Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Politics

  • Extremists and Ideologues Don’t Like Moderates

    . . . but they need to learn to live with them. I recommend reading the Washington Post article The Woman in the Middle about Democratic congresswoman Ellen Tauscher of California. A number of left wing bloggers and other activists are apparently targetting her. They would like to replace her with a more liberal democrat. Now I’m not certain about her district, although she won re-election with 68% of the vote, but in general the Democrats will need moderate support if they are going to keep a majority in congress and elect a Democratic president.

    My own political journey started in the Republican party, and watching as moderates and libertarians were progressively sidelined. I never switched to the Democratic party for one reason–the Democrats behave in precisely the same way. The Democrats should take to heart the message that the New Democrat contingent grew from 47 to 60 members. Those who want to call the last election a “liberal victory” had better think twice. Considering the state of the Republican party at the time, bogged down about Iraq, and seemingly careless in leadership, it’s not surprising that the “other guys” managed to win election. What should give Democratic strategists pause is that, with the massive opposition to President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, and the Foley scandal, they didn’t win a bigger victory than they did.

    Liberal activists can end up destroying their potential to accomplish good things with the majority they have won by ignoring the moderates. The majority of the country is moderate. If you continue the search for ideological purity, you will simply write yourselves out of history. Governing involves compromise. Voters and activists together need to realize that. Compromise properly acknowledged and carried out openly is not deception or promise-breaking. It’s governing. If the Democratic left wing can’t get along with someone like Tauscher, I think they’re going to have a terribly difficult time maintaining a majority, or governing.

  • And Yet Christians Speak of Persecution

    I am continually annoyed when Christians claim to be persecuted in this country. I know that we are, from time to time, inconvenienced and troubled, but it seems to me that calling ourselves persecuted simply devalues the term. I’ve lived where persecution was a reality, as in fleeing ahead of someone intent on killing you because of your activities as a Christian, and it’s truly not at all like living in America.

    I’m not saying that we should not oppose discrimination. We should. We should oppose discrimination against anyone, not just ourselves. That should include Wiccans and their right to worship, even in the armed services, Muslims, including protecting them from discrimination based on a bias to assume they are terrorists, and even . . . [gasp] . . . atheists, true infidels!

    Thus I was interested to note the following poll (HT: Abnormal Interests). The apparent resistance to Catholic, Black, and Jewish candidates is headed toward negligible. There’s a larger resistance, totally unjustified, against a woman candidate.

    But only 55% would vote for a homosexual candidate, while only 45% would vote for an atheist. Gay atheists, obviously, need not apply!

    So the question is this: Who’s getting persecuted in this country, and who’s doing the persecuting? I’m sure people are going to claim that refusing to vote for somebody is not persecution, yet many claims of persecution of Christians that I hear fall into very much the same category. Often they are effectively claims that one is losing one’s favored position. But taking one characteristic of a person, and refusing to vote for them on that basis, is a reflection at least of an attitude of persecution.

    Many Christians are likely to tell me that I should, as a Christian, assume that Christian candidates have better character. But that is demonstrably false. In fact, in voting for “Christian” candidates, all I’m voting for is a professed Christian candidate. God only knows whether the claim is true or false. He may attend church simply to gain political favor. He may be 100% sincere. The only way I have to know is by a person’s record of doing what he says and his competence. But that’s precisely the same way that I can determine whether an atheist, a homosexual (who may well also be a Christian), or a Wiccan deserves my vote. What does the record show? I may guess wrong, but a couple of years in office will let me know whether I should vote for that person again.

    As for me, I will vote for a person who has demonstrated integrity and competence, whether that person is gay or straight, Christian or atheist, Black or White, or any combination of characteristics or claims. It’s not the label, it’s the deeds.

  • Here’s When the Democrats Annoy Me

    It appears that Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) will get a seat on the Homeland Security Committee, according to the Washington Post. If anyone is wondering how I can vigorously oppose the war in Iraq and still consider not voting for Democrats, this is an excellent example. (I have the same problem with the Republicans and their responses to their own scandals, but this morning is the day for the Democrats to get on my nerves.)

    If a member of the armed forces, or a federal employee had access to classified information, or was involved in security discussions, and that person came under investigation, that person’s security clearance would be lifted until the issue was resolved. It may sound unfair from a civilian point of view. What if he or she is investigated and turns out to be innocent? Well, as we were told repeatedly when I was in the service myself, your security clearance is not a right, it’s a privilege. If you’re found innocent as the result of investigation, your clearance will be restored. Otherwise, away with you!

    Just because the voters of his district in Louisiana were careless enough to re-elect him doesn’t mean the rest of the country needs to suffer because of his behavior. At a minimum his response to the investigation puts his judgment badly in question, and congress behaved badly, even under Republican leadership, in trying to protect themselves from investigation.

    Congressman Jefferson should not hold any position of responsibility in the congress, with the exception of the one that cannot be denied to him due to the voters of his district, until this is cleared up. Congress should be anxious to do so. Instead, they appear to be giving him a free pass, and a position of serious responsibility. Removing him from Ways and Means (a good choice, in my view), but then putting him anywhere where he’d be involved in national security is irresponsible.

