Today I realized I have become too American when I stopped inches from a glass door and waited for it to automatically open for me. (It never did.)
Archive | Observations 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: Domestic Issues
29 OctThere are obviously many more things at stake in the upcoming election than just issues of life and foreign policy. Rather than give you a full post on each of these issues, I am going to approach them in a less analytical fashion. This will be more along the lines of a reading list for the issues than in-depth arguments from me. While I will provide a few thoughts, especially on the Evangelical front, I challenge you to read the outside sources and think about each.
In the end, this post is less about Obama in specific than politics in general. While I do believe that Obama’s plans are superior in each of these areas, I know that not everyone will agree. What I think we do need to agree on is that neither political party is presenting unintelligent and disastrous policies. Both have firm ideological backing and logical reasoning behind their ideas.
If you have never been attracted to the other political parties’ ideas and ideologies, then you have never truly understood them.
I wish I could say that I was quoting someone famous there, but I made it up myself. Nevertheless, I still think it’s true. Just because someone embraces different policies than you, doesn’t mean those policies are ridiculous. It’s worth trying to understand why they chose their policies before you denounce them.
The Economy
Let’s start off with the economy, obviously a pressing topic at the moment. Democratic economic policies are often denounced as idealistic, unrealistic, or just plain stupid when one talks to conservatives about economics. Thus it was interesting to see this “op-chart.” Now before my Republican friends start jumping down my throat about this, you also need to check out the rebuttal. But why am I sharing this if the conclusions are actually irrelevant? There are two related points here:
- Neither party has a monopoly on good economic ideas, whatever they like to think.
- As Gray points out, the real number to look at is the “both” curve: the economy has fared extremely well in the long-run, with significant periods of time under both parties.
This is important because it shows that the best ideas come from a synthesis of economic theories pulled from both sides of the aisle. With this in mind, read the New York Times on Obama’s economic policies. The title of the article says a lot: “Barack Obama, A Free-Market-Loving, Big-Spending, Fiscally Conservative Wealth Redistributionist.”
(As a side note on that last word, and only because I’m forced to by the stupidity of certain political comments these days, let’s briefly look at the “socialist controversy.” If you remember your history, socialism is “an economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government.” If you read about Obama’s policies and listen to what he says, it is abundantly clear that he is not a socialist. Trying to link him to socialism is a ridiculous political ploy of the sort I had hoped we were past.)
So who is Obama when it comes to economics? He’s a conservatively trained yet liberal minded thinker. Being conservatively trained is important because conservative economic ideas—the market, lower taxes, and free trade—have obviously been enormously succesfuly. (And yes, I am not entirely happy with Obama’s stance on free trade, though he does have good arguments for his position.) But it is just as important, especially from an Evangelical perspective, to remember those in our society who are not as well-off. Obama represents an insightful combination of these two ideas, and one that I believe is the best choice for our economic future.
(See also this Economist article.)
Healthcare
Another issue over which the two Presidential candidates have argued a great deal is health care. It is a fairly important problem, especially for those who can’t afford it. Chances are that if you’re reading this entry you have reasonably affordable care, but it is essential that we don’t forget the thousands of Americans who aren’t lucky enough to be in the same position.
Americans often tend to have a very individualistic mentality when it comes to our lives, which may influence our approach to health care. The ending of this article on NPR hilites this:
Yet Rappaz looks puzzled when asked about people in the United States who say that it would be intrusive to mandate health insurance.
“I’m not sure that I get you,” she says, cocking her head.
When the question is put another way, she laughs. “Oh, I see. That’s really an American question. You are so used to having this individualistic way of thinking, and that’s why you don’t have these social [safety] nets. You still have this pioneer mentality where everyone has to take care of themselves.”
That’s not how people in Switzerland think about it, she says. That pioneer mentality, “is good for people who have no problems, but there are a bunch of people who … need a social net.
“I’m really happy to give part of my salary to a solidarity system,” she says.
There is nothing inherently wrong in a health care system that mandates (or provides) universal coverage. It is simply a different way of approaching the responsibilities of society for the individual. Before continuing, it is worth noting that Obama’s health care plan neither mandates or provides universal coverage, except for children, so even if you dislike the more socialized systems, they are still different from what Obama is providing.
Another interesting article is this NPR look at France’s health care system. This is especially fascinating considering the (conservative) American (irrational) dislike of France. Yet NPR makes a convincing case that our healthcare system lags far behind what France has. Clearly healthcare is something that we need to reform, and the more “liberal” ideas are not inherently bad.
