Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Politics

  • The Right Type of Accountability

    I’m an advocate of accountability, especially in church matters and our spiritual lives. I think it makes for wiser decision making and greater likelihood that we will carry out our goals. Accountability can come in many forms, from very formalized, such as an accountability group that meets regularly in which you question one another’s spiritual life, or simply telling friends and family what it is that you’ve determined to accomplish. The value of these types of accountability varies, of course.

    The Washington Post has an article on accountability, which quotes experts to tell us a number of things about accountability that may seem like common sense, but in government at least we don’t seem to follow them. Perhaps having a few PhDs say these things will help!

    This article quotes Jennifer Lerner, now moving to the Kennedy School of Government, as saying that the wrong type of accountability can produce the opposite effect to what was intended, and notes,

    What she and numerous other experts have found is that particular types of accountability are needed for particular situations. Get the nuances wrong, and accountability backfires on you.

    In particular candidates in either party may be drawn to the left (Democrats) or the right (Republicans) by the voters who will get them nominated, and then feel accountable to those voters once elected. Thus they may do things that please that constituency, to whom they are accountable, rather than what they actually believe is right.

    Accountability may also make the decision maker favor things that are easier to explain, even when those things are not necessarily better. The article cites medical decisions, in which a physician may choose the course of action that would be easiest to explain in a lawsuit, for example, over what he or she truly believes is the best choice. From my own experience with the medical profession I suspect this would result in favoring a traditional, well-established course of action over something newer but potentially more effective.

    Of course it should be no surprise that accountability that kicks in before and during the decision is more effective than accountability that kicks in afterwards. We needed a good deal of research to figure that one out! But it is something we don’t always notice. Once a decision has been made, we’re more likely to spend our time justifying what we have done than in reflecting on what we may have done wrong. Questioning often simply hardens our stance on that matter as we get defensive.

    To relate this directly to church, consider the conflict between a forward looking ministry team and a hard-headed finance committee. We have the faith versus sight debate in full swing, with the ministry folks assuring the finance folks that they are following God’s leading and that God will provide for their need, and the finance folks pointing to the budget. Where is wisdom? I think each being accountable to the other is a good thing. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer.

    But that kind of decision is not limited to the church. In a business you would have a similar conflict between the creative folks and financial officer. Is this product worth investing in? Do we have the money to produce it? All the while the creative people are pointing out how sales will quickly bring in the necessary support. Or something like that . . .

    Accountability is good, but needs to be combined with the courage of our convictions and the humility to reconsider of favored ideas.

  • Congressman Ron Paul in the Debate

    Too bad he doesn’t stand a chance. 🙁

    HT: Quiet Paths.

  • Candidates on Technology Issues

    Here is a good article that barely touches on the technological issues which could impact and be impacted by federal government policy over the next 4-8 years. It’s something that we need to think about, no matter what side of each issue we’re on.

    And just to remind us of the great need for education, there’s this comment (2nd on the list):

    . . . That is an example of the same idiotic thinking that gave rise to the stupid solar car race. Ever notice that they pace that race with a bicycle? Why not just ride bicycles? . . .

    . . . which goes to show us that some people have no idea how technology is developed. Early bicycles required some development too, not to mention cars.

  • WP on Blair Legacy

    The Washington Post has an interesting article on Tony Blair, titled For Blair, a Legacy Overshadowed. The article is quite interesting, looking at the thing Blair accomplished, and what has brought his popularity from a peak of 75% down to 28%.

    It reflects on human nature that any number of accomplishments can be completely obscured by one major failure. Tony Blair did quite a number of good things, and perhaps in a couple of decades he’ll be remembered for those. But right now the quagmire of Iraq overshadows all of that.

    But further, I was interested to note the charitable motivations he had in many of his actions. He wanted to stop atrocities in various countries, and thought it was OK to invade. The basic idea of ignoring borders and national sovereignty in the pursuit of moral goals didn’t start with Bush. Bill Clinton did a good bit of that in the Balkans. I think inevitably that the aim of imposing our moral views or our system of government on other countries irrespective of their traditions is doomed to create intractable situations. When we try to do both–impose democracy and our moral view, we will commonly find our goals in conflict, and unclear goals is a clear formula for failure.

    The problem is that there are countries where what a substantial number of people want to do is to kill others and take their stuff. In general, you’ll also find a large number of people who simply go along with the majority passively, or who can be intimidated into voting a particular way. In such a country, imposition of democracy may well not be the best idea.

