The thought occurred to me today that if we tack enough “great-”s on to the relationship, the tree outside my window and I have a common ancestor. While a natural conclusion of the theory of evolution (ignoring minor squabbles about asexual reproduction and multiple origins of life), the idea remains somewhat trippy to think about. What is particularly fascinating to me, however, is the implication this has for humankind’s understanding of its place in nature.
Archive | Contemplations RSS feed for this section
An Evangelical for Obama: Character
2 NovWith election day just around the corner, it’s time to bring to a close this series of posts on how I, as an Evangelical Christian, can support Barack Obama for president. It has been interesting to write these, as they have forced me to articulate my own positions on various issues.
But it is not just my own writing that has influenced my opinion of Obama. When I first became interested in the Obama campaign I decided to check out and read The Audacity of Hope, on the assumption that the ideas in his book would tell me something about him. Rather than detail Obama’s writing myself, let me quote from The New Yorker‘s endorsement of Obama:
Nowadays, almost every politician who thinks about running for President arranges to become an author. Obama’s books are different: he wrote them. “The Audacity of Hope” (2006) is a set of policy disquisitions loosely structured around an account of his freshman year in the United States Senate. Though a campaign manifesto of sorts, it is superior to that genre’s usual blowsy pastiche of ghostwritten speeches. But it is Obama’s first book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance” (1995), that offers an unprecedented glimpse into the mind and heart of a potential President. Obama began writing it in his early thirties, before he was a candidate for anything. Not since Theodore Roosevelt has an American politician this close to the pinnacle of power produced such a sustained, highly personal work of literary merit before being definitively swept up by the tides of political ambition.
A Presidential election is not the awarding of a Pulitzer Prize: we elect a politician and, we hope, a statesman, not an author. But Obama’s first book is valuable in the way that it reveals his fundamental attitudes of mind and spirit. “Dreams from My Father” is an illuminating memoir not only in the substance of Obama’s own peculiarly American story but also in the qualities he brings to the telling: a formidable intelligence, emotional empathy, self-reflection, balance, and a remarkable ability to see life and the world through the eyes of people very different from himself.
On Obama’s Character
The New Yorker‘s endorsement has identified one of the biggest reasons why I find myself supporting Obama: his character. This is not to say that all my other posts have been irrelevant; policies, voting records, and party affiliation are obviously important and essential parts of the election decision. Yet their is a great deal to be said for character. When you can trust someone’s character—his integrity, honesty, wisdom, and self-control—then you know that even if you disagree on policies, you can follow his leadership.
Obama has aptly proven his character on all counts. He is, of course, not perfect. Yet he is extraordinarily capable of understanding the world from multiple viewpoints. He embraces what is best in Conservatism as well as in Liberalism. He speaks intelligently to people of any race, gender, or age. He commands respect when he addresses people, without intimidating them. In short, he has all of the qualities of leadership combined in an unusually well balanced mix.
Perhaps this is why so many endorsements, especially from traditionally conservative establishments, speak highly of Obama. The Chicago Tribune writes:
Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.
He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.
And The Washington Post speaks of Obama as “a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building,” writing:
Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country.
Americans are seeking leadership during this election just as much as they are seeking change. They are looking for a President who understands democracy, listens to their voice, and consults other leaders. Obama is an exceptional candidate when it comes to leadership and character.
Messiah Complex?
In the midst of this talk about character, there has been a large amount of hullabaloo about the Democratic party and their “messiah.” These fears and concerns about Obama’s “complex” are seriously exaggerated. While liberal commentators and bloggers have probably done themselves a disservice by waxing rhapsodic over Obama, this has never been the position of the campaign nor the candidate. There are two things two remember here.
First, the Obama campaign has not been the last, best hope of all Democrats this whole time. If you remember, the Democratic party was what really fired up this election season so early. Not by any naïve hope about Obama, but by a prolonged and, at times, bitter struggle between Obama and Hillary Clinton. Half of the Democratic party only came behind Obama after considerable debate and numerous elections. Isn’t this what democracy is all about? Obama has earned the support of the Democratic party.
Second, the charge of a “messiah complex” about Obama blatantly ignores the reality of his campaign. The Obama campaign is not grounded on Obama, the campaign grounded on the American voter. The campaign speaks of “we,” “us,” and “America” in ways that extend far beyond the candidate himself:
“I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington … I’m asking you to believe in yours.”
And it’s not just the rhetoric that demonstrates this. One of the lessons politics will learn from the Obama campaign is the power of grassroots organizing and fundraising. Millions of Americans have become excited about the political process and are fully taking part in it now. Isn’t this what democracy is all about? Obama’s campaign is about “we” not “I.”
On John McCain
It is important to remember, of course, that there are two candidates running here. One of the very hopeful things about this election is that both men are honorable and able to be President. John McCain, whatever liberal ideologues want to say about him, has been a superb politician in the past. He also deserves our respect for his military service. McCain is, as his campaign describes him, a true American hero.