Obama’s healthcare plan is an interesting combination of the free market healthcare system and a government managed system. It represents a nuanced approach to a tricky political and financial problem, combining both the increased efficiency of competition and the ability and responsibility of the government to provide a good for its citizens. The system is focused on insuring that everyone is able to acquire coverage, and that this coverage does not cost too much. It doesn’t give healthcare up to the whims of the free market, but it also doesn’t force a universal, government run healthcare system on American citizens.
Healthcare should be an important issue to Evangelicals, especially as we consider those who suffer because they are unable to afford care. Obama’s approach seeks to provide healthcare for these people without abandoning good policy ideas.
Immigration
Thankfully both Presidential candidates believe that our immigration system needs to be reformed. Thus I’ll keep my remarks on the issue short.
Obama’s position, and the Democratic one, is an excellent approach to the problem of immigration. On the conservative side (again, not including McCain), there is a tendency to forget that immigrants are human beings, even the illegal ones. This is not to say that we should let people into the country willy-nilly. But it does imply that our response to the current situation has to be both intelligent and compassionate.
As Evangelicals we must support policies that respect the humanity inherent in each individual. Instead of treating immigration as a border control issue, it should be an economic and moral issue. The solution isn’t to villify immigrants or shut out the world. The solution is to address the root causes and fix the immigration system, both of which Obama supports.
The Environment
The sad thing about the current political discussion of the environment is that it’s been eclipsed by the ridiculous Republican chants of “drill, baby, drill.” It boggles my mind that offshore drilling has been such a prominent part of the environmental debate when it is fairly obvious that it will not help. If you don’t want to take it from the media, you can go straight to the government report or let Colbert explain it to you.
In this respect, I find Obama’s position on the environment, and especially on alternative energy, to be extremely intelligent. There is an interesting quote at the end of this interview:
He [Obama] said, and it was a very… and it was a risky way to lay it out, he delivered some bad news. He said that for the last twenty years the economy has been running on easy credit and we couldn’t do that anymore, we had to figure out a new way to turbocharge the economy. His feeling was that it was going to be an alternative energy program, a big one, and he said that that was going to be his number one priority.
This is strikingly similar to the ideas about alternative energy presented by Thomas Friedman in his book The World is Flat. Over and over in his discussion of the environment, Obama returns to the idea of alternative energy. This is not to the exclusion of other ideas; he supports nuclear power, when done safely, and he believes in clean coal technology. Such an approach is nuanced, intelligent, and feasible.
There has been an encouraging movement in Evangelicalism recently which promotes the sustainable use of the environment. We were given creation by God in order to steward it for our own use. Stewarding it is going to necessitate sacrifice and intelligence as we approach the environment. Obama’s policies and positions evidence these qualities.
(As far as science more generally, I’ll let the Nobel Laureates speak for the scientific community.)
In Conclusion
None of these issues is a game changer in and of itself. But in each of these issues, Obama has a clear and nuanced approach that respects both sides of the debate. He strives to incorporate both conservative and liberal ideals in a ways that can benefit this nation. As president, these ideas and approaches would be invaluable for leading our country.
Note: Why comments are disabled on this post.
Worldviews, Values, and Change
23 OctThree related comments on the political process:
Worldviews
Worldviews are like numeral systems: it is far too common to become trapped in them. We are all used to counting numbers. It’s easy: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. But we forget that we are counting in a particular system, the decimal system.
A quick review, for those who have gone rusty on the idea of numeral systems. We have ten symbols in our counting system: 0 through 9. When we reach the number ten we run out of symbols and roll over to another place, resulting in 10. The 1 symbol is now in the tens place and therefore represents ten ones.
So far, so good. What we forget is that we don’t need to count in decimal. We can count in any system we like. Let’s count in binary, where we only have two symbols: 0 and 1. We start with 0, then go to 1, then go to 10. Whoa! Now the 1 symbol is in the same place it was before, but it represents one one instead of ten ones. Thus 10 now means two. If we count all the way to ten in binary we get 1010.
Or we can count in hexadecimal, which has 16 symbols: 0-9 and a-f. Counting up to the number nine is the same as in decimal, but when we get to ten instead of going to 10 we go to a. Then b is eleven, c is twelve, d is thirteen, e is fourteen, and f is fifteen. When we get to sixteen we roll over to 10. Now the 1 symbol represents sixteen ones.
