… A political strategy that depreciates the value of ideas in favor of some vague notion of the superiority of common sense and homespun, simple virtue undermines the foundations of democracy, the standing of the nation in the world, and the economic and technological prospects of a country.
From: Madison Powers at CQ Politics. But read the whole thing. It’s not all on one side!
I find it rather easy to answer the question of whether a Christian can vote for Obama. To summarize, a Christian can be politically liberal or even socialist, for that matter, and would presumably vote his or her beliefs. There is no requirement that a Christian be an American style conservative. Thus it should be noted that my vote is shaped by my values, which do not coincide with those of American conservatism today, especially on issues such as the war on terror, the environment, and immigration.
But I find it much harder to understand how a conservative can vote for Obama. I would guess that there are a couple of possible reasons. A conservative:
As someone who generally votes based on issues, and often finds the choice rather balanced because of my more or less center positions, I have a hard time comprehending some of these options, though real people hold the positions I noted.
One might look at this article from Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley. He plans to vote for Obama, and it doesn’t sound like he agrees with him very much on policy. His arguments focus on temperament and intellect, not on policies and positions. Some of the things he dislikes about the McCain campaign are the same as my objections, but those were not the deciding factors for me.
I should note, while linking to an article about how negative McCain has been, that he has tried to reign in his supporters a bit, as is shown in the following video (HT: brian d. mclaren):
I’ve been very disappointed in the way this campaign has gone. Not that it’s that much more nasty than any other campaign. As I recall from previous elections, things get pretty emotional and nasty. My disappointment has been in the candidates who could have done much better for the country.
Obama made a mistake, in my view, when he declined (or failed to arrange) the series of town hall meetings that McCain proposed. At the time the conventional wisdom was that it would have been McCain territory all the way. I don’t think so. I think things would have worked out well for the American people, and we might have gotten to hear the two men discuss issues.
But at this point McCain is definitely taking the lead in nasty, and that’s also a disappointment. In 2000, I had every plan to vote for him. The election was a done deal by the time he got to my state. I even considered very temporarily registering as Republican to vote in the primary.
Since that loss McCain has been pandering more and more to the right wing of the party, including folks he once condemned, such as Pat Robertson. If you want to know someone I think is a crazy associate, I’ll name Pat Robertson. It’s not that I think his ideas are the craziest around, but he also has a more substantial following than any of the crazier people I could name.
David Corn wrote a column on CQ Politics that expresses my thoughts about McCain better than I could. He says:
Many of the folks in charge of the McCain campaign don’t really care that much for him. Worse, they are treating McCain as a generic Republican candidate–smothering whatever once was special about him. And McCain has allowed this to happen. He has emasculated himself.
Just so. McCain isn’t really this nasty at heart and he can’t bring off this kind of criticism properly. Couple that with the fact that the criticisms that are front and center are pretty lousy fodder to work with and you have a losing strategy.
Normally one plays to the base in the primaries and broadens out in the general. I hear the calls of right-wing Republicans for a more vigorous tone and I have to wonder who they think they’re going to reach in that way. The people whose emotions engaged in that way are pretty much already engaged. You might get a few. But you also get moderates like me who are not entirely with Obama on policy issues and have seen McCain do some good things, but are turned off by smears and guilt by association.
David Corn discusses some of the groups that have endorsed McCain and the way the rallies are going, and then he says this:
But it’s hard to get over past hatred. And at the recent rallies, McCain supporters have been displaying disappointment that he has not been truly there for them–in that he has not pummeled Obama as the terrorist-hugging Socialist they know he really is. (And he’s probably a Muslim, too!) They appear to be worried that even after all that pandering McCain is still not one of them.
That’s the problem with pandering. It’s so very, very hard to pander enough to get the panderees on board. They are just so slow to forgive you for not being absolutely one of them. McCain’s well conceived plan to get some judicial nominations through the senate, for example, is not enough to endear him to liberals, but certainly enough to leave conservatives angry forever.
It’s a fundamental problem for politicians. Being yourself isn’t supposed to work. You have to be not all things to all people, but the right things to the right combination of people. If that’s not who you are, you may wind up looking out of place. That’s what McCain looks like to me.
Laura at Pursuing Holiness has a post titled How can Christians support Obama?. She begins:
I am frustrated almost beyond belief that any Christian can support Obama. . . .
She then outlines the reasons she has for believing that we cannot support Obama and provides links, describing these points as “well-substantiated.”
