Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Politics

  • The Problem with Revenge

    It’s 9/11 and the events eight years ago are on most people’s minds. Many Christians will be praying today, as my wife wrote in her devotional. What will those prayers consist of? What is a Christian response?

    Shortly before the second gulf war began, I wrote an essay simply titled Revenge! I want to quote from it here:

    As a nation, we have been living in the role of Michael Palin’s character. We see the bad guys in our sights and we shout “Revenge!” in the hope that when revenge has taken place we will be safer, life will return to pre-9/11 normalcy, and we can forget all about this extra security. Most of us know this won’t be the case, but that doesn’t stop the wishful thinking.

    This was illustrated during the bombing of Afghanistan, and later during the ground war. Repeatedly the reporters would ask various military spokesmen whether they had caught or killed Osama bin Laden yet. The answer? Nobody knew. But why was that the question? Did we really think that a bombing campaign could be so targeted as to kill a single individual? Sure, he might die, but bombs are not weapons of assassination in the normal course of events. Did we think that if Osama were caught or killed that the terrorism would end? Surely we aren’t that naive!

    But there is that little program in our brains that wants to yell “Revenge!” and expects that life will be a little sweeter when it is accomplished.

    In some ways we face a similar situation with Iraq. I know there is a powerful motivation for revenge. I am a veteran of the 1991-1992 gulf war. It annoys me every time I see Saddam Hussein expressing himself on television. I confess I wouldn’t mind having the driver’s seat of a steam roller with Saddam’s feet stuck in setting cement. I’d yell “Revenge!” and “Take that!” and roll over him, and on the other side I’d feel good!

    But then would my family be any safer? Would my country be more secure? Would anything be more normal when all was said and done? Very likely not.

    I need to let that resentment go. I need to tone down the shout “Revenge!” I need to consider what will actually make things more secure.

    Now my point here is not to reiterate my opposition to the war in Iraq. My point is simply this. The command of Jesus to love our enemies extends even to terrorists. While I don’t think that denies that there should be consequences for evil actions that people take, nor do I believe it prevents justice and security measures, what it should prevent, amongst Christians, is the idea that revenge can get us anywhere.

    Vengeful attitudes and fear distort our judgment and prevent us from seeing the best approach. I am not a pacifist, but I strongly believe that we are much too inclined to resort to violence and often to apply violence in the wrong way, often because what we are really seeking is not reasonable security but revenge and a diversion from our fears.

    As a follower of Jesus I think it is my duty to let forgiveness clarify my thinking and to let love guide my actions. That’s not easy in the world today, but I think it’s the call.

    A Response: Elgin Hushbeck has written a short response, but the trackback somehow didn’t happen. I always find Elgin an interesting and challenging dialog partner. I should note (full disclosure and all) that my company, Energion Publications, publishes his book, Preserving Democracy.

  • Left Wing Closed Mindedness

    I was asked recently in a comment for examples of shrillness from the left, and I didn’t respond at the time. The reason for that is simple. When I talk about right wing shrillness I hear from conservatives about how I’m ignoring the left. When I talk about left wing shrillness I hear from liberals about how I’m ignoring such behavior on the right. Simultaneously, each side will claim that their particular shrillness is justified, whereas the shrillness of the other side is not.

    By “shrillness” I do not mean strongly expressed opinions. A commenter left a link to this rant by Josh Rosenau. Now Josh uses language that I would not use, but nonetheless he rants substantively about issues that matter to him. Is it easy to take if you’re on the other side on some issue? Not at all. But he gives you something to discuss.

    Now in case someone missed it along the way, I have a certain appreciation for libertarians. I would describe myself in politics as independent, moderate in many things, but with a decided libertarian lean. So when Republicans want to reduce government interference in some area of economic life, I’m with them. When Democrats want to protect individual liberties, I’m with them. But when they each get into culture wars–and both groups spend more time in that territory now than ever before, or so it seems to me–then I am not with them.