Yet their is more than one aspect to leadership, and McCain has fallen woefully short on many of them during this campaign. His temper is one of the largest of these problems. He has often been known to lash out at reporters, and even his own wife, in public. While being feisty is often a good thing, especially in an organization like Congress, it may be a much less beneficial quality in a president.
There is also the choice of Sarah Palin for Vice-President. Plenty enough has been said, by Republicans and Democrats alike, that I’ll leave it up to the Economist to summarize:
The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.
This election season has seen John McCain track all over the board in an attempt to gain the upper hand. There was the bizarre suspension of his campaign, the attempt to postpone the first debate, the lack of exposure of Palin to the media, the negative advertising (which, disappointingly, Obama has been guilty of too), and the unfounded terrorist and socialist accusations.
The John McCain evidenced by this election cycle has come up short on almost every area of leadership, especially when compared to Barack Obama. This does not mean he would make a bad President, but it does mean that when the country is looking for leadership, McCain might not be the best choice.
In Conclusion
America finds itself now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, in a position it has not experienced in many decades. While still the premier military power in the world, our forces are stretched thin across two wars and it is becoming increasingly obvious that America can’t control the world simply by flexing military muscle. The recent economic crisis has shaken the system to its very core and greatly diminished faith in the U.S. China and India are rising rapidly in the economic realm and are threatening to soon pass America. Similarly, in education, science, and technology these and other countries are rapidly passing the U.S.
It is into this world, a world in which the U.S. may remain the preeminent power, but will not always be a superpower, that the next President must lead us. This will take intelligence, foresight, inspiration, and the ability to understand the world. Barack Obama contains each of these, and many more good qualities. He is part of a new generation of Americans, who realizes that America must both look to the world and safeguard that which makes her unique. Obama is the man to lead us as the next President.
Note: Why comments are disabled on this post.
An Evangelical for Obama: Foreign Policy
19 OctWith Colin Powell’s endorsment of Obama hot off the press, it seems an appropriate time to examine the subject of foreign policy and what it means for this election. It’s a topic which I have addressed before, as the foreign policy was one of the first things gained my support for Obama. There are three particular areas which are worth addressing when examining Obama on foreign policy: the people around him, the diplomatic approach, and the world’s opinion. I find this a better way to approach the topic than examining particular countries and conflicts, as the ideas expressed here will determine the approaches to those specific incidents.
Advisors and Supporters
One of the things that has impressed me the most about Obama is how he has consistently surrounded himself with people who are experts on their topics. If I had to identify the specific point in time when I started leaning toward supporting Obama, it would be when Major-General Scott Gration visited one of my foreign policy classes last year. Gration is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and an advisor to Obama on security and foreign policy. His visit occurred not long after the infamous Pakistan comments were made by Obama, which I asked Maj Gen Gration about and received a well reasoned reply. (The gist of it being that Obama never said to attack Pakistan, but that if we clearly knew where Osama bin Laden was, we should not hesitate to take him out.)
The reason the people behind Obama are important on this issue is because he does have, admittedly, less experience than Senator McCain does. In addition to Maj Gen Gration, several other endorsements are indicative that Obama has the appropriate credentials in the foreign policy field:
- The support of Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s Secretary of State and an extremely well respected person in the foreign policy arena.
- The recent endorsement by Colin Powell, also an extremely well respected Secretary of State, but for a Republican president.
- His running mate, Joe Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
If you want more information on Obama’s advisers, you can see this post from the Concil on Foreign Relations.
Diplomacy and National Security
The single most discussed issue about Obama’s foreign policy is, of course, his willingness to conduct diplomacy with foreign leaders. That this has been such a big issue reflects what I find to be a disturbing trend within the American mindset. The idea that we should only talk to people who are going to do what we want means that either we think the entire world should be like us or that we are better than the rest of the world. Neither one is a particularly appealing option to me.
The fact is that most of the world is not like America, and much of it doesn’t like America. When dealing with such countries and their leaders, there is an established approach. It moves, roughly, from diplomacy through sanctions to military force. (There are, obviously, many, many more tools that fall along that continuum, but I’ve condensed it for simplicity.) If Obama believes that U.S. foreign policy during the Bush administration has failed (and I tend to agree with him), it’s unsurprising that he is willing to move back to the beginning of the continuum. This doesn’t show naïvete, it shows someone who understands and appreciates foreign affairs.
It shows something else as well: a worldview that believes in talking with the Other and forging a consensus. This doesn’t mean giving in to our enemies, but it does mean being willing to seek a peaceful solution before resorting to violence, whether economic or military. As I said in my previous post:
What I find so persuasive about Obama’s foreign policy ideas is that he believes in talking to people. Much of our foreign policy of late seems to have been composed of demands and threats of force.