Laura’s post falls into a category that I’m not even bothering to read these days on either side of this election. I am frankly quite sick of the hostility and partisan, absolute certainty of so much of the blogosphere. But Laura writes quite a number of good things, and though I often disagree with her quite vehemently, she has enough of a reputation to get me to give it a read.
I was tempted to write, “Simple–just complete the arrow using the nice black marker provided. That’s how we fill out a ballot in this county.” And in Florida there might be a point. We do want to get our votes counted right this time. But I think I’ll respond a bit more.
I’m not going to respond point by point to the various charges, providing my own list of counter-links that I believe are reliable, or giving my own explanation. (It’s an explanation when I do it; spin when the other guy does.) I had to make a decision as to whether I was going to engage on all those issues during this election, and I decided not to, because I have better things to study. I still read some things about them, but I don’t report or pass the information on, because I believe if I did I would be obligated to back up what I say and respond to challenges. I don’t have the time. So if you want “the other side” you’ll have to search for it yourself.
What I have noticed here is that partisans on both sides simply use different sources of knowledge and different standards for their own candidate and the other candidate. To Democrats Barack Obama is ready for the job, even if they didn’t think so earlier. To Republicans he is dangerously inexperienced and unpredictable. Cue Sarah Palin and the positions reverse. There are plenty of nasty things out there about Sarah Palin, and quite frankly, the “substantiation” score is about equal, in my view.
I know neither Republicans nor Democrats will believe me, but that’s OK. Also, you may inundate me with links and proofs, but I’m really not taking much time, and when I do take the time I will read something from each side if at all possible, or use the more reliable sources, in my experience at places like FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com. (Cue accusations of bias against those sources.)
Here are several quick points. It’s not just that Christians are voting for Obama. Obama himself is a Christian. You may not like his brand, but he has expressed a Christian testimony openly. I’m not going to stand in judgment of that. I do not mean that one cannot judge actions; I’m simply saying that I accept that testimony itself at face value. So one could ask simply how could one Christian (me) vote for another Christian (Obama).
I would note here that I would give Obama equal consideration if he actually was Muslim, or atheist, or any other faith, though I doubt I would have the opportunity to vote for him in the general election. A Muslim or an atheist would never make it that far.
But let me get to another point. I reject completely the equation of Christianity with any particular form of politics. I do not accept that “socialist policies that will harm America,” (see Laura’s post) for example, are necessarily anti-Christian. Since I tend toward more capitalist policies myself, I would often argue that socialist policies will fail, but that is a failure of strategy, not of moral intention.
Further, we are not seeing an election of socialism vs capitalism, but rather a choice between two different mixes. There is redistribution of wealth now, and there will be after the election. The question is, how much, from whom, and to whom. I like Obama’s mix on that point better than McCain’s.
On one of the most important moral issues of redistribution, redistributing our expenses into the future through the national debt, I have no faith in the Republican party any more. Odd how they always talk about balanced budgets and reducing spending but when all is said and done the deficit goes up. Bill Clinton (Democrat!) actually managed to reduce it and produce a surplus. Odd that, no?
But let’s bring up the one nasty issue where I think the facts will not be in dispute–Rev. Jeremiah Wright. My only complaint there about Obama is that he ditched his pastor too quickly. I would have preferred that he express his disagreement with specific points but keep his friendship. At the same time I recognize this as a difficult decision. I do believe that from a political point of view Wright was a loose cannon. At the same time, I believe that we in America have no tolerance for a prophetic, convicting voice. I listened to the things for which Wright said America would be damned, and I found that list rather damning. Those are things of which we should repent!
But no, we don’t want to be criticized or questioned. We just want to be comfortable. Well, for me, Christianity is not about being comfortable. I’m not saying those who vote Republican are less entitled to the name “Christian” than I am, but I am saying that they are wrong, dead wrong, when they pretend that their vote supports Christian principles to a greater extent than those who vote for another party.
I plan to vote for Barack Obama because:
I think this list will be satisfactory to very few people. It will simply stir up all those points of disagreement. So let me answer the question more directly: I can vote for Barack Obama as a Christian because I agree with him on many more points than my conservative Christian friends (who are many) do. I have come to different political conclusions than they have. We all desire to follow Jesus, but we disagree on how.
Am I right? I think so, but that is obviously a subject for discussion. What I won’t do is discuss the accusation list. It’s much easier to produce an accusation than to rebut one, and not being a politician it’s a game I’m not obligated to play.