    In the long run, we may find that Blair was done in by idealism, but an idealism that was not guided by practical wisdom.

  • There ARE Moderate Muslims

    . . . and some of them speak up, too!

    Daniel Pipes writes about protests by moderate Muslims in Pakistan and Turkey (HT: Dispatches from the Culture Wars). It’s worth reading.

    My first thought was that the fewer and weaker moderate Muslims are, the more we ought to support them. I have always maintained that we should be careful to distinguish the guilty form the innocent whilst being vigorously opposed to those radicals who would use violence.

    But I think that our government makes a dangerous mistake when it puts democracy above freedom. It’s quite possible for a majority to be tyrannical, which was the major reasons that the United States places limits on what the majority can actually do. A major problem with “winning” the war in Iraq is that we have set goals that cannot be accomplished. One cannot blame the military for not being miracle workers. We somehow want a democratic, unified Iraq that will not be an Islamic state. We need to consider one or another of those goals

    Consider this quote from the article, regarding Turkey:

    This resolute stand against Islamism by moderate Turkish Muslims is the more striking when contrasted with the cluelessness of Westerners who pooh-pooh the dangers of the AKP’s ascent. A Wall Street Journal editorial assures Turks that their prime minister’s popularity “is built on competent and stable government.” Dismissing the historic crossroads that President Sezer and others perceive, it dismisses as “fear mongering” doubts about Prime Minister Erdo?an’s commitment to secularism and ascribes these to petty campaign tactics “to get out the anti-AKP vote and revive a flagging opposition.”

    If the Turkish military helps keep the country secular, more power to them!

  • MSNBC Article on Condaleeza Rice

    I’ve always though that Rice was a tremendously intelligent person but at the same time I intensely disliked the policies she has been advocating. There’s an interesting opinion piece in Newsweek/MSNBC.com by Marcus Mabry that may give more insight into who she is.

    She built the image the public has of her as an ice queen stuck on repeat. It’s the downside of her extreme loyalty to Bush, her discipline and her deep competitive streak. But it’s an image.

    I don’t know if he’s right, but it’s an interesting thought.

  • H. R. 1592

    I’ve posted on this one before, but over the last few days my e-mail inbox has been bombarded by notices telling me that my freedom of speech is about to be destroyed. Amanda at Imago Dei has an excellent post responding to this as well, and that reminded me to say a few more words. I could not find anything in the text of the bill that dealt with freedom of speech, but the logic apparently is that a pastor might preach a sermon against homosexuality, and a member of the congregation might then commit a crime against someone who is homosexual. Thus pastors could get put in jail over this.

    It seems to me, however, that absent any particular change to the law, such a charge would have to pass current tests for incitement, and frankly, I don’t think a pastor should be exempt from the standard charges of incitement. Let’s change the scenario around just a bit and suppose that the sermon is preached by the pastor of a small “cult.” (You supply whatever definition of “cult” you desire.) The pastor says that other Christians are as good as murderers because they are sending people straight to hell by presenting an untrue message, and that killing them would be justified. Following that service, a member of the congregation goes out and kills one or more conservative (but not true enough) Christians.

    I’m not a lawyer, but as I understand it there would be certain things that the pastor would have to have said to make his speech incitement. Certainly it would be considered incitement had he specified a target by name and pointed to a member of the church with the suggestion that the specific member should go kill the specific target. I don’t know precisely where the boundary lines are, but they already exist.

    Now I have some questions about the value of bringing in federal support, and in providing specific aid in cases of a specific motivation, but those issues are technical and should be discussed technically, not as an all-out assault on freedom of religion.

    For more information:

  • Centrist Third Party?

    I thought I’d blogged on this before, but I can’t find it. Eleanor Swift of Newsweek is writing about Unity 2008, a group that’s trying to create a third party movement and get on the ballot in all 50 states. The idea is to nominate a presidential candidate of one party and a vice-presidential candidate of the other. I would presume both would have to be moderates and would obviously not be intense party loyalists.

    I do see quite a bit of moderation in the leading candidates this year, however, and it will be interesting to see what kind of impact that has on this idea. I would still favor a third party, if it can work up steam, because I believe the two party system has become far too ingrained in our political process. I would like to see a process that was more party-neutral.