If we think that Obama engaging Iran in diplomacy means letting it have nuclear weapons, or speaking with Venezuela means ceding it control over Latin America, then our opinion on foreign policy is just as naïve as we think Obama’s is. Diplomacy is at the core of the international system, and any president who is not willing to place it on the table is forgoing a powerful tool.
In the Eyes of the World
Just as persuasive to me as Obama’s diplomacy-focused foreign policy is the international support that he enjoys. Nearly every country in the world would prefer an Obama presidency over the next four years. In this BBC News survey, he enjoyed a margin of support of almost 4 to 1. Note that this isn’t just one particular form of government, this is democracies, dictatorships, and everything in between, including both our allies and our enemies. The rest of the world may not like America right now, but what this indicates is that it wants to like America and it thinks it can, under Obama.
Oddly, this strong international support for Obama seems to be a negative point for some Conservatives (though they tend to be especially dismayed by his backing in France). This is another facet of the disturbing American mindset that I mentioned above. If the international community’s support of Obama is a bad thing, that means there is either something wrong with the international community or something better about America. Such a view fails to appreciate the diversity of the world and the positive aspects of cultures and governments around the globe.
In an attempt to allay any fears, however, I will point out a few things:
- The support of the international community is, in the end, irrelevant. Obama is an American politician and is beholden to the American people. The choices he makes will reflect that allegiance and no other, especially if he wants to get (re-)elected.
- The best thing that could possibly happen for the United States right now is for our credibility with the rest of the world to increase. This would help with trade, diplomacy, the war on terror, and numerous other foreign policy agenda items. Obama’s popularity with the international community is a perfect chance to do exactly that.
- The support for Obama around the world, but especially in Europe, is only partially due to an appreciation of his policies. To many people it also represents a further advancement in the American community, as an African American becomes president and helps diversify the appearance of the United States to the world. Europe, especially, may not like America’s current policies, but it does believe in what America represents, and Obama’s candidacy is symbolic of that American dream.
As an Evangelical…
So why does this matter to me as an Evangelical? The answer is tricky, since we should not equate this nation, and thus its foreign policy, with Christianity. Still, I’ll hazard a few answers:
- Even if we do not equate America with Christianity, much of the rest of the world does. A diplomatic, well reasoned, and more internationally inclusive foreign policy will raise America in the eyes of the world, and Christianity along with it. That sounds self-serving, I suppose, but Christianity has, sadly, become aligned with the worst of American actions in many places.
- While the U.S. is not Christianity, that does not mean that Christian ideals shouldn’t influence our policy ideas. As Christians we are called on to wage peace over war, life over death, and reconciliation over division. This doesn’t mean there aren’t times when war is necessary, but it shouldn’t define our agenda. I believe that Obama’s foreign policy promotes these Christian ideals in powerful ways.
- Because all humans are made in the image of God, our foreign policy must promote human rights, both at home and abroad. Obama’s consistent opposition of our practices at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere is a strong statement for this Evangelical belief. (I am glad that Senator McCain also strongly opposes the Bush administration’s flirtations with torture.)
Two Additional Notes
First, on terrorism and national security. Many people seem to think that Obama will jeopardize the security of our nation and somehow allow terrorism to grow. I believe, however, that the most effective thing we can do to decrease terrorism is to improve the world’s view of America. Terrorism will, of course, continue to exist, and Obama has demonstrated a clear resolve to confront terrorists at home and abroad.
Second, on Senator McCain. This is by no means a one-sided election on the foreign policy front. Senator McCain has very strong foreign policy credentials and would undoubtedly promote U.S. interests extremely well. I support Obama, however, because I believe hehas a far stronger approach for the long run.
Obama’s approach is better because of the combination of excellent advisers, the emphasis on diplomacy, and Obama’s ability to connect with the rest of the world. Each of these things alone is good, but when combined, they position America to take a unique roll in foreign policy at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
Note: Why comments are disabled on this post.
Debating the Debates
15 OctHaving gone through two presidential debates, and with the prospect of being subjected to one more tomorrow night, I thought it would be instructive to look back at the definition of the word itself. I have a sneaking suspicion that what we label as the modern political debate is in fact no such thing. (At least, it may be modern and political, but it is no debate.)
I have unfortunately lost access to the trusty Oxford English Dictionary, so, loathe though I am to do it, we will turn to Merriam-Webster:
debate: a contention by words or arguments as A) the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure or B) a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
It’s fairly obvious that our current topic falls within definition B: “a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.” So let’s take this bit by bit:
- “regulated discussion”: The current debates fit this, ostensibly. It depends, of course, on whether Tom Brokaw’s desperate attempts to make Obama and McCain stick to their time limits qualify. In the end, however, I think that in the ideal debate the regulation comes from the debating parties themselves rather than a third-party moderator.