    So herewith a left wing example, brought by Radley Balko of Reason magazine. I’m going to link to his two posts. My only comment is that the article written by the CEO of Whole Foods to which he refers is a substantive capitalist contribution to the health care debate, the sort of thing that should be taken on point by point by those who disagree, but the reaction is something completely different. As a moderate, I strongly object to making something into a simple two-sided issue. I can oppose the current health care bill (once it can be identified!) without thinking that the status quo is acceptable.

    Again, Balko uses some language that I would not, but he makes very good points, in my view.

  • On End of Life Counseling

    Since I blogged two days ago about my opposition to certain phraseology used by Rev. Jim Wallis, I want to say something about the quote to which he is responding.

    I find the “death boards” complaint about health care easily the least well-founded and most damaging of the issues. There is good reason to discuss health care and how we can provide it for the uninsured. I think there is good reason to debate the public option. In fact, there are many things that are questionable.

    But a provision providing for payment for end of life counseling is a good idea, no matter who is footing the final bill. Setting aside the issue of who should pay, end of life counseling can be extremely important and can greatly improve quality of life.

    I have sensed that many people have a great deal of difficulty facing these issues. I used to be one of them. I didn’t want to disuss it. I didn’t want to think about it. I think many fear to deal with these issues, but I can’t be sure what someone else is thinking. I was afraid.

    Being married to a nurse who was a hospice nurse and then director of education for a local hospice organization for 12 years, and then living through the death of a child has changed my attitude.

    The worst possible thing at end of life is to face the choices you must make without having planned ahead of time. In order to plan ahead of time, you need good information. I remember sitting in an oncologist’s office one day with our son forcing him to be explicit about the numbers and the value of various treatment programs. You have to know that the information is there and then get it.

    I have now made a living will, and I encourage everyone, young or old, to do so. It will give you peace of mind to think about the issues and make your decision. I’m not trying to tell you what decision to make; I’m simply suggesting you think about the issues, make the decisions, and put your will in writing.

    Might a doctor discuss things in a counseling session that I might not regard as moral? Certainly. Should that session be government censored? I strongly believe it should not be. It is interesting to me that there are people who very strongly oppose anything that might get between doctor and patient and their choice in general (though insurance companies do this all the time), yet they don’t want government insurance to provide for this kind of counseling, if there is a government insurance option.

    My own decision is that in very few cases would I support heroic measures to extend my life. That doesn’t mean that I would not choose surgery or chemotherapy based on the best medical device. But if prolonging my life involves hooking me up to a machine permanently, I’m not interested.

    It’s odd that some people seem to think that this is an attempt to choose the time of my death. I think the reverse, that technological efforts to keep a body that would otherwise have given up may well be the case of trying to force my continued life after God has chosen for me to go.

    I hope to leave this world not kicking and screaming, but rather rejoicing.

  • Jim Wallis Wishes Sarah Palin Ill

    Shane Raynor reports on a blog post by Rev. Jim Wallis on Sarah Palin in which he says:

    Please don’t invoke your “Christian faith” anymore and embarrass the people of God even further. May your efforts to scare Americans during this important debate fail. May your political future also fail, and may your star fall as fast as it rose just a few months ago — because we now know who you really are.

    I thoroughly disapprove of the statement that Sarah Palin made which triggered this quote, yet I think a Christian and particularly one Biblically educated should not use the phraseology used. It is the language of cursing. It sounds very different to me than simply stating that one hopes Sarah Palin is not successful in seeking higher office.

    I’m not sure of the remedy, though apology seems to be at least one step, but I’m certain that this is not the type of language I like to read. I have considerable respect for Rev. Wallis in many areas, but this is disturbing and inappropriate.

    I was even more disturbed by a comment to Shane Raynor’s post in which the commenter suggests that Raynor is in a glass house throwing stones.

    I can’t speak conclusively to Shane Raynor’s fairness, though I have always found him to be fair in his blog posts, though I do frequently disagree with him. The problem is this: We all live to some extent in glass houses. I have previously apologized for things I said on this blog, and there are perhaps things that remain for which I should apologize.