  • Political Battles and Teamwork

    In a church I used to attend there was a gentleman, already gone on to glory by the time I arrived, but whose presence still lingered. Whenever there was an argument in the church council about how to proceed, it was certain that his memory would be invoked at some point. There were two reasons he stood out so in church debates. First, he fought for his point of view fiercely until the decision was made. Second, once the council vote was over, even if he lost, he was part of the team.

    In one remember instance he had strongly opposed an extension of the church’s facility. He thought it was a bad use of money. He disapproved of the timing. He believed that the church could not afford it at the time. The vote went against him. What next? He was the biggest fundraiser for the new project. He was a team player.

    One of the problems I see in this country now is that elections have become a 24/7/365/100 (as in 100 years) project. We never quit campaigning. We never quit debating the candidates. We are constantly in a state of political conflict, not just in Washington, but throughout the country. This can be good and bad. It can involve all the people in constantly making, and reviewing decisions. But it can also make it hard for us to come together, behave like a team, and carry out those policies on which we do agree.

    (more…)

  • Are Anti-Abortion and Pro-Choice Compatible?

    John at Locusts and Honey responds to SimplyComplexJen on this topic.

    John’s basic argument is that an abortion involves taking a human life without that person’s consent, i.e., the consent of the unborn child, and thus one cannot oppose abortion personally and yet support permitting it legally.

    Frankly, I think John has left out most of the logic on this one. Hidden assumptions lumber through this like elephants, just begging someone to see them. One may, for example, simply disagree with the idea that the state always has a duty to accomplish the goals John states.

    Do I have to assume that every wrong act must also be a criminal act? John says no on a list of acts he considers wrong. He draws the line at abortion, because someone is harmed without his or her consent. But that simply moves the goal posts. So I ask again: Does every act that harms anyone else have to also be a made criminal? This is precisely the question that must be answered by the person who is personally opposed to abortion, yet believes it should be legal. I would suggest that one must ask just how effective enforcement of that particular law is going to be, and what other consequences there may be to its enforcement. The resources required in order to properly enforce a law should also be given consideration. I think this is an important point that is often ignored in immigration law. People tend to assume that if we would just pass tough enough laws, the flow of immigrants would stop. Are we prepared to pay the full cost?

    Here we have the assumption that the best response to any harmful act is to make it illegal. In other words, one must assume that the best way to reduce the number of abortions in this country is to make it illegal to perform such abortions.

    But let me add one more point–jurisdiction. We have certain limits on how much we invade the privacy of one’s home. One could make an excellent argument that the state’s jurisdiction ends right around skin level, and what goes on insides a person’s body is not under the jurisdiction of the state. I’m not entirely comfortable with that argument myself, and an abortion does not take place entirely inside someone’s body, but I do believe a quite rational person could make such an argument.

    Frankly, I see no logical requirement here whatsoever. All we wind up with is the necessary conclusion that John and certain other people don’t find these compatible in the way that they see the duty of the state. Others can surely differ, and can do so coherently. (Not me, of course. Oh, I am pro-choice politically and anti-abortion personally, but I’m not terribly coherent right now. 🙂 )

  • Religious Rights Bill in Colorado

    It is very important not to assume what a bill will actually accomplished based on its title. Titles are generally designed to put a positive spin on the contents of the bill in the hopes that people will not read further or seriously consider the consequences of what is actually proposed.

    A new bill in Colorado has precisely that problem. There are a number of issues in terms of implementation, but I want to look at one particular line:

    NOT BE REQUIRED TO TEACH A TOPIC THAT VIOLATES HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT BE DISCIPLINED FOR REFUSING TO TEACH THE TOPIC;

    Matt Young at The Panda’s Thumb comments:

    Realistically, what subject besides evolution will spur a great many parents, teachers, or students to opt out of a lesson? Enough, that is, to interest the legislature? None. I find it very hard to believe, then, that this bill is not a cover for undermining evolution in favor of a narrow religious agenda.

    Perhaps my past experience with very narrow religious groups gives me some perspective on the possibilities here, but sex education comes to mind immediately. But more importantly I know people who regard numerous works of classical literature as evil, and who could well claim it was a violation of their conscience to have to teach those. In effect, the bill hands over the curriculum to the individual conscience of teachers.

    I would suggest that a better plan is for those who feel they cannot handle the public school curriculum to go either the private or home school route. I don’t mean to be nasty here, or to suggest that the public should have no involvement in curriculum decisions. I believe parents and the public should be very much involved. But a public school teacher needs to teach the curriculum provided. Free speech rights do not mean that every individual has the right to modify the curriculum. It’s a public process. The teacher’s free speech is not impaired by this, in my view, simply because the government fails to provide a platform.

    The public schools exist as infrastructure, to produce citizens educated to a certain level. An individual teacher cannot be permitted to distrupt that process because he or she cannot conscientiously teach some subject matter that is required. The proper response is to find a job that he or she can conscientiously do.