OK, you get the point, but what does it have to do with worldviews? Well, like numeral systems, we tend to get stuck in worldviews. When you think about counting, you probably think about counting in the decimal system. But those are actually two different things: counting, and counting in a specific system. You could just as easily count in binary or hexadecimal or any other system.
That’s not to say that a worldview is bad. A numeral system isn’t bad either; the decimal system helps us understand counting and interpret and filter the numbers in the world around us. But we should remember that the decimal system is just one way of looking at counting. Similarly, a worldview is just one way of looking at the world around us. Other people may have other worldviews, and that doesn’t make them either right or wrong.
When it comes to politics, at least in America, we have two worldviews: Conservative and Liberal. We should remember that both worldviews want to do the same thing: improve America, just like all numeral systems want to count. Just because we don’t count like someone else counts, doesn’t mean they don’t count too.
Values
The Republicans like to talk a lot about “values” during election. We have “traditional values” and “family values” and “American values” and we’re told to “vote our values.” Sometimes, though, I think that the Republicans have forgotten exactly what the definition of what a value is. It seems like “values” has come to mean only a subset of values, usually comprising a conservative social agenda.
But if a value is something that I value, then the spectrum of my “values” is suddenly much broader. I value many things. Like conservatives I value life and family. But I also value liberty and change. I value education, honor, freedom, respect, calm, and many, many other things.
When people support Obama, they are supporting their values. They see in Obama many of the things that they value: leadership, intelligence, inspiration, steadfastness, and more. The Republican party holds no monopoly on values.
Change
Likewise, the Democrats like to talk a lot about change, especially during this election. They talk about bringing change to Washington without letting it change us and about changing America’s course. It’s worth remembering, however, that change never lasts.
Now before you denounce me as a cynic, let me explain: change is like a revolution. Once the revolutionaries are in power they are no longer revolutionaries. They may have forced their revolution, and brought about their change, but now they are the status quo.* It’s no longer change, it is now “what is.”
Change is a good thing in this election, and it is something that we need. But the Democrats should remember that once they bring about change they will need to govern too, and it is often a lot less popular to govern than it is to change things.
* This is not my observation. I remember reading it in an academic publication, but I can’t remember who the author was now.
Beauty in Concrete
17 OctI recently went to the Big Apple for a weekend, and thought I would post a couple panoramics generated from pictures I took. It’s fun to see them in comparison with my panoramics from Big Bend National Park. There’s beauty in both the rugged desert and the steel, glass, and concrete of the city. (And you photography snobs out there can just keep your thoughts on exposure and editing to yourself.)
Central Park, New York City, NY
New York Skyline from Liberty Island
The Conservative View
1 OctThe following was sent to me by a friend in response to my recent blog posts. While I’m not sure I agree with her conclusions on the issues of welfare, it is a Conservative viewpoint that I can respect. This is what Conservatives should be, not single issue voters but people concerned with how our government is run at all levels.
I have read on your blog opinions expressing frustration with the Republican Party. As a conservative Republican myself, I want people to know that I share their frustration. There are a number of shortcomings within the Republican Party; I work for a Republican politician who feels the same way. Therefore, I feel as if I need to stand up and explain why, with all the frustration they cause, I have not been moved to the center or to the left.
I know that being an evangelical Christian conservative is nothing out of the norm. However, many of those who bear this title are severely misguided or just unwilling to broaden their perspective and hear out all sides of issues (I think the same can be said of many liberals). I don’t count myself as one of these and I know plenty of others who do not fall into this category. Throughout this election, from the time I heard Senator Obama announce his candidacy live, I have been wondering what his actual policies are. He can certainly move a crowd (seriously, I almost cried) but after sitting and reflecting on what he said, I felt like there was not much substance. When Senator McCain emerged as the Republican nominee, I wanted substance and specific policies solutions from him as well. I want to know how they want to change America other than by winning a historic election. After doing some research and watching part of the debate last Friday, it’s starting to become clearer what their policy goals are, 19 months from the start and 2 months before Election Day. (Side note: I work in the legislative branch of government and still do not understand why in the world we get so caught up in presidential elections and presidential promises when the executive has no power to actually write law, it’s your locally elected Representative and Senators who do the lawmaking!)