    Yet we cannot clean up dialog if we can never speak about such things simply because someone who is perceived to be on the same side has also said something wrong. Yes, we should notice the problems of both sides, but we can’t let that keep us from dealing with the problems at all.

    There are some very serious issues involved in the health care debate, and they are getting drowned out. I don’t see that as the fault of only one side. There are certainly people over the edge on both sides. We neither need to defend them, nor do we need to be silenced by embarrassment at their actions.

    And when those of us who wish to see constructive dialog step across the line of civility, we need to be prepared to apologize. The idea that a misstatement, such as an exclamation made (or even written) in anger should be the end of the road is another destructive view in American politics. To err is human; it’s only a problem if one sticks stubbornly with one’s errors.

  • Right to Protest – Not to Drown Out

    Ed Brayton has some good comments on the protests at town hall meetings:

    On the subject of these protests, I say the same thing I’ve said many times before when the shoe was on the other foot, when the protesters were left wing and the speakers were right wing: You have a right to protest but you do not have a right to disrupt an event, drown out a speaker or prevent an event from taking place.

    At the same time, I think Democrats have been too eager to paint such protesters with too broad a brush. It is undoubtedly true that there is some astroturfing going on, with large interest groups with a stake busing people around and making it look like a totally grassroots effort. It’s also obvious that some of the protesters are just plain nuts or too stupid to take seriously.

    But that doesn’t mean that everyone who shows up at a townhall meeting to express their concerns or disagreements with the healthcare reform efforts is an idiot, or that they’ve been bought off to go there or bussed in some big group. There are legitimate reasons to question many provisions in the various healthcare reform bills in Congress and legitimate debate to be had on what the best way might be to reform the system.

    Just so! Ed is pretty much equal opportunity in sticking it to the right, left, and center when he thinks they deserve it.

    I would add that fake townhall meetings where questioners throw softballs to politicians they pretty much agree with are not conducive to the debate either. But it doesn’t seem to me like we are getting the kind of debate that is needed. Thus I would say that whether I like it or not, if people are ruled out by the politicians, they are likely to take their protests to the level of drowning out.

    For example, who is inserting the supply issue into the debate, as in the supply of primary care. More nurse practitioners and a greater supply of physicians would also change the cost of health care, but I don’t hear much about that. It appears to me that we are again holding a debate within the constrained walls of the existing special interests, left and right, and not really looking at all potential solutions.

  • The Trouble with our Alternatives

    Allan Bevere has preempted by writing about something I was intending to discuss and doing it better. He does this by discussing current protests and reactions to them in his post Town Hall Meetings Protests and Tone-Deaf Politicians. I have been repeatedly amazed by the extent to which both sides of many debates are completely oblivious to the ways in which they use one another’s arguments each time the roles are reversed.

    I would add a couple of points of my own. First, though I understand what has driven Allan to support term limits, I have little faith in them. I see little benefit resulting where they are in force. I believe that the only possible solution is a better educated voter, intelligently involved in the process. As long as a substantial and deciding portion of the voting public makes decisions based on hype and spin, we will continue to make bad decisions.

    Second, and I think a corollary to this, is that politicians and voters in general really love an ad hominem approach to the political debate. We believe what people say if they’re on our side. We smear groups with the actions of some. The tea party protesters are smeared because some participants cross a line, as they did in Jacksonville, but ACORN is smeared because some people that they hire cut corners and engage in fraud.

    I’m fairly certain that someone on either side will tell me that I am not comparing similar things here, but I have yet to see a fair and careful evaluation in either case. It might turn out that one group is truly as evil as someone thought, but the evidence has yet to be produced. In addition, my argument is not based on which, if either, turns out to truly be in the wrong. The issue is that so many people have made the decision based not on evidence, of which most of us have very little, but on a perception of whose side each group (or random aggregation, as the case may be) is on.