    Check out Unity 2008 for more information.

  • Anti Any War

    One has to wonder what some politicians are thinking, when one considers the following exchange (via MSNBC):

    It wasn’t so easy for Obama to avoid the firebombs from the two peaceniks on stage. Kucinich upbraided his rival for talking tough about the use of force against Iran. “I think that it’s important for people to reflect on the real meaning of that, that you’re setting the stage for another war,” Kucinich said.

    Obama replied that “it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran.” But that wasn’t enough for the former Alaska senator Mike Gravel. “Who the hell are we going to nuke,” he cried out. “Tell me, Barack. Barack, who do you want to nuke?” The Illinois senator, who has placed his opposition to the war at the heart of his campaign, could only smile. “I’m not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise.”

    One of my major reasons for opposing the war in Iraq is that it ties large numbers of troops in occupation duty, troops that might be needed in place like, well . . . Iran. And I find it profoundly troubling that some people find a way to portray Barack Obama as trigger-happy. I’m afraid his record supports nothing of the sort.

    I also must confess that I certainly hope we will not end up at war with Iran, but being ready for such a war is critical, considering that unlike Iraq, Iran actually is developing nuclear weapons. There’s a tremendous potential for danger there.

    I’d like to add one note here on withdrawal. One of the problems one encounters on opposing Republicans in this country seems to be that one has to ally oneself with Democrats. Neither party seems to be able to do all that well wielding power. It is very hard for the party that does not hold the executive power to manage military activities. I am totally in support of congressional oversight. I believe congress should be involved, but conducting a war in Iraq by means of a war in Washington is unlikely to produce good results.

    In addition, those who are looking for withdrawal now should consider the long term. When we invaded Iraq, I believed the long term outlook was bad. There would come a time when we would be facing continuing casualties and the American people would tire of the war. I’d be willing to stand up to popular opinion on that on one condition–that the war was actually ever going to be finished. I don’t believe it will. Now people are speaking of withdrawal as though it is going to produce peace. There was no peace there before we invade, and there’s going to be even less peace left behind if we withdraw. Should opponents of the war succeed in forcing a withdrawal, especially one based on a timetable rather than a restatement of obtainable objectives, then you can expect that the news will be filled with stories of people dying because we withdrew.

    I think the war was sold to the American people on the basis of unreasonably happy expectations. To some extent withdrawal is being sold on the same basis. Iraq’s natural state is not peaceful–it never has been. Peace, joy, and brotherhood will not be the result of our withdrawal. This will also not be the last time that force may be used. Hopefully the next time it will be used in a precise and well-planned way. Probably not, but I can always hope.

  • This I Abhor

    I believe I have established here that I like tolerance, but I have also noted that tolerance is a value for me, not an absolute. In other words, I don’t have to tolerate everything. I just believe it’s good to be as tolerant as possible. (You can find some previous comments here.)

    Ed Brayton has written a post, American Imam Calls for Death of Hirsi Ali, in which he cites this article:

    Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali’s appearance.

    “She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death,” said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976.

    Ed comments:

    Let me explain something to you, Imam. Religions don’t have laws, governments do. Religions have rules which are followed voluntarily by those who choose – note that word – to be members of that religion. If they choose no longer to follow those rules, you are of course entirely free to kick them out of your religion. What you cannot do – and this is a real law – is threaten them or harm them. Period. This is not negotiable, it’s not optional and if you insist on doing so you’re going to find yourself in prison where you belong.

    To which I say, Precisely.

    I go further, however. It is only illegal if the Imam actually threatens Hirsi Ali or takes some actions that lead to harming her. But I personally can abhor whatever I want to, and I abhor the very idea that a religion can threaten a defector with death. It was evil in the Middle Ages when many Christians felt this was acceptable, and it’s evil today. This is not something I tolerate out of respect for someone else’s religious beliefs; it is an evil that I do not tolerate. I condemn it.

    I urge Christians to distinguish moderate Muslims from extremists and not to smear an entire faith with the actions of some members. At the same time, any gain in power by Islam as practiced by Imam Fouad ElBayly would be a tragedy for the world. No matter what religion we espouse, or if we espouse no religion at all, we need to be clear on this.

    I believe that there is a cultural conflict arising. It’s not between Christianity and Islam, but rather between tyranny and freedom. Each of us, irrespective of our religious beliefs, need to decide which side of that one we’re on.