I don’t doubt that politicians on both sides of the aisle are doing what they think is best based on their ideologies, which brings me to my main point. I am a conservative not because of abortion or life issues or homosexual marriage. I am a conservative because I fundamentally believe that caring for the poor, the homeless, the widows and the orphans is not the job of the government. This is the role of the church. Can you imagine how much the church could do if Christians gave and reached out through the church? The pastor of the church I grew up in has a vision for that church of being what he calls the “social center of kindness”—they have a café that serves affordable meals, a game room for youth to have a safe place to hang out, church members can “adopt” widows (at home and abroad), a community exchange for those looking to get rid of/ obtain furniture or other necessities, and he one day sees our church having a health clinic of sorts for those who can’t afford to go see the doctor on their own. The problem is, of the over 1200 members of the church, less than ten families tithe faithfully.
Reaching out to those in need is the church’s chance to show the love of Christ! When we abdicate that role and pursue policies which perpetuate reliance on government, we fail to do so. I work in government because I believe in the political process, in the average American having a voice in Washington, and in legislation and policy that can make our country a better place without increasing the size and scope of the government. I want to find a church where I can throw myself into volunteering because I see it as my duty as a Christian.
People say Republicans are cold hearted—they don’t care about poor people; they hate the environment; they’re a bunch of whiners in Congress this session. I would say only the last one of those statements is true. My heart breaks for those living in poverty. I don’t think a government program on the federal level is going to help. The same goes for universal healthcare. We live in a large, culturally and economically diverse country. A federal healthcare plan is not only huge and costly, but what works for Americans in New York is not necessarily what works for Americans in Kansas. In my conservative opinion, decisions and funding for programs such as these are better left to individual States.
I could go on with examples, but I hope my point is clear. The Republican Party has turned into an incoherent group of whiners who have no idea how to craft their message and cannot handle being in the minority. Still, fundamentally, I’m conservative and cannot agree with liberal policies proposed by the Democratic Party. I don’t think this means either side is going to hell for holding the political beliefs that they do
After the Debate
27 SepIn light of the first Presidential debate, which has survived many perils to actually occur, I would recommend the following reading to get the record straight for both the candidates:
Before reading those, however, you might read this article on ideology and evidence. What it says is worth keeping in mind, especially for those of us who already support a candidate. It is too easy to read the fact checks looking for things the opposing candidate did wrong and skimming over those parts that reflect badly on our candidate. I know I often find myself doing that. You have to carefully force yourself to read what is right and wrong about both sides.
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.
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.
A Few Capitol Facts
20 JulThanks to a wonderful friend in the office of Congressman J. Randy Forbes, I was treated to a tour of the White House yesterday. While it’s fairly obvious that you are being guided through as a rancher herds cattle through chutes, it is still fascinating to think about who has stood in “these halls of power.” A few interesting facts and observations:
- The White House uses energy efficient bulbs
- The wallpaper colors in the Green and Red Rooms are brilliant
- The Green Room contains a silver coffee urn owned by John and Abigail Adams and French candlesticks owned by James and Dolley Madison. It’s somewhat mind-boggling to see items and think that they were once used by some of our first presidents. (Europeans would probably scoff at my enthusiasm for two-hundred and fifty year old items, but, hey, we’re a young country.)
- President Cleveland is the only President to get married in the White House and did so in the Blue Room (which is mostly not blue).
- The piano in the entrance hall has carved eagles for its legs.
- The portrait of George Washington that Dolley Madison saved from the fire is significantly too big for her to have been the one that hauled it out, as the popular myth depicts. Luckily, the White House sets us straight on its website.
Having toured the White House, we decided that we shouldn’t give undue attention to the Executive Branch and decided to head over to the Capitol, where we got to walk straight by everyone on the “official” tours.
The Capitol is absolutely beautiful on the inside, especially the Senate side of the building, which is quite decorated in places. A few interesting things:
- If you go, check out the whisper effects in the old House meeting room, they’re very nifty.
- The frieze in the main rotunda is actually painted, not carved. It’s a beautiful piece of art.
- The main columns have corn at the top to depict both the ancient and the modern (agricultural?) aspects of the United States. I was very proud of myself for correctly identifying the crop at the top of another set of columns in the Senate rotunda: tobacco.
Finally, after completing the Capitol we decided to try and hit all three branches of the U.S. government in one day. Unfortunately the Judicial Branch is lazy and the Supreme Court building isn’t open on the weekends.
All in all, however, it was a fun time getting to see our nation’s seats of governance. I would heartily recommend anyone getting taking the tours. Just try to find yourself a friend on the Hill as good as mine.