. . . was very relaxing.
I actually never watch these debates because they are more a tribute to those who plan the event than to anything that either candidate is capable of saying. I would like to see a debate which allows the two candidates to confront and challenge one another. The real story of these debates shows up in the polls of who won. It’s not about who knows more, it’s about body language and who manages to present himself better.
With reference to handling the campaign, where does experience apply? It seems to me that McCain has shown a massive inability to manage his own campaign or to choose the right people to do so. I started out the summer leaning toward voting for Obama but quite capable of being swayed. Both candidates have swayed me–negatively–but McCain more so than Obama.
If he was going to go negative, he needed to back it up at the debate. I can’t imagine that those supporters who heard him claim he would go after Obama during the debate are happy. (I base this both on transcripts and on analyst comments.) To someone who has watched politics for decades, this doesn’t look like a coordinated plan. The Republican party is not being well-served.
The senate has passed the bailout bill, and the house is expected it soon. I greet this event with seriously mixed emotions.
I do believe that responsible legislators, should there be any, needed to support quick action, and because the action was quick, and because it was in response to a crisis, it is likely to be much less than perfect. Also, by the time you make all the compromises necessary to pass a bill quickly, the result is going to be substantially less than ideal.
But while it is necessary at this point, this bill also reflects much of the financial mismanagement of which our government is guilty. I do blame both parties on this, though in different ways. (In my oft-repeated phrase, that’s another post.)
The compromise results in borrowing more money, handing out more authority to executive agencies without adequate supervision, and in other measures that will serve to increase the deficit and our growing national debt. It seems that whatever good intentions the legislators start with, every bill ends up with us spending more and going deeper into debt.
As a stop-gap, perhaps $700 billion, along with an extra $100 billion or so in tax cuts will help temporarily. But we cannot go on forever behaving in this fashion. Sometime things have to be paid for. Democrats want the government to do more, and at least they admit it. Republicans talk about smaller government but continually expand it, and also tend strongly to increase executive power.
So while I believe this was necessary as a short term solution, I believe that we, as a nation, should feel like the consumer who has just charged his power bill by maxing out his last credit card–it can’t go on. Something has to give.
I was interested in watching the reactions to the debate the other night. No, I didn’t watch it, so I’m not going to give any opinion about who won or lost, or who was right.
But in the blogs to which I subscribe I found two posts that were very interesting to me. The questions involve just which candidate is more “presidential.” Of such very subjective judgments many votes are crafted. A president might be chosen because too many people didn’t like how many times he looked at his opponent in a debate, or his use of a first name.
The first reaction was from Brian McLaren. Not too surprisingly he found that Obama’s performance was more presidential.
The second was from C. Michael Patton. Quite unsurprisingly he thought McCain was the most presidential.
Go read them both. I have no idea what set of mannerisms would indicate that someone was truly presidential. I’ve never made a voting decision on that basis. I think leadership can come in many styles, and in some cases a good leader might be a lousy debater or speaker. Each thing is a factor, but I have a hard time figuring out just what would constitute “presidential” behavior.
Both of the men to whom I linked are intelligent Christian leaders and are good writers. I really enjoy both of their writing on religion and politics, though I obviously disagree with each on a number of items. It seems to me that they interpreted the mannerisms of the candidate that they already favored positively, and those of the other man negatively.
I’ve noticed this tendency in reporting. It’s one of the reasons I’ve started limiting my reading to FactCheck.org and PolitiFact on anything that’s about campaign politics, in which I include ads, claims, counter-claims and so forth, rather than substantive policy discussion. So much material on all sides simply appears to me to amount to putting the best construction possible on things said by your own side and the best worst [see comments] possible construction on things said by the other.
I don’t think it’s possible to shed bias completely, but I think we ought to ask ourselves just what we would think of the same actions or the same words if they were spoken by our own favored candidate.
Up, folks, always up.
Those who know me as a moderate (which I prefer) or as a liberal (which I am often called) may be surprised to know that I started my political activism by working in the campaign of Ronald Reagan in 1976 when he ran against Gerald Ford. It was the first presidential election in which I would vote, and I registered as Republican. I worked as a precinct worker, which is to say mostly that I stood at the polling place on election day and tried to get people to change their vote to Reagan. It was Maryland, and I found it an uphill battle.
The key thing that attracted me to Reagan was his $90 billion plan to balance the budget, as I remember it. I get a bit nostalgic when I think of those days, when only a $90 billion shift would have balanced the budget. It was a pretty controversial idea. Reagan lost, of course, though he did very well considering he was running against an incumbent president.