- “of a proposition”: Again, we ostensibly fit this idea. The debates are usually framed around a series of questions put to the candidates. The candidates then reply via their alloted time.
- “between two matched sides”: This is the only part that we get completely correct. We may even get it too correct, thanks to today’s TV culture. Candidates are matched in time, posture, terminology, and more, all to remove any possible advantage one could have from appearences.
On the surface of the definition we seem to be doing fairly well, yet anyone who has watched a political debate knows that something is horribly wrong with the system. But where have we gone wrong? I would suggest it is because we need to look earlier in the definition of debate: “a contention by words or arguments.” And there we find it: we’re lacking arguments. Debates today are far too much about one of three things:
- Look at my record.
- Look at his record.
- Soundbyte.
What they are not about is arguments, at least in the traditional definition (again from Merriam-Webster): “a reason given in proof or rebuttal.” I do not call “he voted to raise taxes 94 times” or “he will give $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies” a logical line of reasoning. Whether or not such statments are true, they are not a logical proof of why the candidate in question will be effective or ineffective.
Reason would sound like:
- Tax cuts for American families, which I propose to provide, will put more money in their pockets, allowing them to invest and thus increasing our savings rate and promoting future growth in GDP.
- Following a surge-like strategy in Afghanistan will promote confidence by putting enough troops on the ground to deal with the violence and begin building relationships with local leaders.
- Following a surge-like strategy in Afghanistan will not work because the problem is not with the number of troops but with how we engage both our enemies and our friends.
- Offshore drilling should not be pursued because the effects are minimal, especially when seen in light of the global oil market.
Instead we get politicians arguing back and forth only in the sense of “argument” that means “two children quarelling.” They say plenty of words, but with very little logic behind them. The problem, I suppose, is as much with us, the audience, as with the candidates. Both candidates are intelligent men who can present a logical argument if they want to (and if you don’t think this is true you’re deluding yourself) . But, sad to say, soundbytes and accusations are what work on us and thus that’s what the candidates use.
The solution? There probably isn’t one. But here’s a rough idea of what I think should be tried someday. Instead of a debate in front of a live audience, with millions more watching on TV, the two candidates sholud be locked in a room together for a day. They would be given a list of topics that to consider together, with two allowable means of responding:
- A joint proposal laying out how to solve the issue.
- Separate essays on the issue, in which mentioning the other candidate is forbidden.
The debate over the course of the day could be recorded if necessary, but it would not be live. Afterward the candidates would have a chance to address the audience. On each issues they would either present their joint proposal or give an outline of their essay, again without mentioning the other candidate, and the logic behind their idea.
It would, of course, be nice to have a live debate in which the candidates could discuss ideas and argue about the logic behind them instead of who did what. I just don’t think that’s possible in today’s media. My idea is an attempt to force such conversation.
Granted, it probably would not be as interesting to watch (I said we were part of the problem, didn’t I?). But it would at least force the candidates to give “a reason given in proof” for their “contention by words or arguments.” Then we could really have a debate.
The Ontological Argument Against God
9 OctThe other day I was reminded of Anselm’s ontological argument for God. Put in a simple form, it goes thusly:
- God is a being which nothing greater than can be imagined.
- Existence both in reality and in imagination is greater than existence solely in one’s imagination.
- Therefore, God must exist in reality: if not, God would not be a being greater than anything that can be imagined.
In an effort to expand my horizons, I decided to see if I could reverse the argument. You can be the judge of whether I accomplished it:
- That which exists must be conceivable in the imagination.
- God in reality would be greater than God in the imagination (per Anselm’s argument).
- Therefore, God cannot exist in reality: if so something would exist that cannot be imagined.
The weak point in my argument is, obviously, the first point. Let us assume for a minute that it is actually incorrect, allowing us to present this argument:
- Things can exist which cannot be imagined.
- God is a being which nothing greater than can be imagined.
- Therefore, God cannot be known to be greater than all things: if things can exist that can’t be imagined, they could be greater than God.
While the argument does not reduce to a logical absurdity, and thus prove that we must be able to imagine all things that exist, it does greatly diminish the essence of what God would be. As I see it, this brings us to two options:
- God doesn’t exist (because we can’t imagine him).
- God exists but we don’t know whether he is the greatest thing in existence. (Under the typical definition of God this would mean God isn’t God. Anselm, however, used a different definition in his argument and thus God could still exist.)
If anyone has a suggestion as to how I can improve my argument, I’d love to hear it. Of course, in the end I do believe in God. What I was seeking to do here (in addition to sharpen my mind) was to show that God is never going to be proved or disproved by reason or logic. (Or, I would add, science.) Arguments and counter-arguments can always be made.
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see [and cannot prove]. -Hebrews 11:1
An Evangelical for Obama: Guest Entry – A Basis for Discussion
24 SepMy brother Steve shared his thoughts with me after my first post in this series. I thought I would pass them on here, followed by my own comments.