    My suggestion here is that a debate that so constantly turns to an ad hominem approach can hardly be expected to produce rational results. That’s the trouble with our alternatives. I would gladly vote the Democrats out of office, but then the Republicans would take over. I would gladly vote the Republicans out of office, but then the Democrats would (and have) taken over.

    The great equivalence, in my view, is that neither party is willing to have their sacred cow programs examined for effectiveness. They just have a different list of programs they hold sacred. Thus I am an independent, even though here in Florida that excludes me from primaries.

  • Military Action – Limits of Moderation

    I’m pretty fond of moderation, even calling myself a passionate moderate, but in that very phrase, you might get the idea that I’m even moderate about being moderate. My moderation is not centrist, in the sense of trying to find middle ground on each issue. Rather, I believe in trying to examine all the options in order to find the best. One might say it’s more of a perspective than a conclusion.

    Today Taegan Goddard’s political wire gives the quote of the day from Senator Lindsey Graham:

    We made mistakes in Iraq. Let’s not Rumsfeld Afghanistan. Let’s not do this thing on the cheap.

    War is not something to be pursued moderately. I’m probably opening a can of worms here, but I’m going to suggest two things. First, that war should be pursued by a nation only when it is truly the only workable option, and one should be certain it is workable, else it isn’t actually an option. Second, if one chooses to pursue war, one should pursue it to success.

    I would issue yet another caveat to my second point: You must be certain that success as you define it is actually possible. The greatest problem of the Iraq war, in my view, was that it was charged with a set of goals that simply were not and are not going to happen. (To those who claim victory at this point, let me point out that if Iraq becomes a base of terrorism in the future, or the government is unstable, what we set out to do was not done.)

    The problem is that our response to opposition to a war is often to pursue it more gingerly, in a more limited fashion. When one goes to war, but doesn’t commit the resources to succeed, then one has simply killed lots of people for no purpose.

    Is Afghanistan salvageable? I don’t really know at this point. I think one of the greatest strategic errors of the war on terror was moving into Iraq without truly completing the military goals in Afghanistan. But if we simply stay and fight with less resources than are needed, all we are doing is prolonging the agony.

    War is not something to be pursued moderately. It should be pursued to success, or not at all.

  • Not Hating Sarah Palin

    Mary Fairchild has a post today titled Sarah Palin: Why Some Love Her and Others Hate Her.

    Along with some other discussion, she writes:

    …Personally, I think it might have something to do with her allegiance to another kingdom, her ‘higher calling.’ As a follower of Jesus Christ, could it be that Sarah Palin knows her mission? If she recognizes her membership in God’s heavenly kingdom, that charge would come before any duties of this earthly realm. If she is committed to the call of God on her life, a sense of divine purpose would give her boldness and uncompromising courage to do the Lord’s will, no matter what this world expects—just like John the Baptist.

    Now let me be clear. I think a complete commitment to Jesus Christ, in fact, even a complete commitment to being an ethical person, will bring one into conflict with the culture. One may be despised or hated for doing what is right.

    Further, the gospel does offend our selfish human nature. It offends our sense of fairness. Grace, after all, is not fair. It’s wonderful to receive, but doesn’t follow our rules concerning what one deserves.

    But it is dangerous to reverse those propositions. Just because a follower of Jesus Christ will offend doesn’t mean that everyone who offends is a follower of Jesus Christ. Nor does it mean that when a follower of Jesus Christ does offend, it is the gospel, or their discipleship that is offending.

    I have seen this repeatedly in evangelism. I hear it regularly from people who report on evangelism. Someone talks about Jesus and then reports that people were offended. Yet very often, if one listens to the details, there are many things that are offensive that are not part of the gospel. It might be pride, a desire to be acknowledged as “right,” an unwillingness to listen, or hurtful remarks. We must be careful to make sure that if anything in our lives and work offends, it is the gospel that is doing the offending, and not our own offensiveness.

