woman is a moral and natural reality so profoundly woven into fabric of human life and society that to undo it will probably be the undoing of our nation.

Other examples could be given. There are behaviors that destroy children. We call it abortion. There are behaviors that destroy the environment. And Christians should make a case from Scripture that God means for us not to burn the house down that he gave us to live in…”

Two friends and I have had a healthy conversation that I’ve been thinking about more recently. Their names are Matt and Paul, and I continue to deeply appreciate their perspectives on life…and that appreciation leads to good conversations sometimes over our similar and different perspectives on life. Penny for your time (and responses, if you so wish). Matt’s the guy on the left, and Paul on the right.

The link to the original place of conversation (Matt’s Myspace blog) is here. It may be a bit easier to follow there.

Matt originally made a suggestion that sparked all this, saying

“This is an offshoot of thoughts inspired by a sermon (his pastor) Kevin preached on the movie Crash, which has left me devestated and yet determined. You should listen to it. It’s more than racism, and one of the parts that affected me most was his discourse and slight criticism of his own struggles with prejudice and especially most Americans’ prejudices against foreigners.

It’s been since about forever since altruism gained more Cash-Flow than greed. It’s been about forever since the whole United States Knew the meaning of Philanthropy and how it feels to be part of the solution, not the problem; I’m not sold on the American Dream. Now, the media and government work together to make you feel worse and more afraid; and more afraid and more afraid, and more insistent on American Policies and Politics in the living rooms of our “enemies..” or so they’re telling me. Guilt. Shame. The fuel that feeds political gain, but they’re only the ethanol to the gasoline that is fear – without they’re protection we’re bound for destruction, but I’m not convinced that most of these enemies have a problem with me so much as my country and the coroporate greed it seems to feed with the blessings of the media and pork-belly policy. So we torture detainees in GitMo and we withhold love from border crossers: failing to see that’s not our mission, which is to love God and love people. Just because I wear a cross does not mean I ride the elephant, or the donkey for that matter. Supporting policies does not mean withholding love and when you support policies, make sure they don’t inherently prevent love, and make sure not to give away your only hope. Make sure the things you get upset about are worth it and make sure you don’t become a machine, a wheel in the machine, or eventually you’ll break down. He’ll still pick you up though.”

I originally responded with,

“Has the whole United States ever grasped the concepts of altruism, philanthropy, and how to be part of the solution rather than the problem?

Donald Miller said it best, I think, when talking about a conversation with his atheist friend Laura.
“One day Laura brought up an odd topic: racism in the history of the church. She had moved to Portland from Georgia where, though she is an atheist, she told me she witnessed, within a church, the sort of racial discrimination most of us thought ended fifty years ago. She asked me very seriously what I thought about the problem of racism in America and whether the church had been a harbor for that sort of hatred…

I told her how frustrating it is to be a Christian in America, and how frustrated I am with not only the church’s failures concerning human rights, but also my personal failure to contribute to the solution. I wondered out loud, though, if there was a bigger issue, and I mistakenly made the callous comment that racism might be a minor problem compared to bigger trouble we have to deal with.

‘Racism, not an issue?!’ she questioned very sternly.
“Well, not that it’s not an issue, only that it is a minor issue.’
‘How can you say that?’ She sat back restlessly in her chair. ‘Don, that is an enormous problem.’
I was doing a lot of backpedaling at first, but then I began to explain what I mean. ‘Yeah, I understand it is a terrible and painful problem, but in light of the whole picture, racism is a signal of something greater. There is a larger problem here than tension between ethnic groups.’

‘Unpack that statement,’ Laura said.