Let me preface by saying that my brother is one of the most intelligent people I know, and someone whose opinion I seek, especially on issues that I don’t understand well. Prominent among these issues are questions concerning anything science related (from science questions to science ethics to Christianity and science), as Steve is an engineer and his wife is a biologist.
A Basis for Discussion
Over the past seven years I have had quite some time to reflect on the state of the world, politics, political issues, and the way this country is run in general. During that time a number of my positions have shifted, to the point where now I would classify myself more as an left-leaning independent than anything else. However, the issues themselves aren’t what I want to discuss today. I want to discuss something more foundational: the way people in the USA approach politics.
Specifically, I would like to discuss what I see as some serious drawbacks or shortcomings in the way that conservatives/Republicans think about and deal with politics. Let me make clear: what I’m about to say are my perceptions. I obviously feel they are accurate perceptions, but some of you will disagree and I can accept that. Let me also reiterate that while I will touch on issues, the issues themselves aren’t my main focus here.
The first shortcoming that I have noticed more and more is a tendency among conservatives to strongly favor character evaluation over discussion of issues. Character is certainly important, I agree. However, I personally find it very difficult to divorce character from the issues at stake. I feel, however, that many of my conservative friends and relatives make precisely that distinction. For example, I’ve heard Obama referred to as having a “silver tongue”, or of being all talk and no walk. I hear people all the time bashing the Clintons for their (valid) character shortcomings. I cringed when I heard the sarcastic quote from Palin’s speech about a mayor being like a community organizer, but actually having real responsibilities. All of these are character criticisms, which while valid to a certain extent, completely miss the point of discussing the issues themselves.
This is a trend both within the official Republican party and among everyday folks who are conservatives. It extends not only to candidates, but also to “liberals” in general. Conservatives tend to view liberals as selfish (discussed later) sinners, and therefore discount what they have to say about issues before they even open their mouths. It reminds me a bit of the pharisees who told the blind man who was healed, “You were steeped in sin at birth. How dare you lecture us!” and then threw him out of the temple.
Which brings me to my second point. I often hear people refer to liberals as selfish. Again, this seems to be a relatively blanket character evaluation, and also divorces character from issues. I certainly have met some selfish liberals (and conservatives too). I know a lot of selfish liberal politicians. But when it comes to issues, I find that the selfishness is a bit on the other side of the equation. With the exceptions of abortion and protectionist trade policy, most Democratic positions come in on what I consider the unselfish side. It seems to me less selfish to take the positions of socialized health care (giving up your money for the common good), larger welfare programs (ditto), gun control (giving up your rights for the common good), higher taxes (again with the money), a more lenient immigration policy (being willing to share your country with others), civil rights (being willing to let others do things you think are wrong), the environment (giving up some financial gain now to preserve the world for your children), and other things. You can debate what does or does not work, certainly, what is or is not a good idea, whether it is right to take away this or that from individuals and families, or what will or will not be economic suicide. But even so, how is it that the “selfish” party supports all these things that aren’t very beneficial to the self? Maybe we should discuss the issues and the values embedded in them, not the selfishness levels of those who hold the positions.
Third, I find the conservative distrust of the media, science, and education extremely frustrating. Frustrating both because I don’t understand it, and frustrating because I think it blinds people to important information. I read the New York Times. For many people, the New York Times is the epitomy of the “liberal media” and cannot be trusted. A lot of people don’t trust the BBC either, which I personally think is one of the best news organizations on the planet. Many conservatives will only get their news from Fox News. This is something that official party rhetoric plays into. (See, for example, all the recent media-bashing comments at the RNC.) I have to ask, though, what is the basis for all this media-bashing? I find news coverage I read to be fairly unbiased. (Editorials are a different matter, but the NY Times has editorial writers at both ends of the party spectrum.) Sometimes I think people see media reports that conflict with their personal opinions, then dismiss the reports as from “the liberal media.” But in a viscious circle, people characterize the media as liberal because they don’t agree with the reports they right. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that media organizations honestly try to report fairly and accurately. Sometimes they fail, but they at least try. It makes little business sense to do otherwise, nor can I see any motivation for it. So all this bashing of the media feels to me somewhat like the quote “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”
The same goes for the perceptions of the educated liberal elite and liberal science. It really confuses me that we mistrust so deeply those precise people who have dedicated their lives to learning and the discovery of truth. (Global warming for example: all scientists say it is happening, but somehow a large portion of the general public, and also many a politician, disbelieves them?) I imagine this stems a lot from the creation/evolution debate, over which, I admit, the scientific community has given itself a huge black eye. Nevertheless, I don’t make the assumption that someone is wrong because they know a lot, but that is precisely the assumption I see made with many conservatives. It runs both ways as well; sometimes people dismiss me as an “educated liberal” for my views, even though I have exactly the same degree (a bachelors) as the segment of educated society most likely to vote Republican (people with college degrees but not graduate degrees – see the Gallup poll). In my case, I prefer to take what educated researchers and scientists tell me at face value, and then discuss the issues based on that. If everyone did that, I think the debate could both be more civil and better informed.