    But all of this might not be relevant to the discussion of Sarah Palin. Is her commitment to Jesus Christ what distinguishes her from all other politicians? Is she the “greater” disciple who draws more hate?

    I do not want to judge her discipleship, but I certainly see many other politicians who also make the claim that they are followers of Jesus. There are other Republicans who share her political philosophy and profess to be disciples, yet they do not draw the same reaction. There are others all across the spectrum who make the same claim and again, they do not draw the same reaction.

    There are many things on which I would disagree with Sarah Palin. I don’t find her or her political philosophy all that attractive. At the same time, I was amazed at the strength of the antagonism that she drummed up. So while I don’t think it is her discipleship that is her distinguishing problem, I do think there is a phenomenon here that needs some explanation.

    I’m going to suggest the word “frustration.” There are several other factors that contribute to the result, but I think the thing that brings people’s blood to a boil about Palin is that it is so hard to explain her attraction to someone who doesn’t agree or see it.

    This frustration would be fairly ordinary, but there are some factors that feed into it. First, the media gets fascinated by fascinating figures. Palin was a surprise nomination, and there was some bungling in how she was handled. That’s like blood in the water to the media sharks. So, second, they attack.

    The attacks fuel responses and help set these feelings in concrete. If the left had really wanted to see Palin diminish as an issue, they should have stayed away from exaggerated attacks and rumors. But the right should have done the same thing with Barack Obama. Despite huge differences in personalities, stories, and political views, I think very similar frustration has fueled hysterical anti-Obama rhetoric on the right. Those on the right simply could not and cannot understand Obama’s personal popularity.

    But frustration alone doesn’t explain it. The frustration and fascination fueled frenzy has turned Sarah Palin into a symbol. She is now, like it or not, something beyond herself. To argue details of her intelligence or character will generally miss the point. She is a symbol of the Republican right, and the right and the left along with the media share the credit–and the blame–for putting her in that position.

    If I might illustrate with the story of Joe the Plumber, who is really a rather ordinary man. He asked a fortuitous question and was rocketed to fame–as a symbol. Again, those who want to argue that Joe the Plumber is not all that bright (or that he is), or who looked for deficiencies in his tax returns and licensing during the campaign completely missed the point.

    Knowing that his business isn’t going to make a particular amount of money or that he didn’t have a plumbing license was again quite irrelevant and only served to harden and brighten the symbol. Liberals could laugh about “Name the profession“, but there were thousands of people who identified with the symbol.

    Those who don’t get the symbol, whether it’s Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, or Joe the Plumber will find the whole situation frustrating, because they see any character or policy flaws as disqualifying. But they do so because they don’t identify with that particular symbol.

    I don’t think we can explain hatred of Sarah Palin based on any single characteristic. I think it is dangerous to suggest that what distinguishes her is her commitment to the gospel. That tends to make the gospel an inextricable part of her political philosophy.

    Like it or not, Sarah Palin has become a symbol. Whether or not she can use that fact to carry her to national office remains to be seen. But people should not make the assumption that she can’t.

    Symbols are dangerous things, often much more powerful than he realities on whom they rest.

  • My Country, Right or Wrong?

    Back in 2007 I wrote a post about patriotism in which I said:

    I’m going to annoy quite a few people with this post, but I have noticed for a number of years that Christians in America often conflate Christianity and American patriotism. …

    I didn’t post on July 4th this year, but I did continue to think about this just a bit. What allegiance do I owe my country?

    I think it is clear that a disciple of Jesus owes his or her allegiance first to the kingdom of heaven, and only second to any earthly power. The question automatically comes up as to whether I am a reliable citizen of my own country if that country does not have my first allegiance.

    Some might think this was an accusation to be used by the anti-religious against Christians. But I think that suggestion is perhaps a bit too hasty.

    Let’s take my father as an example. He was a Seventh-day Adventist and objected to bearing arms in war. As a Canadian during the 2nd World War, he was denied a request to be given a medical role. Since he still refused to bear arms, he was given alternative service, so to speak, planting trees for he war. Many people despised young men such as that, thinking them cowards.