‘I’m talking about self-absorption. If you think about it, the human race is pretty self-absorbed. Racism might be the symptom of a greater disease. What I mean is, as a human, I am flawed in that it is difficult for me to consider others before myself. It feels like I have to fight against this force, this current within me that, more often than not, wants to avoid serious issues and please myself, buy things for myself, entertain myself, and all of that. All I’m saying is that if we, as a species, could fix our self-absorption, we could end a lot of pain in the world.‘ “

That’s from Blue Like Jazz, and I agree. I think it’s important to acknowledge, also, how broken we are, that even though we’re inherently selfish as people, somehow we buy into the ideas of nationalism and racism that extend “me” beyond myself to other whites and other Americans…so instead of being individualistically self-absorbed (or, more accurately, on top of the dominant reality of my self-absorption), I become absorbed into thinking other races or nationalities are inherently a threat to me because they’re “them.” We hate brainwashing, but we’re all hopelessly enculturated by where we grow up, aren’t we? Plenty of fodder to identify, subvert, and kill for the rest of our lives.

Racism, nationalism, and individualism are probably good places to start.

I’d say, in addition, I guess, that this clearly isn’t an American problem only. America just happens to be at the top of the heap right now, so its self-absorption is all out there for the world to see. 70, 80 years from now, the globe will be obsessed with the self-absorption of China or the EU or something.

Either way, our commitment to being a global people as Christfollowers, together with the foundational expectation that we are to reject the artificial boundaries we put up for comfort and safety…called to serve instead of rule…should blow this whole selfishness and fear crap right out of the water.

The problem is, we’re gutless…so, like Don talked about, we whine about the issue without dealing with the root. I’ll be the first to stand up and say I pass the buck to someone else instead of living into my calling to the Kingdom of God first and foremost…I talk a big talk, but I end up buying into the same materialism, individualism, and artificial boundaries that Joe Schmoe beside me who doesn’t know Christ does. And that’s pathetic. The root of the issue is my pride and self-absorption. Everything else spins off it. Gotta strike at that root. I like your rant.”

To which Paul responded,

“Nate wrote: “Has the whole United States ever grasped the concepts of altruism, philanthropy, and how to be part of the solution rather than the problem?”

Prolly not. Depends who you ask. For example, some would criticize the US on philanthropic grounds for not having entered WWII against the Germans soon enough. Perhaps an awkward example for this post, but it is a fact that that a strong undercurrent fueling American isolationism at that point was the significant amount of American investment in German industry (i.e., $ fueling the German war machine). It seems even our “peace” has been rooted in greed and self-absorption.

Sadly, the US’s track record is not the exception, it’s the norm. Like Nate said, it’s just at the top of the heap now, but the clear problem is that it is populated with people. I, too, lay the problem at the feet of human selfishness.
For, “Has the whole [insert country, past or present, here] ever grasped the concepts of altruism, philanthropy, and how to be part of the solution rather than the problem?” Again, prolly not.

It seems a “wholly altruistic” nation will need at least a majority of components (people) that are likewise altruistic. My confidence is low that this will take place without individual moral renovation because we can do away with all the isms we want, but I’ve never needed the help of an ism to be a selfish prick. Indeed, it seems it’s my selfishness that spawns self-serving rationalizations akin to racism, etc.

With that said, isms do seem to have the power to dull, paralyze, or misguide altruism, allowing injustice to thrive, so it still seems we must be as innocent as doves and as clever as serpents, and not the other way around.
True: “Make sure the things you get upset about are worth it.”

Some relevant Police lyrics:
There is no political solution
To our troubled evolution
Have no faith in constitution
There is no bloody revolution

Our socalled leaders speak
With words they try to jail you
The subjugate the meek
But it’s the rhetoric of failure

Where does the answer lie?
Living from day to day
If it’s something we can’t buy
There must be another way
We are spirits in the material world”

And I know this is getting far too long and you may have already abandoned ship, but I responded by saying,

“Paul said, “We can do away with all the isms we want, but I’ve never needed the help of an ism to be a selfish prick. Indeed, it seems it’s my selfishness that spawns self-serving rationalizations akin to racism, etc. With that said, isms do seem to have the power to dull, paralyze, or misguide altruism, allowing injustice to thrive.”