The last disappointment I have is that I often see a separation in the Republican party between “moral” issues and other issues, as if some issues aren’t about morality at all. “Moral” issues for conservatives include homosexuality and abortion… that’s about it. (What am I missing?) Other issues may have moral aspects, but they aren’t as important. As Jim said, I think this is a fallacy; almost every issue has significant moral components. Often, evaluating the morality isn’t straightforward. (Is it better to promote free trade and cause people to lose jobs, or restrict trade and see the economy suffer? What does more harm/good?) Nevertheless, the morality is there. This is extremely clear to me in issues of war, torture, and the environment. These issues have huge moral implications, but conservatives hardly touch on them. Instead, they treat them as practical issues, issues that need only be address on the merits of what is useful for something else (usually the economy or national security).
So, in summary, what I really wish is that when I talk to a conservative about politics, that what I would be able to do is discuss the issues themselves, and when I do that to discuss all aspects of the issues. I don’t want rejection of a discussion or information based on source (media, science, education, or a “selfish liberal”), and I don’t want dismissal of a discussion based on a perceived character flaw. I do want to be able to discuss morality of all issues, in addition to their practicality, impacts, and other aspects. I feel that if I could just get to that point, the conversation would go much better. (I can’t also help but think that a lot more conservatives would see things differently, but you can discuss the issues themselves with me for that.)
My own comments are as follows:
- Concerning character vs. issues, I think this is less a problem with a specific segment of the population and more one with politics as a whole. While I have heard plenty of anti-Obama statements based (often with no good reasoning) on character issues, I have also heard people criticize him because he doesn’t talk about the issues. (Whether or not this is true is a different matter, but I would question whether the criticizer had perhaps not read “The Blueprint for Change.”) It’s a sad fact that political discussion today is so easily sidetracked.
- On the idea of selfishness, I find Steve’s point here fastening. I haven’t heard this specific criticism of liberals myself, but his point remains. I’ll address a similar subject in my next post.
- When it comes to the “liberal media,” I too get tired of the constant accusations about how the mainstream media (MSM) is portraying things. I have, however, seen plenty of liberals (especially on the social news websites) complain about what the MSM is ignoring. Thus I take hope in the fact that when conservatives are accusing the media of being too liberal and liberals are accusing it of being too conservative, there probably isn’t that much of a bias. Like Steve, I think that we’re probably doing pretty well when it comes to most of the media.
- Their approach to science does seem to be, sadly, a common failing of both Republicans and Christians. I touched on this in another post once. The problem is that there are so many issues that demonstrate good science, evolution and global warming being just a couple, that are completely dismissed. Part of this may be that the media is determined to give a equal point of view to both sides (note that this is different from accusing it of being liberal or conservative) and thus seems to imply that both sides are valid. A great example of this is offshore drilling, which will have little effect on our energy situation, according to even the government itself, but is still widely accepted by the American public. (If you want the lowdown on offshore drilling, turn to Stephen Colbert.)
- Finally, on morality and politics, Steve is completely correct: everything is a moral issue. Again, my next post will reflect some of this. For a different take on the same subject, however, I would recommend this post. While I tend to agree more with Steve, there are things to be said for both sides.
Note: Why comments are disabled on this post.
On Abortion: Two Responses
24 SepI received several responses to my post on abortion, many of them from people who had similar ideas. There were two, however, that I wanted to take time to address. (more…)
An Evangelical for Obama: Abortion
10 Sep
When talking with other Evangelical Christians about my support for Barack Obama it is not uncommon to encounter incredulity as to how Icould vote for a Democrat, much less one as liberal as he is. So, for my own edification and to help others understand, I will try to lay out my reasons as best I can.
Do to a heavy work schedule at the moment, these reasons will be broken up into individual posts. This also allows me to devote more time to each, without writing a tome for you to read. To begin with, I will look at those traditionally Democratic positions that Evangelicals tend to disagree with. From there I’ll turn to other campaign issues that I find important.
Before I begin, however, let me lay out a few ground rules for myself and others:
- My purpose here is to present why I support (or can support) Obama, not why I oppose McCain. While some reference is obviously needed for positioning, that will not be my main focus. Don’t expect a lot about McCain.
- Following upon that, I aim not to avoid negative statements in favor of more positive reviews. The one possible exception to this will be in the area of character, which does influence my opinion.
- Comments will not be open on this series. While I appreciate feedback on my articles, I don’t want my blog to become a forum for debate, which is prone to happen on more controversial subjects. I still would love to hear what you think, however, so feel free to email me at jim@smidg.in. (Do try to keep the emails relevant to the posts.) I’ll try to select the best feedback and publish it later on.