By 1980 Reagan was running again and he had discovered supply side economics. No longer was the plan so much to balance the budget by carefully planning your taxation and spending. Now we were going to solve all our problems by reducing taxes and watching the revenue grow as the economy expanded.
I don’t think supply side is totally without merit–quite. In general a less taxed economy is going to collect capital faster and grow faster. But it wasn’t the easy solution many thought it would be. It became the Republican excuse to spend without paying for it, and the deficit grew, and grew.
I’ve heard a good deal of talk about redistribution in this campaign, and the truth is that no matter which slate of candidates we elect, we’re going to be redistributing income. It’s worked all through the system. I find it pretty disingenuous to argue that one should vote for a particular candidate because the other favors redistribution. It’s really a question of whose money gets redistributed and who benefits (if anyone) from it.
In the case of deficit spending we’re doing some redistribution in a sense. We’re redistributing our problems into the future, and we’re doing so quite rapidly. The problem is that nobody wants to buckle down and actually pay the costs for the programs that they advocate, Democrat or Republican. Either telling people they can’t have certain things because there is no money, or telling them they’ll have to pay more taxes is generally a losing strategy in an election. At best, you can get by with what Barack Obama is doing by telling only a minority that they will pay higher taxes.
There’s an interesting analysis of the tax proposals from the Tax Policy Center, and the results don’t look all that good.
I don’t blame the current economic problems directly on deficit spending. Rather, I would suggest that we will face much worse problems in the future unless we start to be in a fiscally responsible manner. The proposals we have from the major candidates are not responsible, in my opinion.
Crossposted to RedBlueChristian.com.
First I want to say that my thoughts and prayers are with the folks who experienced Hurricane Ike. Having lived through a couple of interesting storms, such as Ivan and Dennis, I empathize with their position. I’m not very good at writing condolence blog posts, largely because I think they are empty gestures for the most part, but sometimes we can’t help making a gesture, even if it’s pretty empty.
In the “not making it empty” category, let me provide the United Methodist Committee on Relief hurricane response page. I complain about many things in the Methodist church, but when it comes time for relief, they’re the ones I trust. There are donation buttons on the page.
What got me writing, however, was this story from MSNBC.com, really a totally unremarkable, even routine story, but one that bothers me.
Why is it that we expect politicians and national leaders to make a personal appearance in a disaster area? What good does it do? Please note that this is not a criticism of President Bush. This expectation that our leaders will show up and sympathize in person and “assess the damage fore themselves” seems to be well-nigh universal. Any mistakes in this area are politically costly.
But the people who really do assess the damage are professionals who are quite efficient, I believe, and one gets a much better picture of the damage for management purposes from their work. The people who actually help are the folks who show up to restore power, rebuild, clear roads, and so forth.
I recall our elation when the power company trucks showed up on our street–actually at a friend’s place to which we had gone ahead of the storm. They were from Quebec, a long ways from home, and we were glad to see them. I can’t imagine that I would have welcomed a tour by the president in a similar way.
I’m sure it’s an emotional relief, a sense that someone with power cares about us in our hour of need, but I confess I have never comprehended it. I’d be much happier with a president and various management level folks hanging out at headquarters and managing, while the folks who do the work travel to the area and do their jobs.
I’d be interested in other people’s thoughts. Do managers really handle such a situation better after they fly by some of the damage? Is any understanding they may gain tangible and measurable?
So much of the way in which we understand language, not to mention pretty much everything else, is simply context.
Thanks to the folks at Language Log we have a discussion of how Sarah Palin was taken out of context when some claimed that she thought we were on a God ordained mission in Iraq. A simple matter of understanding both the situation and reading the whole passage is all that is necessary to understand what is being said here.
At the same time we have ridiculous attacks on Obama regarding sex education for kindergarten children and the “lipstick on a pig” thing. There is so much really stupid stuff being said one can hardly keep up. I’ve been limiting my reading on most of these issues to Politifact and various headlines. I note that Politifact has a very large number of “pants on fire” ratings right now, as well they should.
But the fact is that the entire election is out of context, and apparently there are few people who are willing to look at things in their context. The special pleading from all sides is truly astounding, and I have a very hard time believing that the folks who write or say all this believe what they’re saying.
When it comes to politics, the technology of the information age is facilitating a misinformation age.
Demand better!