I see what you’re saying, Paul, but I think you’re underestimating the power those -isms exert on your life and mine. It’s clear that the apostle Paul, the early church, and Jesus existed in a society with a much stronger emphasis on communalism. Their identity was found not as an empowered, free-thinking individual (our society’s bent), but as a part of a movement or family or people that defined them much more than their thoughts or conscience.

Today, however, the dominant philosophy of individualism has its dirty paws all up in all our bidness…Whereas in Jesus’ day you could find unfaithful comfort in being a Jew (or in NOT being a Samarian) or in being a member of the class of the wealthy elite (and NOT poverty-stricken); today the scope has been widened to the unfaithful comfort of the “rights” of the individual joining that whole mess. What seems to matter less is what others think or want: it’s what I want, I “need,” I think life should be all about…

It’s just hopelessly fragmented and really unpredictable. I’m the one I care about most of the time, but if something happens where another race or nationality challenges my comfort within my own race or nationality, I personally invest in “my” people’s struggle (immigration, English language, economic status, etc) to protect us from them…but when the crisis situation passes (or recedes to a low boil), I return to my self-centered existence until another crisis situation threatens.

So, in essence, in order to govern effectively in our day and age and move people beyond their inherent self-centeredness, leaders must get the society they lead to a consistent state of being on their toes…they need to identify a common “evil” enemy, they need the people to be sufficiently afraid to accept his/her definition of the enemy as evil, some sort of concrete action (war…limited to keep public outcry low and stories of heroism high) to unify the people, and an open-ended commitment to said enemy so the goal is always just…out…of…reach. War on terror, anyone?

It doesn’t take much study of modern democracy to see that war or some degree of conflict is needed on a regular basis to move the people beyond their individualism to a common goal and identity. So, as a leader, you need to find a good enemy upon entering office to unite the people, if you want to be effective.

So the ism of individualism is so potent and defining that leaders need to be fully conscious of how to subvert it in order to effectively govern the whole.

That’s insidious, very self-centered (if we can think of the modern nation-state as a freaking huge “self”)…can I say sinful? Is it possible that the governance and discipline of the church (only possible with the power of the Holy Spirit and committed followers of Jesus) is in fact the highest form of “government” this world has ever seen? That heightens the importance of cultivating the atmosphere we are called to as the church…the world is crying out for people who would live like this and a system like this. It looks like the early church did this well. For a ridiculously short period of time.”

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Tony Jones: Why I Didn’t Waste My Vote

“For the third election in a row, I voted for the Independence Party candidate in the Minnesota gubernatorial election. (Yes, if you’re counting backward, that means that I voted for Jesse “The Body” Ventura – and proudly so!) This year’s candidate, Peter Hutchinson, garnered only 6% of the popular vote, but that means that the Independence Party will continue to qualify for public funding in statewide elections. And, more importantly, it means that there will be three candidates on stage again in four years…”

Read the rest of the article here.

I was especially struck by Tony’s comment at the end of his article that read “I find that the rhetoric and mean-spirited politics of the Republicans and Democrats so rarely represents my own politics that I’d just as soon vote my conscience – even if it means that my candidate finishes a distant third.”

That assertion is helpful to me as I continue to consider and reconsider how political involvement intersects with my identity as a follower of Jesus. Do I accept the status quo of a two-party system where I often find myself disgusted by both “legitimate” opponents? Or if a third (or fourth or fifth) candidate is running that I find myself much more comfortable with, is it “wasting my vote” to invest my vote in the ideology and approach of someone who has no chance of winning?

Tony’s also a member of the group that goes by the name of Red-Letter Christians. Check out their site…interesting reading and thinking. I don’t invest as much in politics as…say…a Jim Wallis or a James Dobson…and I think I have legitimate reason for that. But I think folks like Jim Wallis have an important counterpoint to the agenda of the Christian Right that seems to suggest if you’re not a card-carrying Republican, you’re about to be consigned to the seventh circle of hell. If nothing else, we need the voice of the Wallises and the Red-Letter Christians of the world to push us to think further and deeper than we tend to think…