Now, let us proceed with the first part.
The Democrats and Abortion
Probably the most common objection posed by Evangelicals who learn that I support Obama is: “He’s pro-choice. How can you support that?” This is especially true since the selection of Palin as the Republican vice-presidential candidate.
The first thing to note is that I am still unequivocally against abortion. The second thing to note is that the pro-life/pro-choice debate in this country represents not one tragedy, but two. One tragedy is well known: abortion means the killing of a human life, tantamount to murder. The second tragedy is not often stated, but equally important: the term “pro-life” has come to be framed solely in terms of the abortion debate.
Simply put, my willingness to support Obama is not because I have ceased to care about abortion, but because of the very fact that I am pro-life. Let me explain.
The problem is that “pro-life” has come to signify “anti-abortion.” In reality, pro-life should represent exactly what it says: pro-life in every area. This means to be pro-life is to oppose the traditional threats to life: abortion, euthanasia, etc. But it also means that to be pro-life is to oppose any infringement upon the gift of life: unjust war, capital punishment, and policies that favor one group of people while injuring another. If we are going to be for life, we must be completely and totally for it.
When seen in this light, I am dissatisfied with both parties’ stances on life. My decision to support the Democrats, then, is not a sell-out, but an educated choice as to which party has a better grasp on the issue of life at this moment in time.
War in Opposition to Life
To some people my reasoning may not make sense yet. When looking at the issues above, it is much easier to see how abortion is anti-life than many of the others. The very idea of abortion is that of blatantly disregarding human rights to inflict damage, in this case death, upon a living being. The idea is so graphic and emotional that it is hard to move beyond it, but that is what must be done.
The most relevant issue which can be placed across from abortion is that of the current war in Iraq, especially the controversial interrogation techniques. (When considering this, it does not matter whether the invasion of Iraq was justified, etc., so don’t expect that to be addressed here.) The Bush administration, with the backing of the Republican party, has drifted dangerously towards sanctioning techniques that are recognized as torture by the international community. It has also repeatedly opposed the extension of habeas corpus to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. If examined from a distance, it becomes clear that the policies at Guantanamo Bay involve the blatant disregard for human rights in an attempt to inflict damage on a living being.
Before continuing any further, let me address several concerns. Many would contend that those detained at Guantanamo Bay are terrorists and therefore do not deserve to be accorded rights. This is wrong for two reasons. First, it is written into the very core of the American ideal that every human being is accorded rights. Second, the refusal to charge many of these detainees casts serious doubts upon the assertion that the detainees are terrorists.
A second concern, related to the first, is that this does not compare to the scale of abortion. I believe, however, that it does. The denial of basic rights, especially where torture is concerned, sets a dangerous precedent for the future of this country. This precedent affects us in several ways. One is in our foreign policy, which I will cover in a later post. A more important result is in our domestic policy, and the willingness of the government to engage in policies contrary to human rights, stooping even to the level of torture, an assault upon life.
My final comment on torture is that as an Evangelical I do not stand alone on the issue: An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture.
Beyond the issue of torture, the current War in Iraq also represents a disturbing loss of life: approximately 90,000 civilians have been killed since 2003. This is in addition to untold damage to life, health, and property. Whether or not the war was the right choice, it is clear that its execution, especially in the early years, was done without proper knowledge of the country and culture of Iraq, resulting in an extreme threat to life and a serious challenge to its justification using the Just War Theory.
If this is the case, the War in Iraq represents a assault upon a culture of life. While the relative merits of beginning the war can be debated, it is clear that there have been decisions made that, whether through negligence or maliciousness, have resulted in serious threats to life. In light of this, the Republican assertion that it is the pro-life party is difficult to maintain.
Presenting this argument is difficult, of course, because abortion and the War in Iraq are two very different things. My goal, however, has been to show that both sides of the political spectrum lack a true culture of life. This is important, as it shows that my decision to support the Democrats does not contradict my ideals.
Finally, I don’t believe I have done this particular defense justice and I would like to see Laura, with whom I have talked this over before, write her own position.
Capital Punishment and the Issue of Life
While the issues of torture and war are primary for many people in my position, the idea of capital punishment is also a problem for me. This is an issue which I find particularly compelling as an Evangelical Christian, and have written on it before. I will try not to rehash my words here.
Again, I consider it necessary to be completely pro-life if I claim that title. While I recognize that those convicted of heinous crimes have torn the moral fabric of society in such a way that there must be special considerations taken in their punishment, I do not believe that death is the correct choice. If we are going to assert that life should be preserved, then life should always be preserved.
There are good arguments for the death penalty based on precedent, deterrence, and the idea that criminals have forfeited their right to life. When it comes down to it, however, given the choice to be pro-life in all we do I believe we must not make exceptions.