    While I’m at it, I would suggest to Christian parents that the best time for your children to get their first exposure to ideas you find objectionable is while they are still at home. At that point you can respond with your own beliefs on the matter. Your Sunday School classes can teach on it, and your youth leaders can provide instruction as well. The child then gets a choice. If the sex education class doesn’t cover abstinence in the way you’d like, you can provide that instruction. If you disapprove of evolution, arrange to have your beliefs taught through the auspices of your church, or in your home. Parental involvement is tremendously important. Use it!

    I hope people will consider these issues and a number of other troubling points of this bill, especially if, as predicted, similar bills are introduced in other states.

  • Of Mercenary Troops and Scumbags

    Fellow philophronos blogger Laura is pretty annoyed with William Arkin for what he wrote about the troops in The Troops Also Need to Support the American People. She has demonstrated that here and defended it further here.

    Now anyone who has read both our blogs is aware that we disagree dramatically on the Iraq war. My initial thought was that Laura was going overboard at a fairly reasonable point–civilian control. But then I read Arkin’s blog entry. Starting with the title, he manages to obscure the one good point with a hail of contemptuous language.

    Oh, by the way, I do consider “scumbag” excessive. But that’s just me. I might have gone with “condescending obnoxious elitist” or something like that.

    • The troops don’t have to support the American people, they’re a part of the American people.
    • The “American people” are not only what the majority want. I happen to be in that majority. I want us out of Iraq, but the people who disagree are also part of the American people, and so are the troops.
    • Like the rest of the American people, troops are permitted to have opinions as well. I happen to disagree with much of what these guys said, but that’s life.
    • Volunteer != Mercenary. Thank the volunteers, don’t beat them up.
    • I have never met an obscene comfort, and I’d like to be given an example. I do wonder whether Mr. Arkin has been deployed, then extended and extended and extended without any choice in the matter. Perhaps whatever small comforts the troops can be provided might appear less obscene.
    • I guess the troops are allowed to have any opinion except one of contempt for any portion of the people back home. Mr. Arkin has an odd view of “freedom of speech.”
    • The troops in general should not be blamed for the various scandals, any more than a community should be blamed for having a mass murderer in it. Those responsible should be punished. Those not responsible are, well, not responsible.

    What bothers me is that this is the very sort of attitude and writing that is not support for the troops. They are doing precisely what they are supposed to do. They are carrying out the will of the civilian leadership in Iraq. It’s not up to them to figure out whether their activities are popular. Those of us who oppose the war can do so, and we are doing so, by the legitimate means of the ballot box. That portion of the American people who are in uniform in Iraq don’t have control over that, and shouldn’t, one way or the other.

    Support for the troops involves respecting what they do. It doesn’t mean excusing those who do wrong, but it also doesn’t mean blaming everyone in uniform for the faults of a few, nor does it mean blaming people in uniform for the faults of their civilian leadership.

    On the other hand, it should be clear that one can oppose the war and support the troops. I was one of the troops in more than one conflict in which I disagreed with the civilian leadership. As a person in uniform, I carried out my orders. It’s as simple as that. But I will not, as a civilian, simply accept whatever military leaders happen to want to do. The Iraq war is a bad choice badly executed. But it has been executed by excellent volunteer troops who deserve our thanks.

  • The Real Cost of Health Care

    Hmm! I don’t really know what that is! But Robert J. Samuelson has an excellent column on Newsweek (via MSNBC) that discusses the issue. He makes a number of excellent points, including pointing out that we’ve hidden the actual cost of health care, though I suspect not nearly so successfully in this country as in some others.

    One thing he points out is this:

    Our health-care system will inevitably combine government regulation and private enterprise. But what should the mix be? Which patients, providers and technologies should be subsidized and why? How important is health care compared with other public and private goals? Will an expanding health-care sector spur the economy

  • Iran and the Iraq War

    And now the third in a series of short posts–an unprecedented attack of brevity for me!

    I’ve been saying “Iran” over and over again as the war in Iraq was first contemplated and then executed. An article today in the Washington Post talks about the influence of Iran and the fears, entirely justified in my view, of various regimes in the area on this matter. I think this article is quite enlightening.

  • N.T. Wright on Just War

    Support for the Iraq war has been largely characterized as a liberal-conservative debate, with lots of negative adjectives attached to each political stream. Supporters are supposedly patriots who support using our military to defend our innocent citizens while opponents are portrayed as weak folks whose only desire is to surrender. There are, however, quite a number of other approaches that have been drowned out in the rhetoric used on both sides.

    I believe the war to be a strategic mistake. Even if the war were justified in a vacuum, in the context of the middle east as it really exists, as opposed to the way it’s perceived by some folks in Washington, the war cannot come to a favorable, long-term conclusion.

    N. T. Wright is an evangelical theologian, one who believes in the concept of a “just war,” yet he does not believe this war was justified. He gives it less favorable reviews than I do, and I think adds some excellent reasons. I suggest reading his post at World Needs A Strong United Nations, a column on the Washington Post site.

    Hat tip: Catching Meddlers.