    This is a case here the laws of the land, in this case Canada, conflicted with someone’s understanding of the laws of God, and he chose to obey God rather than men. As such, he was certainly a less reliable citizen of the country–from one point of view–than those who were willing to do whatever their country demanded of them.

    Many were in a similar situation in the United States. In the churches I attend, most people make the assumption that the patriotic–and Christian–thing to do is to serve your country in time of war. To them, it’s just right.

    I served in the U. S. Air Force for 10 years and was honorably discharged. (I became a U. S. Citizen when my parents were naturalized when I was 12 years old.) For many people this is an indication that I am truly a patriot. (Well, some of my Marine friends think that service in the USAF is a substitute for real military service, which can only be performed in the Marines!)

    Now let me note that I am proud of my service to my country. I’m no hero. I just served honorably and moved on. But I am also very proud of my father’s service to his country.

    No, I’m not talking about the service of planting trees, though that is what was required of him. I’m talking about his service of obedience to his conscience.

    I don’t know if patriotism is the right word. It gets used in so many ways. But often love of one’s country is defined in terms solely of obedience. I think the most valuable citizen is one who gives country the value of his or her mind and conscience.

    You see, I don’t think this should just be a Christian issue. The greatest danger to a country, I think, is a citizenry that accepts “my country, right or wrong” as their approach to decision making. That is the road to tyranny.

    I have a hard time imagining the ethical atheist giving first allegiance to country either. If you give first allegiance to your country you abdicate your responsibility to make ethical decisions. Face it, sometimes an ethical decision is going to disagree with what the country orders.

    Let me bring up a more recent example. Supposing you have legal authorization to torture, as some people thought they did under the previous administration. Your superiors order you to do so. The relevant folks support their decision as lawful. What is your duty to your country?

    I think there is no doubt as to what the ethical person should do, on the assumption that you are opposed to torture. You would have to refuse to participate, and I personally would fell obligated to take measures to try to prevent such a policy from continuing. (While I do not find any convincing arguments in favor of permitting the use of torture, that is not my point here.)

    A country that wants ethical citizens should endeavor to make room for such ethical decisions and actions.

    Let me illustrate this from another ethical issue. Quite a number of physicians would consider it immoral to perform abortions. (My father, true to his principles, also rejected abortion absolutely.) Many Catholic physicians have objections to providing birth control services. Some believe that the law should require all doctors to provide all services, in other words, it would be illegal for a physician to decline to provide a service he or she found morally reprehensible.

    I believe such a law would tend on the one hand to create immoral and unethical citizens, while on the other forcing those who are ethical out of those professions.

    The best thing for the country is to make such ethical decisions possible. The best thing for each individual is never to abdicate such decision making to others.

    My country–when right. Otherwise I owe my country my best judgment.

  • Chuck Baldwin on Assaults on Personal Liberties

    I frequently disagree with Chuck Baldwin, and am disturbed when I see the forest of American flags that appear frequently around his church. I live near enough that I drive by that church frequently. But in this article he is absolutely on target.

    One of my great hopes for the Obama administration was an improvement in our foreign policy, less dependence on the use of force overseas (especially an end to the Iraq war), and greater support for certain civil liberties. The Republicans always seem to be after one set of our liberties, while the Democrats go after another. I hoped that perhaps we would improve just by shifting the sets. Of course we’re in real trouble when some liberty becomes the target of both parties, as is too frequently the case.

    In particular, I would mention warrantless wiretapping, on which then Senator Obama himself flipped during the campaign, and which should be blamed both on the Republican administration for proposing and carrying it out, and on the Democrats in congress for failing to blow the whistle and work effectively against it.

    The people who can truly call a Republican administration to task are the conservatives; those who can call a Democratic administration to task are the liberals, and libertarians can get in there in both cases. We’d better get to it!