An obvious weakness to my argument is, of course, the Just War Theory. In brief I would address that by saying that with capital punishment we hold a life in our hands which does not threaten others. With war, however, inaction can mean further crimes against life which we would then be guilty of. Unfortunately for us, and contrary to what some people seem to believe, the world consists of more than simply black and white.
Shifts in the Democratic Plank
To round off my consideration of the issue, it is necessary to draw attention to the recent modification of the Democratic plank on abortion. In the past the plank has read:
Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
In the 2008 platform, it has been changed to:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption program
While this is obviously not the stance I would like to see on the issue, it does represent progress. The Democratic party is making it clear that abortion is, for them, undesirable, if necessary. This provides the hope that the two parties will be able to work together, whatever their final stance on the issue, to reduce the number of abortions.
Conclusion
In my beliefs and and ideals I remain unwaveringly pro-life, in the true sense of the word. If you want a better sense of what that truly means, I would encourage you to read The Gospel of Life, by Pope John Paul II (Amazon). The Catholic Church, it sometimes seems, is the only institution that truly understand what it means to be completely pro-life.
Since I don’t believe either political party has a monopoly on the protection of life, I refuse to be a single issue voter. Voting Republican simply because the ticket is anti-abortion is a shame and a waste of one’s decision making power. That is not to say that the abortion issue should not weigh on your decision. But in my case, as I hope I’ve made clear, the assumption that being anti-abortion gives the Republican party a claim to pro-life does not work. In my judgment the Democrats this year, as led by Barack Obama, have an equal claim on the ideas and ideals of the issue of life. Thus I can, without moral qualm, give my support to their campaign.
First Footprints
14 Jul
Looking back at my footprints in the sand, I realized that there is something intrinsically human about wanting to leave the first tracks across an untouched expanse. The beach is, of course, an ideal place to do this, as each successive wave which washes over the shore erases all traces of human presence and presents your feet with a clean slate to imprint upon. Turning around after a dozen paces you can look back to see that little line of footprints and know that you were the first to tread across that slate.
Even more magical for me, however, is the still quiet of a perfectly white expanse after a fresh snowfall. I remember leaving my house at 5:30 in the morning to a dark and silent world where the plows hadn’t even touched my street yet. With snow everything—stairs, sidewalk, flowerbeds, road, grass—becomes equal, just one flat white sheet. Trekking across this sheet I could glance behind and see the line of holes where I had marked the snow for the very first time. Or, if the storm was still raging, I could watch my impressions disappear beneath the blowing drifts.
Perhaps this is why the human soul enjoys creating so much. When presented with a blank canvas we have the opportunity to make the first marks upon it and then to look at what we have brushed (or written, or sung, or composed, or formed) onto it and realize that we have been granted the great privilege of creation. We receive this joy because we are created ourselves in the image of the Creator. God himself created, leaving the first footprints, as it were, upon the universe:
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. – Genesis 1:3-5
Ever since our creation, humankind has wanted to look behind us at the trail we have made. Those footprints represent a first action, something that has changed the world around us. We have left our mark upon it and, in the process, created something new. With grace we can look at our footprints and say, as God did, “It is good.”
Well, Can I Have a Hug?
8 JulWalking near my workplace yesterday I was stopped by a lady asking for money. The light had changed so I couldn’t cross the street and thus was unable to employ my usual strategy of walking past while looking straight ahead. She was fairly obviously unemployed at the moment, probably around 35, overweight, with some sort of mealy substance all around her mouth and chin as if she had just finished messily eating something. When she spoke it wasn’t in any of the normal voices of a beggar, not bitter and accusative or depressed and forlorn. In fact, it was almost the voice of a child.
“Sir, can you buy me a cold drink?”
“I’m sorry, I don’t have any money on me at the moment.”
She looked at me plaintively, and I could only reiterate, shrugging, what I had said, which was completely true.
“I don’t have anything on me right now.”
Now she paused for a second and then, looking at me again, asked:
“Well, can I have a hug?”
That simple question came out of nowhere. People don’t usually ask you for hugs on busy streetcorners in the middle of the day, especially not after asking you for money. What was I going to do? I gave her a hug, of course, saying:
“Yes, you can have a hug.”
At first I didn’t think she was going to let go of me, but then I realized she was just giving me a good, strong hug. What had I done for her? Nothing, as far as I can tell, but she seemed to think so. Maybe it was just the fact that I stopped on that busy corner and talked to her, though I had no idea who she was. Or maybe she asked everyone for a hug. Heaven knows this world could use a few more hugs in it.
As I walked on from the encounter, the light having changed, I realized what the gospels mean when they tell us that “Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). Sometimes events on this earth are too remarkable, too indicative of some unearthly bond between human beings, to ignore. Just a simple request for a hug, but I think it’s something I need to treasure up and ponder about.
